SSN-AUKUS: Australia's Emergence as a Major Maritime Power of the 21st Century
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2024
- Australia's acquisition of a nuclear powered attack submarine is undoubtedly the most significant investment in the nation's defence since federation. With the aid of Canberra's oldest and closest friends, the Royal Australian Navy will acquire 8, world leading SSNs. This is an undersea warfighting capability of such consequence it alone will make Australia one of the worlds major naval powers. The RAN's future submarine force will prowl the worlds oceans, threatening sea lines of communication and enemy assets across entire ocean basins, and allowing the ADF to project meaningful levels of power at intercontinental distances. But why would Australia, a peaceful democracy in the corner of the world, be investing in such a potent, blue water navy? This historic military investment is not aimed at establishing Australia's place within the global order, nor is it aimed at giving Canberra the trappings of a great power. The simple reality is Australia's hand is being forced; the strategic environment in which the nation exists is the most dangerous it has been since the second world war. A great naval power has risen in East Asia, one whose intentions are becoming more and more opaque. As impressive as Australia's future SSN force is, the question remains as to whether it will be enough to meet the formidable challenge the nation faces over the coming decades, or indeed whether the threat will manifest before we even see a nuclear submarine flying the white ensign.
0:00 AUKUS Emerges
7:12 A most dangerous strategic environment
20:28 Submarines, military asymmetry and sea denial
37:21 The nuclear requirement
1:03:04 SSN-AUKUS and the Anglo-Australian strategic partnership
1:32:30 A Virginian in Australia
1:52:20 Making up for lost time; SRF West and the Collins
My only complaint is that I’m super addicted to your modern Australian military content and prefer it to the WW2 content 😂😂😂
me2
Yes me too - I find the modern analysis much more interesting.
Love all your work ...
Yesss
It sucks because nobody else covers it
I was a submariner on the Oberon boats of the 1980’s. When it came to exercises we had to send up flare to left the surface ship know exactly where we were. During RIMPAC 1984, Australia’s two submarines were part of a fleet against the U.S. our submarines were the only vessels from our to survive the games. Oxley in fact sailed into Pearl Harbour flying the skull and crossbones.
yeah submarines do seem to win excersizes from what ive seen. it makes me worried for the royal navy which by reputation has great asw warfare pedegree but can you reliably defend your carriers from subs?
Have you ever visited the Oberon class submarine in Fremantle? There's one on display at the WA Maritime Museum. I did a tour with a submariner. I imagine you'll enjoy it getting to see your old workplace again.
This should be required viewing before giving opinions on AUKUS. So many questions answered in just over 2 hours. Great video.
Agreed, it's absolutely ridiculous how uninformed so many people are about this.
I still don't like this sub deal... Too much financial burden which can be used on other portfolios
@@fatdoi003 exactly
best go to the sources of the experts in the various specialist piblications
Australia acting as if AUKUS is a 100% go ahead as long as Australia government and and ship builders and RAN can meet the demands needed to make it happen. The real threat is it hasn't been approved by congress yet to allow the technology transfer to make AUKUS happen. So far several issues has mounted on congress to not approve the technology such as list below
1. Admirals claimed the US won't be able to provide Virginia class submarines due to falling short for their own.
2. Military strategists experts within the US claim Australia not fit to meet the needs for accidents if was to accur.
3. Pressure is mounted on congress from other countries claiming to ban US submarines from allowing to use their ports due to AUKUS pact in protests. This will be a problem for US to maintain strength in the indo pacific and through Asia. This has arisen concern with many US senators in backlash for Australia to have technology to be able to build the submarines.
AUKUS is a gamble. And Australia to be able to build submarines or even have gap Virginia class submarines is nothing more than a wishful dream road. It hasn't been guaranteed despite the challenges Australia will face on its own to make it happen. The US president can approve the submarines. But it cannot go ahead without congress approval in technology transfer. That's the reality Australia is facing
I'd been waiting for someone to do a long-form video just like this. Super well done. Really hammers home the slam dunk advantage of nuclear powered subs over conventional and shows how, given the distances between Australia and the places where its sub forces would need to be employed, nuclear was Australia's only sensible option. I'm also grateful that hypohysterical pointed out the host of limitations imposed on the US carrier in the war game in which the Swedish sub, the Gotland, "sunk" the carrier. I'd heard the tale over and over again but not until now had I heard about all of the limitations imposed on the carrier, limitations that made the war game unrealistic and caused everyone who heard the tale to believe that US carriers are more vulnerable to conventional subs than they are.
Same, the amount of robot voice videos on this topic that all sound like they've reworded the same poorly written article are the worst thing on here.
There are good arguments against nukes. Nukes are noisier and constantly release easily tracked waste heat from their reactors... these drawbacks are mitigated by keeping to cold deep seas. Unfortunately the seas between Australia and China are mostly warm and shallow, ESPECIALLY the naval choke points we'd need to protect Australia or even blockade China if that's your bag. The Japanese certainly realise this, and the Russians too. Even China itself... they have been building diesels new for good reason even though they've easily got the manufacturing to go all nuke. The Americans have even been thinking about bringing back diesel subs because of their advantages in litoral waters. It's just not the inherent limitations of nuke technology either. Going nuke makes Australia completely reliant on the US. Former Australian Intelligence Officer and military academic Clinton Fernandez wrote a whole book on this. Australia is surrendering the idea of being an independant middle power in favour of needlessly our sovereignty... becoming a sub-imperial power just as US power wanes. Attached to a declining power just as we were in the old days before WWII with Britain. The US MIC has been trying to encourage this thinking in Australia for years... it's sad the Labor government signed on to this.
Agreed.
In a real war a diesel boat will have to be lucky beyond belief.
Or the carrier is given specific orders to perform its mission in such a way that it loses its most important attribute.
Did New Zealander just fall on her sword over this?
In a real war, subs do not attack carriers. They attack logistical lines. Like the replenishment fleet of the enemy, or merchant ships with food/fuel/materials. Why use a sub to take down a carrier, when you can use missiles, mines, airplanes etc?
As skewed as the exercise was, it had ONE goal. To train the fleet in finding the sub. Which they never did. For weeks. The WHOLE fleet were unable to do it. And it was successful. The US changed their ASW protocols to better be able to find AIP subs, including a more clear emphasise on helicopters with dipping sonars.
No, the reality is that if a war between China and Taiwan broke out, the most effective way to combat China is to block all sea lanes to and from it. This can be done with great effect by conventional, silent subs. To snorkel every 3 weeks close to Sumatra, and still basically block all oil delivery to China, is vastly different than "prowling the ocean like a great white shark". It is cool and all, but not strictly necessary in a REAL conflict.
I'd love to watch the classified black and orange themed powerpoint presentation, that convinced the Australian govt to do this
😂
He knows his stuff
Hough me too haha. Just imagine
I understood that reference
I think HypohystericalHistory deserves to be up there with Perun.
About aukus I think people are getting hung up on the subs (a big deal for sure) but ignoring the broader meaning of this pact. I foresee australia becoming the central hub for uk and usa military projection in the region. Something they were supposedly already discussing with France prior to aukus. I foresee combined military production, research and development between the 3 nations supporting each other in every aspect of defence in the aisian region. Research, tech, army, navy and airforce
True. AI, QM, Air and Sea Drones, Scramjets and other hypersonics and, long range missiles.
@petersinclair3997 yeah and permanent presence of u.s. and uk nuclear submarines, air power etc.
No sovereignty for Australians in their own country.... Still slaves to the masters
I never realised that Ssn are china's bane in a actual conflict, they have a lot of shipping and as large as their surface navy may be, ww2 proved that you cant just simply escort all the naval traffic. Really cool and informative video
The Malacca Strait is a bottle that is easily corked.
Yes, and their lack of capability in the field is also shown by their inability to construct nuc boats of their own that are less than decades/generations behind- I would think that this would also be evidence of a likely inability to successfully counter modern SSNs, due to a lack of understanding of submarine acoustics, etc, if only for lack of practical experience...
Though, I recall recently seeing an article (which I didn't read) that had a headline that went something like 'China's newest class of nuclear subs are no longer a complete joke', which, tbh, doesn't really make it seem like they've made a heck of a lot of progress.
(spelling/grammar edit)
@@grosey11
I wonder if the practical aspects of such a blockade have been given enough thought... Japan, the ROK, ROC, etc, may have a thing or two to say about it: will every ship be stopped and searched, etc?
And the clock is ticking on that one, too, with all of the infrastructure being built towards alternatives- ports and pipelines, etc, that would push the theoretical blockade back to the straight of Hormuz, which would far more problematic, both militarily and geopolitically (not that Malacca would be as easy, strictly militarily, as it us portrayed: for example, China may not have a sub fleet that could counter it, but (whatever massive problems their land forces have), Russia sure does...).
@@bholdr----0 ...You do realise detection and counterdetection are basically entirely separate things, right? This is excluding the fact the PLAN operates conventional subs that are already extremely quiet, which throws a wrench in the works of the whole "They don't know anything about submarines." After all, the distinction between nukes and conventionals acoustics-wise is mostly in the reactor, rather than some fundamental difference in quieting philosophy.
Ugh... of course. That us why I qualified my comment. Read it again. (See: 'a likely', and, 'if only', etc... its frustrating when people- not necessarily you (another qualification) seem to try to score points or whatever when someone (even marginally) disagrees while trying to contribute to the conversation)...
NUANCE!
(Also, 'entirely separate things'... jeez... do you think, for example, that the US doesn't learn from their own mistakes, successes, technology, etc, etc? I would understand if you thought that they were obverse, etc, but, 'completely'? Ugh.)
Edit- pls excuse my tone, it isn't personal, I'm just tired of the narrowness of oblivation superseding nuance and conversation, it's not just you.)
Keep up the great work being the best youtuber out there! (BTW make a Patreon or the RUclips member thing so you can get the coin you deserve from making these amazing videos!)
Think of it as Australia getting the tools to defend from Imperial Japan years before the later actually launched its Pacific conquest campaign in WWII;
That's a good analogy.
Haha, it actually like Australia getting capability against Imperial Japan only in the late 1960s, long after the war has finished.
You 'll get the submarines in the 2050s by which time the concept of a big nuclear submarine will be obsolete and the competition between the US and China has already been resolved.
It's just a scheme to rob you of half a trillion dollars you could have used for your own development. Remember, the US has no friends, you are a potential competitor too., the one that is especially dangerous because you are an isolated continent rich in resources.
When it come's to Naval asset's our military political / planning has such a bad record it border's on treasonous and now that they are going woke I don't hold much hope for the future , even now number's in the labor party = our government are building to prevent the nuclear sub initiative all from moving forward at all .
I wouldn't think of it like that at all. It may be way too late by the time we get them. If we do get them in time, they will be a huge asset for deterrence.
At the current pace of the AUKUS program, versus Xi's often stated intent to get Taiwan back by 2026 (which would almost certainly ignite a war), this would be more like Australia getting all the tools to defend from Japan in the 1950s, some ten years after the war with Japan had already started and finished.
BABE WAKE, A NEW 2 HOUR DOCUMENTARY ON NAVAL POLICY JUST DROPPED.
Love your stuff!
Glad to see that Aussie/US/UK foreign policy is continuing in the right direction! AUKUS seems to be a bold move and I sincerely hope that our current and future leaders can maintain this level of cooperation
The secret to maintaining commitment (more important than cooperation) is tying up financial investment years in advance. The cooperation aspect is ensured by the deeply embedded Five Eyes.
There is an operational need for a smaller super silent type of conventional submarine. For use in places where the large nuclear boats cannot safely go.
FYI. The COVID origin is now confirmed to be a leak from a PLA lab in Wuhan.
This sub deal ain't gonna get my vote...
@@fatdoi003 we need both Nuke and D/E subs. This particular deal is not good
@@alanbstard4 French subs are already nuclear... why not just change the order from diesel to nuclear?
@@fatdoi003 I agree re nuke boats. New Suffron class great boat. Still need D/E as well. A mixed fleet. type 212 plus suffron class nuclear boats
I’ve been waiting weeks for your next video! Love your content!!! Please never stop
I remember watching a interview on Australian edition of 60 minutes with Mel Gibson in 1987 warning us about western countries helping the rise of China.
Nearly all his predictions came true.
Yes the west was mesmerised by the size of the potential chinese market and were played like real suckers by the chinese. When business is driving foreign policy this is the sort of management of national security you get. Even the US which gives high priority to national security matters got screwed by them. This deception by the chinese continues as they talk peaceful rise while building a huge navy at record speed while giving no hint as to their intentions. At least now a few people are starting to wake up to the threat. Let’s hope it is not too late.
Wait, as in Mel Gibson the actor?
Which ones?
Yeah, but then he also warned us about the Jews. Dunno if his fears are the same as ours.
the west also benefitted greatly from the trade and it lifted 700 million people out of poverty and china could have still traded with countries outside the west and then only those countries would've gotten the benefits
It's been too long since the last deep dive! Great to see you putting out the quality content again
CCP: we want to live peacefully with Australia
Also CCP (April 2020): Australia is like dirty gum stuck to the bottom of China's shoe
Sadly people tend to have short collective memories. China tipped their hand on what their preferred revisions to the rules based order would look like in their trade feud with Australia. Potential vassal states should take note , as an American I feel that Australia has an important lesson to teach the world on this issue lest we “ sell the rope they plan to hang us with “ .
@@harryrosenthal4818 Too late. Australian iron ore and metallurgical grade coal is used to build China's Naval fleet.
Funny how iron ore was not one of the products banned by China.
@@peterinns5136 Reminiscent of the Australian iron ore trade to Japan in the 1930's coming back south in the 1940's.
@@SpeedyCM Exactly. It was scrap metal in those days "Pig Iron Bob"
Always worth the wait when you put out a vid mate. Thanks the the deep dive into the AUKUS program.
As an American interested in the modern military doctrines of other countries I appreciate your video’s immensely thank you and keep up the good work!
As an American, I hope Australia will be able to maintain the will and the economy to maintain this increase in capabilities. The deterrence to the next great war can only be achieve if countries significantly increase their readiness so that certain bad actors will not be tempted to make a land/power grab. The last thirty years was all about the end of the Cold War and reaping economic dividends via globalization and the dream that economic ties will prevent countries from invading each other. That dream is over. I don't know if any countries had the will to claim that in 2010, China would be a major military threat to the Indo Pacific. All of us were crossing our fingers and toes hoping that will economic prosperity, China will transition to a more open and liberal society. Well, that didn't happen. We now know that China went in the other direction and the winds of war are beginning to stir once again. It feels like the 2020's is a repeat of the 1920's. I never thought I would be such parallel in my lifetime but there it is. I hope that with with increase in military spending throughout the Indo Pacific and else where (Western Europe), the military industrial complexes in these countries will gain more power and influence that they won't become the tails and wag the dogs of war.
I agree with your argument, and I must say that when I did my six years in my Jungle Green Suit, in the end, I was feeling optimistic that we wouldn't be making war anymore. Extremely Silly of me when my Grandfather was a Gunner in the Great War, my Father was a Gunner in the Second World War, I never left Australia so I just practised for the entire time of my enlistment I just can't convince the blokes at the RSL that despite who my friends were and what they did plus the souvenirs they gave me I only left Country for holiday's in the USA. Then my Son joined the NAVY and was a Bridge Officer, so four Generations of military service and I stayed home, but I wish that the Government would fast track the building of factories for ammunition production, possibly start a Bushmaster acquisition program for the full range of their Transports and Weapons system's. Also, with modern materials and engines re-visit the Jindervic, it may be subsonic, but with an update, it would have a range of well over a thousand miles. And the SkySweeper is a cheap and quickly deployable answer to, again with modern materials and equipment very adequate for everything from mortars to jet attack planes, Ukraine has taught us that it is better to have to dispose of old ammunition than not have enough.
I watch what's going on, and I am concerned about the time frame we are looking at.
''.... that economic ties will prevent countries from invading each other...''
have you heard of Danegeld? [Danish -money] Old European countries tried that already [paying the Vikings] didn't work ...
@@user-McGiver uh economic ties does not mean only tribute or paying bribes. Are you suggesting that Western Europe and the USA have been paying protection money to Russia and China so that they won't attack them.
@@dnguyen9747 I mean that history shows that paying, using or dealing with hostiles is stupid and dangerus!... who choose hostility as a way to communicate should be respected for that choice and treated as one... as a hostile!
@@user-McGiver in that case, we should have nuked Russia, China and North Korea by now.
This was an incredible video.. Thanks for your efforts! Excellent work!
Extremely informative. It's kind of you to put in so much work. Very helpful.
Guess im not going to sleep just yet. love this channel
Ahh I’ve been waiting for this. This is my fav page, thanks for you’re solid work legend!
The quality of this video is insane. Extremely well done mate
This is a fantastic assessment of the AUKUS agreement! Thanks!
Good work your videos are always informative and entertaining. I know its hard work and I appreciate your efforts. Another great upload as always.
I worked at the company where the Collins class subs were built, and saw the launch of the last boat - HMAS Rankin in 2001. It's hard to believe it was more than 20 yers ago.
Thanks for another exceptional and contemporary video. I'm 49 this year, and it's a little boggling that the last of class of the AUKUS submarines will be delivered as I die of old age. If I'm fortunate.
It's ridiculous. I swear I heard like a decade ago that we would be building our own subs here in SA, then later we gave the contract to France or something? Now here we are a decade later and a billion dollars in the hole, back to the original plan. Our government is so shit, I wouldn't be surprised if they're built too late.
I'm 22, born in 2001, so they will be in the middle of deliveries as I turn your current age
As someone who has listened to every minute of every one of your videos, it's nice to hear your voice again. Keep up the good work.
Excellent, comprehensive, (as always)Thank you!
Outstanding as usual. You have succeeded in changing my mind on the subject.
What a superb video. Best thing I have seen or read on AUKUS. Well done. Subscribed!
Thank you.!!! I’ve gobbled up almost all of your
RUclips and TicToc content! THANK YOU!! I’ve learned so much!
Glad to see a new video man!
Its the speed and range that really sets these nuke boats apart from any other form of sub.
Imagine a boat that can approach its targets using world class sensors for guidance, at night, and then shower it with heavy weight torpedoes and surface attack missiles then exit the area at 30+ knots. Try driving a car at 70kph down a highway and then imagining an 8000 ton vehicle, 600 feet below the ocean's surface doing the same.
They really are an ocean predator that no Navy can easily defend against. We are blessed that our behavior towards the United States and the UK over the last century in both peacetime and wartime has elevated our country to the status of most reliable and trusted allies. Our vast country with all its wealth contains a tiny population on a par with the size of some International cities.
It must be an enviable target for many who would like to possess it. Without our strategic partners such as the USA and the UK we could not hope to defend it against many nations such as China, Indonesia, India etc. With them inside the AUKUS framework we are unbeatable.
I guess that's why two of them hit undersea mountains at high speed...world class sensors are no match for stupid people in charge.
conventional subs better in shallows of South China sea. nuke boats better open sea
@@alanbstard4 Yep. Also, easy to see in clear shallow water.
@@bossdog1480 The Germans had that problem in the Mediterranean during WWII.
@@alanbstard4Subs wouldn’t be operating there, it’s too heavily monitored. There are other spots along the trade route with deeper water that would be happy hunting grounds.
Love everything you do. Thank you for all the great content
What am awesome podcast mate!
Hearing the aussie voice for over 2 hours was quite pleasant.
You could split this into 4 parts for bulk views but damn, my Saturday morning has been educational!
Cheers
Been patiently waiting for new H3 & did not disappoint!!😂
Bold of you to drop this on Origin night bro….2hrs! ok I’ll get another beer…
Another awesome dissertation, thanks again you for your excellent work mate 👍
I've been very curious to see what you have to say about this, and, thoroughly pleased to see another video of yours.
After watching this, I have to say that the analysis was superb. This is highly informative. It taught me a lot about a topic I don't really know about. I guess I can actually say I do know a fair bit about it after listening to video 1:25:10 . I think we can fairly safely conclude that you are a very bright individual with an extremely impressive work ethic.
Powerhouse stuff mate, well done.
Great work. Well articulated. Keep ‘em coming
Nice work,this is better than anything on tv.
I would really love to see your analysis regarding Japans geopolitical landscape and their defence policy as a response to the changing environment. With a deep dive into their military industrial base and arsenal/equipment/technology.
14:10 I would say 'wil be' instead 'is' the most advanced non USN carrier. Charles de Gaul is actually nuclear powered, operates Rafale M instead of J-15 and also has 2 CATOBARs and they both operate around 40 fighters and it also has AEWA Hawkeyes. And Charles de Gaulle is actually fully operational!
There's also the two 65,000 ton QE class carriers of the Royal Navy which aren't as big as Fujian, but I wouldn't bet on them being inferior. The F-35Bs they carry are definitely going to be superior to their Chinese counterparts.
@@trolleriffic yep good point, they're probably a toss up depending on the situation. Fujian probably better when you need suffiently large aripower to wage a large air to ground campaign and QE probably better at an outer air battle with F-35Bs
It’s been too long. This is much anticipated, thanks!
That 2 hours went by quick. Great vid!
Just as a point of note, while it is true that it is possible for space based systems to spot the snorkel of a submarine, its unlikely, and at least in transit phase not very valuable.
My father was Int Corps for 36 years, so worked a lot with satellite based intelligence. Without breaking the Official Secrets Act he informed me that Its great for planning fires on say an airbase, or some other static target, but for moving targets, including ships and fleets, at best its going to give you a general search area, not a pin point location. Other assets will need to be moved into that area for a closer search.
People often forget that while satellite surveillance technology is good, it is not yet real time. At least not to my knowledge.
A small addendum to an otherwise excellent presentation. Though I have to admit, when I see a hypohystericalhistory video drop I tend to click play before I check the title.... You have yet to disappoint.
EDIT: Oh, thermoclines affect most electromagnetic energy as well. Divers wearing dry suits can carry radios for comms, I have been on dives were one of us was a couple of metres below a thermocline, and the other a couple of metres above, not more than maybe 5 - 6 metres apart, but we could not communicate because the radio wave would just bounce off the thermocline.
This is really just in there for the sake of people who may not necessarily believe that this happens. It does, admittedly a personal radio for short range comms between divers is not going to have the power of a military grade active sonar but it does not seem to matter in most cases. Its why dipping sonars are so often used. You can drop them below the thermocline.
Radio and sonar work differently you couldn’t receive radio to each other because radio waves wavelength are large and the difference in seawater density at the thermocline caused the incident ray to veer off enough to miss you. Sonar is sound waves and I believe it’s to do with how fast sound travels in water and again the varying density of water in the thermocline and the doppler effect.
You may be correct In 2023 but in 2043? I think everyone is ignoring what a gamechanger spaceX starship is going to be. A rocket that can put 100 tonnes into orbit. Launched several times a week and at a fraction of the cost. I put it to you a constellation of giant satellites will be able to pick up a snorkelling submarine.
That may be true then, but now and into the future with real time imagery analysis that can be crunched by AI on higher and higher resolution photo's I think its more than possible. I mean even commercially you can run photo's through an AI and get it to recognize patterns, let alone what million dollar budgets+ do on military databases.
It also depends on how many you have. If you have enough satellites orbiting to have constant coverage, you can maintain a track while it is physically possible to see the sub from space. I don't know if the CCP has that capability right now and if they could maintain that capability when everyone wants to shoot down enemy satellites, but I would assume they're planning on putting lots of eyes up there as quickly as possible.
I think he covered the narrow swathes of satellite imaging in another video, pointing out that it was not the same as tracking required to direct fire/missiles.
SSKs can be an effective replacement to SSNs if your area of operations is a smaller area like the Baltic or Mediterranean-sea but in the open ocean SSNs are the only real option.
How about the South China Sea?
@@keibin92 SSNs
You get it! Gotlands is suitable if you want to play in the Baltic pond
@@keibin92 If the South China Sea was next to Australia then SSKs would make a lot more sense. Unfortunately some thoughtless idiot went and put it thousands of km away near China instead! What's that about?
Extremely informative video. Thank you for posting.
Thanks for all the effort and great work.
"Go big or go home.........good on ya, Aussies"
-The God Of Procurement
POHM here. Having been to Aus and served with Aus too, I can attest to both the brotherly relationship us brits have with your people. And the absolute professionalism of your diggers.
I am proud that the UK will be a major ally in the bolstering of your defence industrial base, and knowing the quality of Australia, I have no doubt that we will also get access to world class expertise from your country that will bolster ours too.
Recent events have unfortunatley shown that we have no choice but to re-arm. And looking at history, the only lads more tenacious than us are the Aussies, so I'm more than happy to have you as our allys in more than name.
Your analysis is excellent, I wish more people were interested in these topics as you deserve so many more subs/views. Keep it up brother 👍
your country is going broke
Another excellent presentation thank you.
Exceptional presentation-as per usual. Thank you.
hell yea. this is your best work yet, hh. big up that
Ok white boy lmao 🤡
This is such a great video. One of the most objective and unbiased videos.
Appreciate your videos. Thank you.
Hell yeah, I come home from work and see a HHH video. Thank you
I like the way you give all the detailed specifications of the gear. FYI, “antipodes” is pronounced “antip-o-dies”
Came here for a nuclear sub, got a lesson on Anglo-Australian relations 😂
Excellent work again!! Thank you sir!
Awesome video man.
Great promotion for nuclear submarines, and the nuclear cycle in general. And an heroic attempt to paint their acquisition by Australia as a fair accompli. Nevertheless, a fleet of 10 to 20 conventional subs - with AIP - would actually address Australia's defence needs, as opposed to just being a tag-along to the US strategic deterrent. And save Australia hundreds of billions.
wow this is informative & wow does the media miss-represent military facts!
Fantastic video and extremely informative.
Absolute fantastic fucking video as always. Your content keeps me going.
How is it sir, you can calmly and logically impart a complete explanation of the need and direction of our submarine future. We have been punished with short sightedness , ignorance and political point scoring for the past decade. Thank you for deep dive into our submarine dependence, I am literally exhilarated with this refreshing couple of hours, my deepest thanks for your very informative input.
I was in the RAN in the late 60's/70's. I had a much better relationship with my RN peers than the USN. Governments change, it takes a while for people to change.
Wrong.
@@cattledog901 Care you explain your ridiculous statement?
Please do more modern military content! I love your analysis capability! You are doing so great it is so interesting and entertaining to listen to your perspective and analysis! You can choose whatever topic or country or system doesn't matter, really, the modern stuff is so interesting. I would love to see more content in this regard!
Great Video really enjoy all your content, thanks
massive industrial ship building infrastructure
10:18 Type 052D Destroyer
12:05 Type 55 Cruister 112 VLS cells
Lianing, Shan Dong Limitation of ski-jump carriers
Upcoming Type 04 carrier
17:40 interference in Australia
43:00 Gotland AIP "sank" CVN Ronald Reagan
China's navy is to neutralize hostile US power projection in it's own backyard.
1:28:07 "Indeed, the problems surrounding nuclear waste are probably one of the most misunderstood and slandered areas of nuclear energy in general."
1:28:29 "Yes, managing the decommissioning of a nuclear submarine means dealing with some nuclear waste, which needs to be done carefuly and responsibly. But the scale of these problems is vastly excaggerated in popular conception."
These quotes are very correct and appropriate! But then you go on to say:
1:28:41 "As dangerous and long-lived as high-grade nuclear waste is ..."
and:
1:29:31 "Nuclear reactors also generate a much larger volume of low- and intermediate-level waste [...] This material only poses a moderate level of radiological risk. Generally speaking as it has been neutron-activated, it poses no threat to ground water contamination, and has a reasonably short half-life."
These statements propagate the widely held misunderstanding that radioactive substances with long half-lives are more dangerous than those with short.
The reality is that the most intensely radioactive substances have short half-lives, while the longer the half-life the less unstable the substance is. To wit: Fully stable isotopes, i.e. ones that are not radioactive at all, have infinite half-lives.
But because big number = scary for most people, this myth and misunderstanding has been left to fester in people's minds. No doubt it is a useful myth to anti-nuclear activists.
The reason that high-level waste like used fuel is treated with such extreme caution is twofold:
* the actual _amount_ of highly radioactive (short-lived) fission-products contained in it, which is what makes it legitimately deadly for decades
* the much more emotional aspect for transuranics, especially Plutonium, being bred inside the reactor by neutron-capture by Uranium-238. The general idea with burying used fuel is that "we dig it out of the ground, so we can put it back into the hole whence it came, or an equivalent hole". So the two natural isotopes of Uranium, 235 and 238, with half-lives of 700 mn and 4.3 bn years respectively, are accepted as they don't cause a net increase in the amount of radiation on the planet in general. However, Plutonium-239, with a half-life of around 24,500 years, falls between two stools: It's much shorter-lived than the two Uranium isotopes, so the rationale that it doesn't contribute to overall radiation levels isn't applicable. On the other hand, the half-life is far longer than we can manage in human, or civilisational, timescales. There is a rule of thumb that an isotope that is not being replenished will have decayed to insignificance after ten half-lives. And the often quoted figure that used fuel must be protected for "hundreds of thousands of years" is actually derived by multiplying Plutonium-239's half-life by ten to obtain roughly a quarter-million years. But in reality, even though Plutonium, were it to leak into the environment (which is unlikely given the care with which sites for deep geological storage are selected and the engineering that goes into them) _would_ increase radiation levels, it does not have the capacity to increase those levels to anything that matters biologically. There is a lot of leeway in how much radiation living things can tolerate, and natural background levels are orders of magnitude below what could be considered dangerous.
Rant over. I also recommend this video, which is much more hands-on with spent nuclear fuel from the civilian sector, and when it becomes safe to handle by a few diffrent criteria:
ruclips.net/video/jM-b5-uD6jU/видео.html
Great video, love your channel!
Amazing content, thank you ❤
Good video, I'm hoping there'll be more cooperation between the UK and Australia going forward, preferably CANZUK style military and economic cooperation with free trade and free movement.
My biggest takeaway from this agreement/treaty is the trust placed in the Australian government. China has assuredly invested some amount in infiltrating Australias government. Whether more or less so than the US or UK, I couldn't say, but the geographic location and economic ties certainly make it easier. Sharing nuclear secrets with a nation that has close economic ties to your direct geopolitical rival is definitely a bold and confident statement.
Much of Australia’s GDP comes from Knowledge and Services industries. Australia’s huge mining companies are transnationals with international shareholders. Thus, Sino-Australia trade has wide international implications, including if Australia were to decouple trading with China, while knowing other contributions to economy mean Australia would hurt less than the dire implications on China.
I don't get what your impling? You need to educate yourself in Australia's history.
Actually it's the USA that is China's no1 trading partner! and China has infiltrated way more in the US defence establishments than China has politicly in Australia.
Australia have pushed against Chinese threats thus suffered trade cancellations .......we do not sit on the fence nor do we sell our sole to the devil.
It's in our history.
For reference, the USA’s 3rd largest trading partner is China.
There will be plenty of security provided by the UK and America.
Australian been permanently infiltrated by u.s government, think tanks and NGO... Just sick of being American lapdog
This was honestly a very magnificent video, I really enjoyed watching it.
Holy! Nothing makes me happier than a new hypohystericalhistory upload. Best channel on YT ngl
Sharing the technology for a nuclear powered attack submarine just shows the level of trust we in the United States have in Australia. Along with Canada we are all former members of the British Empire with a common language that almost feels like we're family, like cousins. 😄👍
England is dad.
France may have been the birthplace of the Enlightenment but Britain, the USA and the rest of the Anglophone empire have been it’s life support system and have tried to propagate a rules based order which attempts to be win / win for the participants. Any chance you could get the Kiwis to up their game a bit ?
USA refuses to sell Canada Nukes subs, and the only reason Australia got them is USA is concerned about losing power in west pacific and Australia having 1 month fuel supply. So we couldn't fight a war. USA have no choice but to give us nuke boats. Don't think you were happy about it
Australians are not fond of the ol' Empire, as our national identity was mostly formed in WWI, in which British officers had, shall we say, not the best reputation with us. WWII didn't help. But by the same token, we've never forgotten the US's involvement in the pacific (despite Douglas MacArthur). It's hard to overstate how important the two world wars are in how we see ourselves.
That's not to say we dislike the British now, much less the UK, and we haven't forgotten the good they've done.
@@some_random_wallaby this Australian
is fond of empire. We may yet need it again
Very good video. Thank you
Brilliant Video again. I had to come back a few times to complete it. The timescales of these programs are hard to grasp
When I first heard that there was going to be an AUKUS Class of submarine, I assumed it would be shared between the three countries, or have much commonality. This video made it sound like the US replacement for the Virginia Class would be significantly different from the AU/UK AUKUS Class.
At present the US Navy has ordered lead in work for the Columbia class SSBN. Expect the follow on to the Virginia class SSN’s be based on Columbia
Great work. I would like your thoughts on the B21 for RAAF.
The idea of a nuclear capable bomber for the RAAF is absurd. Australia is basically become a US Neocon goon and MIC subsidizer.
Absolutely fantastic video.
One of the first in line! Excellent work.
I hate to be a cynic but are these submarines being delivered soon enough? As put by a USN admiral, the 2030s, not the 2040s is the period of greatest risk of armed confrontation with China. The interim solution is a step in the right direction but don’t you think it’s likely that if Australia needs to fight China, it will end up doing so with the virginias and not the ssn aukus? Unless we see a napoleonic war like on and off conflict, are these exquisitely expensive, and, yes, exquisitely capable submarines going to be used for what they are meant to be used for?
They’re meant to used for sinking ships.
@@XxBloggs Whose ships?
While you did point one exercise kill by the Collins class against a stationary ship, it would have been more balanced to point out that the Collins class has also scored exercise kills on SSN's hunting it on multiple occasions. While you point out that the Gotlands kill was without active sonar being used against it, you fail to mention Rankins kill was against active sonar being used by a destroyer and an SSN with helicopter support.
You miss the point, who cares if it did better on another day, Gotlands is suitable if you want to play in the Baltic pond. Useless if you want to play with the big boys.
@@qbi4614 what has the Gotland got to do with it? The Collins is a much more capable boat.
Thank for your increase immersion in my cold water play-through.
What an excellent presentation. Thanks
It's high time we had our own comprehensive nuclear deterrent too. We already have almost everything we need except political courage
And the technology, ballistic rockets and nuclear production. You don`t even have a civilian nuclear industry... no one would support you in this.
agreed
@@Aendavenau no they would not support us, but we don't need anyone's blessing and we could easily start our own industry
@@Aendavenau We actually do have those things. We also invented and developed a now classified laser enrichment technology.
Nobody wats nuclear proliferation. While Australia "could" build nuclear weapons, it would strain its relationship with western allies, namely the United States, which already offers Australia nuclear deterrence. Objectively speaking, Australia would gain nothing except a new money sink (maintaining a credible nuclear arsenal is expensive) while announcing to the world that they don't trust their biggest ally to actually protect them.
For what? For nationalist chest thumping?
We, the UK, should have never turned our back on Australia and our other commonwealth family. CANZ have always had the UK back and we owe those countries big time.
Well grudgingly Churchills choice not to reinforce a failure (Singapore) might have been right. And our boys made Kokoda a success despite McArthurs ignorance of the mountainous jungle terrain. The relationship with the motherland was never the same. Since then we have been infatuated with all things uncle sam and briefly then looked towards China as partners. It has come full circle.
@@grosey11 UK going into the EU was the problem
fantastic stuff as always. honestly cant get me to sit still for 2 hours unless its a H3 video thats playing infront of me. Any hints on when we may see a part 2 of the shock and awe video?
Absolutely fantastic analysis
Main objection by Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, and socialist left Global South, to AUKUS submarine deal and overall strategic alliance is 'interoperability'. Taken as a trinity whole, US Virginia class, US Ohio SSGN, UK RN Astute class, and future AU RAN SSN boats use similar torpedoes, and similar strike cruise missiles. With crews trained to similar level. That means that either of three's boats can take missions of another partner , as needed. So in Indo-Pacific, Chinese PLAN would not be fighting three submerged fleets. But a single large SSN force.
IP and export controls exerted by nations of origin are becoming major issues as advanced weapon systems get woven into more and more militaries, driven by the war in Ukraine and Chinese aggression. Manufacturers are loathe to give up IP without compensation because sustainment then becomes competitive vs a monopoly. And countries like the US and Germany have highly restrictive export/re-export rules that are often driven not by any strategy, but by some sort of political policy. Hopefully AUKUS can resolve this stuff up front, especially as Australia locks down specs early and often!
Germany may well end up as a divided country once again, physically partly in NATO but not on the other side of the new wall.
im loving these videos so far, any plans for a surface-to-air missile video?
Excellent presentation!
if we do have a 'great power' war, how will we protect our subs when they are in port or in drydock for overhaul? I imagine satellites will be able to detect them in these positions and long range missiles could reach the subs. Ideas anyone? BTW, any defence will have to be 100% effective, otherwise we get a nasty nuclear spill in a heavily populated area.
A 100% effective defence is a big ask, but the distance the missile will have to travel will give us advantage in intercepting it with whatever anti-missile system the US have developed by that time. The Patriot system, for example, has been remarkably effective at intercepting the Russian hypersonic (or... "hypersonic") missile, which it has no business hitting if the missile were to operate as it is purported to (no surprise there). Similarly, I expect any capabilities China has are, while extremely dangerous, overstated and not fundamentally something we cannot intercept.
Concerning nuclear spill. I think if a missile can hit the dry dock, the missiles will also be striking our major cities. We will have bigger problems.
In a great power war, nuclear submarine bases would be high priority targets. Under the current arrangements, Australia would rely on strategic depth (i.e. distance) to protect such bases, but that does not mitigate the risk of a Type 095 SSGN launching 8 x CJ-10A SLCMs (with a range of around 1100 nm) in an attempt to destroy HMAS Stirling, ASC (Osbourne) or an east coast submarine base at Port Kembla or Newcastle, and disable any submarines docked there.
If a nuclear submarine was destroyed in port, even though the psychological effects and fear would be significant, the radiological effects would likely be limited to a fairly small area. Naval reactors are small compared with civilian power generation reactors and do not contain that much in the way of fissile material. It is most unlikely that a naval reactor would explode, but it might release radiological material if there was a direct hit, or an uncontrolled fire. Much of it would likely end up on the bottom of the harbour.
Of greater concern, is that if a great power war escalated into a nuclear exchange, then nuclear submarine bases are of sufficient importance that they could become nuclear targets. What goes up, must come down, and the radioactive fall out of the fission products of the detonation would cover a far greater area down wind of the detonation site. The naval reactor core would not itself undergo fission, but the fuel could be lofted up into the atmosphere and be disseminated with all the other debris of the explosion.
There seems to be preference for locating nuclear submarine bases close to population centres because this provides ready access to a skilled workforce and other support infrastructure, but I can't help feeling that this is most unwise even if it costs less in the short term. Responsible risk mitigation requires that any facility that could become a nuclear target in a time of hostilities should be located well away from population centres to minimise any potential loss of life and damage caused to critical civilian infrastructure. An enclosed deep water port, with easily controlled land and sea access, far from prying eyes, close to the continental shelf, and for which the prevailing wind direction is out to sea would seem to be the most desirable characteristics. Downtown Newcastle or Port Kembla ... no way!
@@liefsillion2825 Even a nearby nuclear explosion wouldn't get through the thick steel pressure vessel around a naval nuclear reactor. There were some experiments done during the 1950s in which metal objects (sometimes coated with a layer of another material such as graphite) were placed close to nuclear weapons tests, often within the fireball itself. They all survived with varying amounts of metal having been ablated from them and in one remarkable test, some 30cm steel balls coated in a layer of carbon were positioned just 9 meters from a 15.2 kiloton bomb - all survived having lost only 0.1mm of the carbon layer in the explosion which had vaporised and formed an opaque plasma that protected the material underneath.
@@trolleriffic Most interesting! I didn't know that. I don't suppose you could provide a reference. I would like to follow that up.
The Australian DOD Defence Operations Manual (OPSMAN 1) provides response guidelines for port facilities having to deal with accidents involving nuclear warships. However, DOD has little to say about contingencies involving a nuclear attack on targets situated on Australian territory. Even under questioning in the Australian parliament, Defence Ministers have chosen to refrain from acknowledging that there are any nuclear targets at all, and instead prefer to assert that such a scenario is unlikely. Independent analysts, however, point out that Pine Gap would likely be a high priority target, and that HMAS Stirling may well be a priority target as well, especially if USN SSNs are in port at the time.
Following that logic, it would seem that an Australian East Coast nuclear submarine base would also be a priority target. Submarines need their support bases, and given that they disappear into the deep, the easiest place to attack them is in port. Those support bases take years to build and cannot easily be replaced.
Jervis Bay would be a better location than Port Kembla or Newcastle. Low population density, better security, close to deep water, and given the prevailing wind direction, fallout would be deposited in the Tasman Sea. Yes, it helps to have a workforce along with industrial and technology infrastructure close by; but, that is a cost issue, and the loss of a city would cost a lot more than any savings that could be made.
www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/defence_operations_manual_opsman1_-_visits_to_australia_by_nuclear-powered_warships.pdf