Nuclear Submarines, Aukus and Rebalancing the Indo-Pacific Security Environment
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 апр 2024
- To China's frustration, the Aukus partnership between the U.S., U.K. and Australia to deliver Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines is gaining ground, despite funding challenges to the U.S. submarine industrial base. Images: U.S. Navy/Zuma Press/AP Composite: Mark Kelly
(04/05/24)
Subscribe to WSJ Opinion: bit.ly/3PovNsz
More from WSJ Opinion:
On site: www.wsj.com/news/opinion
On Twitter: / wsjopinion
On Facebook: / wsjopinion
#WSJOpinion #WSJ
![DRAGON BALL: Sparking! ZERO - Fused Warriors Trailer [BUDOKAI TENKAICHI Series]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/84p4Lvyfyes/mqdefault.jpg)
As a Brit - the Aussies should use our great submarine technology to defend themselves.
Brilliant masters in ship building us UK forces safety reasons for everyone future generations of peace for humanity and healthy policy for all Australian people
Is there any reason Australia can’t supply additional construction workers to assist US in building more boats per year thus giving Australia a greater knowledge in the construction process
The US wants to keep its nuclear technology secret
I agree...and everyone benefits just not Beijing and Moscow.
There may be classified construction methods involved in building the subs that we don't want to share. The US may not have any problem with Australia having the finished subs, but we may not want them to know how to build them.
That is part of the agreement, workers are already being embedded into the workforce to learn such techniques. Australian steel providers are beginning to develop steel to be eventually used in construction of the co-designed UK-Australian AUKUS Class.
@@christopherharmon2433 Australia will eventually develop the capability build the submarines themselves with the exception of the reactor which will be supplied sealed from the UK for installation into the hull.
This is a good thing! China is becoming a lot more hostile to the region and the world and nations need to be able to defend themselves from aggressive ccp tactics. I especially love the last part of the video where allies will be able to use the Australian ports for repairs and resupply.
Off topic, we need a couple of more ship building ports in the US along with skilled labor to man them.
Where is the money coming from ??
Curious as to where all the rare earth metals that are needed to build all these naval assets, sourced from/produced at?
Lynas Rare Earth (ASX: LYC)
Australian rare earths company Lynas. They’re the largest producer outside of President Xi’s China.
ruclips.net/video/LNnsXYYuGUA/видео.htmlsi=JSy9rONTlHHu9FXZ
ruclips.net/video/6Qb_Env5a50/видео.htmlsi=NqhSZbZoBviBINlX
Obvously you have no idea they are mined in Australia and the Lynas company does refining too?
Since when is Barrow In Furness in Scotland ?
You think the WSJ would fact check before publishing….. they are confused with the Faslane base.
What IS the biggerst navy? More ships or greater tonnage? The U S heavily wins on tonnage.
We are in the age of AI, missiles, and drone technology. Large manned submarines and aircraft will become obsolete in the future. Australia must develop autonomous weapon systems that can be controlled remotely. Australia is a large country with a small population. These autonomous systems can be used in civilian or military roles.
Joe Ingles is the GOAT.
What we need is two more ship building ports. One for subs and one for surface fleets or sea drone fleets. This just isn't feasible. It should have started a decade ago.
Exactly, but as we’ve seen with the Attack class, Australia is unable to build the facilities in time and will end, as always, blaming the other side for costs and time.
@@brunol-p_g8800 Frankly, the US needs those two extra facilities in sort order and the UK and AU, need their own extra facilities to be able to re-supply and repair visiting vessels. This all needs to have started yesterday and in coordination. WW3 is far cheaper for us all if we pay to prevent it, than to have to engage in it.
Wazzup!
Can someone "dumb down" the gist of this video for me? Is the problem basically that the US currently cannot manufacture enough submarines to keep up with the demand?
Yes. People were pointing out this problem when the deal was annouced. USA can not build subs fast enuf to replace our subs that need to be retired. Selling some to Aus makes no sence. France shipbuilding is winding down from a long run of sub building and is looking for work. The Frence can build nuke sibs but AUS never asked for them - just canceled the electric boat contract.
USA has to rebuild one of their ports to make it earthquake resistant, so that has put extra pressure on production, which was already struggling to keep up with demand.
@joseph2664 French reactors need to replace fuel rods that can't be done in Australia. USA reactors don't need the fuel rods to be changed. The military was concerned about having to send the subs to France for maintenance.
US reactors also need to be refuelled, around every 25 years (the difference being that the French made the choice to change from Highly enriched fuel to low enriched fuel, while the USA and UK are still using highly enriched fuel. Enriched fuel needs to be replaced around every 25 years, low enriched fuel around every 15 years but can use civilian grade fuel).
Australia can easily refuel low civilian grade fuel, but cannot refuel highly enriched fuel. Your comment isn’t very realistic, as they’ll need to be refuelled I the USA or UK.
@brunol-p_g8800 the UK boats are designed to a 25 year life so will not be refuelled. The follow on design work for the next gen boats is already underway. This forces future governments to keep updating the tech on 25 year cycles and keep the building capacity fully employed between attack subs and boomers. Given the asymmetric impact of these assets I think the UKs approach is a solid strategy IF the commitment and funds stay strong…. That said in 25 years China will be down to a population approaching 1 billion and a disproportionate elderly to young ratio and a shadow of its former self.
I thik with the US spending more than the next 10 countries combined on it's military every year the concept of the US not having enough money is stupid! Australia is also spending money IN the U S A to upgrade the USA capability, fancy that, ANOTHER country sending assistance to the USA!
The concept that is only about nuke subs is not just incorrect it is naive.
Rebalancing the Inod-Pacific in 2050.
Has your government considered asking China to wait until 2050 so that you can defend yourself with your submarines? Do you think the Chinese will play fair?
Good video framing the basics in simple language especially the hypocrisy of the Chinese that clearly points to intent.
This whole AUKUS thing is just a waste of time and money, Australia does not have the money to buy these subs let alone the servicing and maintaining them, we will also not have enough crew to man them, its politicians dreaming and scheming things that are out of reach, just for the purpose of saying we got this and this and this,
When the Colins’ class availability rates are so low and so full of problems, I can’t see how we’ll manage the next ones.
It feels like always, the government is punching way above its waistband, and in the end because the objectives they hopped for weren’t fulfilled, they’ll just scrap everything and go for another solution, lengthening for years the processus, as they always do.
Nobody asked for your naive opinion
It’s this kind of negativity or defeatist attitude that get Australia nowhere,as the 14th largest economy (1.6 trillion)in the world,that monetary argument shouldn’t be a valid argument,perhaps irrelevant.
We have the money, we are only upping our defence budget to around 2.5% from 2%.
The personnel is the main problem.
Also, Ukraine is spending 40% of it's nations budget on the war right now. We can't afford not to have these subs.
Nobody voted for them ,just stupid politain
So much for Nuclear Non Proliferation
You clown💀
well, Ukraine gave up it's nukes in return for a promise of never being invaded by Russia...
Regardless, Australia is still not producing any nuclear tech. The UK is making the reactors.
The “Treaty on the Non Proliferation of nuclear weapons” relates to weapons. The Australian submarines will not have nuclear weapons. The Australian submarines will be powered by nuclear reaction powerplant to derive their propulsion. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons
@@briancavanagh7048we are NOT stupid .
Nuclear is ALL the same
Nuclear non-proliferation has absolutely nothing to do with this 🤦♂
It's nuclear propulsion, not weapons.
In Part the Problem with Australia taking up Nuclear Subs is Our Loss of Manufacturing Ability.
In Other Words Our Navy is Impressed with the Ability of the USA and UK to Build Machinery.
Our Navy has Little to be Impressed with in Australia.
Australia does Not Need Nuclear Subs, but We do Need Subs.
what?
The World in the early 20th century everyone was witness to mass destruction and human slaughter on an industrial level like no other time in human History WW1 and WW2 was brutal and during that time the U.K was making huge strides in R.D for the war effort giving the allies huge advantages and even tipping the scales in our favor and if it wasnt for the allies sticking together and sharing intelligence, I think the war wouldnt of had the positive ending that some of us now take for granted.
This will re generate building IN Australia, do you live under a rock?
@@MrEnajiza
Sticking together, Does Not Mean be Identical. For Example:- Australia is in the Southern Hemisphere.
Australia Does Not Need Nuclear to be Allies with the US, UK, France, Japan, NZ, PNG, Canada, Etc
R and D and History can be Used to Create Amazing Peaceful Nations right Now.
There is No Greater Positive than the End of Wars on Mother Earth.
? the point is Australias STEM sector gets a huge boost as the subs are intended to be built and maintained in Oz. The Virginia class part never entirely made sense given size, crew requirements and the US own needs for subs first. I was half expecting another few Astutes to be built or even built in Australia while standing up the new facility in Australia.
Free open Pacific for the West, but definitely Not for China or any country against the West. That is what freedom of navigation means here. China knows this and opposes it as it is definitely a cold war.
Freedom of navigation means freedom for everybody, your comment is quite inaccurate.
China claims an area of Ocean greater than that of the Mediterranean Sea. Imagine if France claimed the whole Mediterranean as theirs right up to the shore lines of all other countries. How much tension you think that would cause? Not only that imagine if a country like Greece was resupplying one of its Islands and France were to bully the ship, crashing into them, hitting them with water cannon. Would you not think they were arrogant? Well China is arrogant here.
so, how's China been shipping around the world these past 20 years to build itself up?
China AND Russia would have both already been obliterated if what you say is the truth. They exist because what YOU say, is NOT the truth.
WE NEED ICBM ,NOT STUPID SUB
Has your government considered asking China to wait until 2050 so that you can defend yourself with your submarines? Do you think the Chinese will play fair?