AUKUS submarines will be ‘miles better’ than France’s ‘rubbish’: Nigel Farage
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 мар 2023
- Former Brexit leader Nigel Farage claims the nuclear-powered submarines to be obtained under AUKUS will be “miles better” than the “rubbish” submarines France would have provided.
“Those old diesel subs, which are pretty useless … in the modern world,” he told Sky News host Paul Murray.
“I know Mr Macron hates the AUKUS deal, which is an even bigger reason for loving it.”
The French submarines are not rubbish at all, it's just that a nuclear submarine gives you a whole different set of naval opportunities. The French have excellent nuclear subs too, it's just that this particular deal was for diesel-electric ones.
i think French has taken note and understand where are their position in US led food chain. but thanks.
Well said.
@@burung81 Well, it's not exactly breaking news...
@@burung81 And France tries to dominate the EU. They should get over it.
exactly
Some perspective with regards to cost of AUKUS. AUKUS will cost $9 billion per year and up to $368 billion for the term of program. NDIS is alone is $36 billion per year. And expect soon to be $52 billion per year. One welfare program of many welfare programs costing $2.08 Trillion over the same period as AUKUS. Yes ‘T’ for Tom Trillion dollars and the NDIS is expected to have no end date. Let that sink in.
The end date for social welfare and NDIS will come when the CCP takes over.
Ask the Chinese how they fare with such programmes under the CCP.
Immigration costs Australia about 40 million a year
$368B for what. Where is there an itemised account of what we get for that. Costings too
We need to build radio controlled unmanned submarines , Cost one billion per dozen ?
These submarines need to shoot dolphin shaped torpedoes that have Lazer Beams.
Wait... submarines radio controlled??? you get that the entire point of going under the sea is that you are isolated, undetectable, and radios won't work (thankfully or that would be used to be detected), right?
Purely from a practical point of view, the australians should have bought the french nuclear subs.
The french subs need refuelling every 10 years because they use low enriched uranium, which Australia, like all nations in the world, already produces and uses in many sectors, such as in the medical field.
As a result, refuelling is a rather routine operation and is done during the maintenance of the subs which must take place anyway every 10 years or so, while removing the headache of having to deal with high enriched uraninium (be it regulations, industrial chains, waste management, or simply accidents in the many shallow waters around australia which were a reason some found the conventional sub solution better).
Plus the french subs are much more recent (at sea since 2020) than the british ones (2010) or american ones (2004), and as a logical result more advanced techs (I recently heard a brit explaining me that brit techs are simply better, taking the example of the excellent sonars of the astute, not realizing that said sonar is made by Thales, the same french company which would later make the sonar for the french sub).
One of such improvements coming with newer techs being that they are largely automated (crew of 60 instead of 100 for the astute and 135 for the virginia). This is highly important for any nation really, as finding and keeping skills and motivated submariners in sufficient number is a problem for all navies.
Due to automation, they are smaller while are capable of the same missions as the astute (and can also deploy mini submarines for commando ops).
It is also much cheaper than the two other boats (partly due to its smaller size). Twice less expensive than the astute, and trice less expensive than the virginia, which combined with the low crew requierement, mean that Australia could field 2 to 3 times more subs hence cover much better the huge ocean masses around it.
So basically, instead of 6 Virginia (so with the rule of 1/3 only 2 actives at any time to cover the pacific ocean), Australia could have 18 suffren (so 6 at sea at any time).
Put a plug in it.
Are the british paying for the subs?? Or collecting money from the aussies..
There was an item in last Wednesday's budget of £3bn for the Aukus deal. There is clearly some cost to the UK.
BBC/ABC looney left anacronism .. defund now
Yes you are right exactly. BBC and ABC IS LEFT PARTIES AND THEY UNWISE PEOPLES.
They don't like each others what do you think they will like china?🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
France😑😑😑😑😑
Yes, France, the country which designs and builds nuclear submarines. Unlike Israel.
@@adrien5834 Jews invented nukes.
@@adrien5834 and nuclear reactors.
and revolutions.
I support Nigel, if British and American give this subs... Free to Australia... It is $370B... French and Russian make in half price. But they would not go to buy. Because Uncal Sam would not allowed. And this $370B will be more then $800B++ in 27years time. It will be diamond plated subs.. It look like, I want one too.. (it is most sophisticated machine) with very very high cost,
Who says....
The French ones come with a free surrender flag and five reverse gears.
The American ones come with small print at the bottom of the contract promising eternal servitude to US interests for Australians, and all for the low, low price of 2 or 3 hundred billion US dollars...
@@adrien5834 we are too small (population-wise) too weak, too vulnerable and too disjointed to stand alone. So tell me, who would you like to sign your 'eternal servitude', something the more bright, the more realistic among us might call a 'strategic alliance' with?
The CCP, The Russians, NOK or maybe Iran?
@@gone547 Yes, very dramatic, but Australia is 4000 km from China, so clearly not at risk of being taken over any time soon. Further, Australia already had a strategic alliance with the USA. Were the Americans going to close their bases in your country if this project didn't go ahead? Of course not. These 300 Billion (for now, probably more eventually) could have upgraded the whole Australian military if not squandered in this way. This is the worst misuse of public funds imaginable.
france won the most battle and win than any country that ever existed in human history
just like the british at dunkirk
The french subs food culture superior than British
And what food culture does Australia have? Shrimps on the barby? What a delicacy..
Not to mention, Our Motherland France is the most visited country in the World and most successful military power in History
And people don't seem to know that
AndI couldn't care less of AUKUS alliance, they're claiming War to China 🇺🇸🇬🇧🇦🇺⚔️🇨🇳.
We got bigger things to worry about like Climate and Ukraine-Russia war
$368 billions will become overblow budget. Workers need pay rise, material steel will rise it will become $1 trilliuns in 10 years time
Australia is in a big trouble, because the Labor is stopping that is making Australia rich and successful is the mining resources.
Most likely 2-3 trillion in 17 year, but then they’ll be like a BF Falcon with a new Ranger Dashboard
Whatever the final costs are, deterrence is a whole lot cheaper than a war... Liberty is NOT cheap...
Australia will be paying for these subs
yes and the price will increase
Malcolm just didn’t have the guts to ask for French nuclear submarines.And so now we have to pay double.That said the hunter class frigates should also have containerised nuclear power plant made to fit into their mission bays
If Australia had gone for the nuclear version of the French submarine, I doubt that it would have been rubbish. Modifying it for diesel probably would've made it rubbish.
Eh. Not really, even the diesel electric version was very good. And much cheaper.
that would have been the better option
French offered us nuke subs after the first debacle, and we should have taken the offer. They make great nuke subs
You are finished
Albo-sleezy paying for the subs they launder money
You do realize no one listens to you right cooker? Not even your own family?
@@wuper2270 do you realise that you are a troll? You have nothing of importance to add
@@Prognosis__ yeah I do? I've destroyed you PLENTY of times. I prove you little morons wrong when you get high and start talking about all this cooker garbage. That's what I add? Does it make you upset prognosis? Do all my facts hurt your feelings?
Yes it is true thst Albonese paying for launder money. Labour government already spent too much money plus have to pay for submarine. In the end this government will put taxes other things as well well because they don't have any money left.
@@alexfagyas9342 what's it like being a pathetic virgins who runs around telling lies? Don't you feel sad? I'm so glad you're a loser incel because people like you don't deserve to breed.
"Rubbish" ay? The only difference between nuclear and conventional subs is range and speed, which sounds impressive on paper. BUT, any sub is limited on food/toilet paper. Once these are gone you have to come up. And no submarine holds enough food to stay down for more than a month or so.
3 months, in fact. And Aussies are really good at toilet paper management, as we saw during the covid circus.
@@dagwould hey, its all about re-cycling
Diesel electric submarines have to snorkel almost on a nightly basis to recharge their batteries, while nuclear powered submarines don't have to surface at all during patrols and traveling to and from their patrol locations thousands of nautical miles from their home base... Not just speed and range...
the amount of power available from nukes allow the biggest sonar to be mounted
French ‘rubbish’ is operational ! And this new one is on political talk points . This type a language is proper for those doing nothing and hiding their intentions.
Forget the French boats get Swedish subs.
I think a few nuclear subs for long range and a dozen of the Swedish subs for defense of the surrounding area of Australia would be the best bet. It would give Australia more options and flexibility in defending itself.
Diesel electric submarines are great for small nations like Denmark, Germany, and Sweden operating in the Baltic or Israel, Spain, and Italy operating in the Mediterranean, but they are not so great for the vast Pacific especially for a island nation the size of a continent... Range matters...
$368 Billion we could buy 400 F22 stealth fighter jets, much better as wars are fought from the air.
Yes. Its will become $1 trilliuns overblow budget. Just like building new hospital in australia
Even the USA can't buy any more F-22. It is out of production.
F22s were never for sale. Too secret. Plus jets can't loiter off Taiwan or in the straits of Malacca for weeks on end. Their bases are also easy to eliminate with ballistic nukes.
At todays Australian population of 26,386,555 these subs will cost every man, woman, and child $13,946.49c !! Thanks Labor, I’m sure your $275.00 power saving will help us greatly.
You are upsetting Morrison. He is claiming credit.
That amount is over the >30 year lifecycle of the project. So adding in the c.8-9mn people who will be born in Australia over the next 30 years is equates to about $360 per head per year. And remember it isn't just piles of money being burnt. 20-30% will go towards the salaries of tens of thousands of people directly and indirectly employed as a result of expanding shipyards, building subs and buying all the parts in the rest of the supply chain, a lot of it locally. Unless you're in a Third World country, a significant cost of any kind of major project is salary costs.
Nah this is all Scomo, just ask him 😂
Crewed by Americans skippered by an American... mmmmmmmm
@@railtonfeagus8539 the 368 billion is only the deposit, it will be well over a Trillion by the time they are here, all borrowed money we will be paying interest on for decades, so personally I think the 13+k I originally said will grow exponentially over the years
BAHAHAHAHAHA THE FK DOES FARRAGE KNOW ABOUT SUBS 🤣🤣🤣
@qclock considering Brexit has been a huge failure and it was his flagship maybe reconsider your comment 😉