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.
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.
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.
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 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.
I listened to a podcast where they talked about how the Aussie Oberons were upgraded with an extremely advanced fire control system for Sub Harpoon, and also getting data link information back (telecom back from ADCAP) and that the USN was quite impressed with what the RAN did with their Oberons (which, like Collins, were pretty large for diesel boats, at least compared to say a 209)
@@tdb7992 In reality they were ghastly places to work. The whole thing STINKS of diesel and the submariners and most of the surfaces in the boat have a sheen of diesel on them You could always spot a submariner when they first got back by their greasy outlook. lol
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
Nailed it. President Biden probably said more than he was meant when he did that interview and said how AUKUS "checkmates China", due to rotation of one RN Astute and four Virginia USN (which will be based there at Fleet Base West and will probably start having mixed crews and eventually be the Virginias the RAN gets, working up to fully crewing them, before SSN-AUKUS enters service) It's about USN and RAN nuclear subs that could carry out blockade of the Straits of Malacca and choke off Chinese imports in any conflict
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
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.)
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 “ .
@@hrnfw4818 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.
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.
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!)
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.
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
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.
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;
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.
Wow - at first, seeing an over 2-hour slot for this vid, I baulked - but I did it in stages, and I'm glad I did - very comprehensive, very clear, and conclusions spot-on. Also, I am better educated - I wasn't really sure how the three-pronged cooperation in the AUKUS pact would work, now I have a much firmer grounding, especially glad that all three nations will see substantial benefits from this.
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!
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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
Bro, I have had no idea what to think of the deal, or what the capabiities were. So much misinformation and media hot takes. You've really given me a clearer picture of what the whole situation is, thanks my man, great video.
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.
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
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.
@@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?
@@trolleriffic Exactly. Also, the AuSSNs will just as likely be operating south of India sinking Chinese merchant shipping and blockading the Strait of Malacca
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.
The delay in opting for a nuclear submarine was a blessing. Firstly, the invention of an ultra-long-life maintenance-free nuclear reactor core was only a recent development, and previous itterations of the nuclear sub were inferior. Secondly, China will not be a serious threat to the Western Alliance for decades. Thirdly, a mix of mid-sized conventional subs for patrols close to Australia and large nuclear subs for patrols thousands of kilometres from our submarine bases would be more economical anyway given the extreme price the US is charging for their nuclear subs.
Compared to what the French were going to charge, an insane $7 billion per sub when the UK builds Astutes for £1.5 billion and Virginia are built for $2.8 billion. Australia is investing substantially to buy into the US/UK nuclear submarine enterprise to be sure it has had to pay in about $8 billion to be admitted to the club (which is now on its sixth generation of SSN; Royal Navy had HMS Dreadnought, then Churchill class, then Swiftsure, then Trafalgar, now it has pretty much just finished building its seventh Astute class, as well as its Dreadnought SSBN). SSN-AUKUS will be the sixth generation of British SSN, similarly US is on around the same iteration. France is only on its second; it started building its first SSN, the Rubis class, in the 1970s, until 1990 and three of the Rubis are still in service! The oldest still in service was laid down in 1983! And the class was considered dogshit until they did a complete rebuild of the initially flat-faced bow. They still have three of that first generation in service, slowly being replaced by their second Suffren generation. People can carp that the UK is "dependent" on the US, the reality is that by having the 1958 nuclear agreement by which the UK was able to receive US nuclear technology, especially the nuclear propulsion and to buy the missiles and re-entry vehicles (but not the "physics package" of the UK nuclear deterrent) the UK has saved countless billions and got a better capability. The Frenxh have retained complete sovereign control and have paid through the nose for it; they paid more, to have a worse submarine and fewer of them. The UK has worked closely with the US, chosen to use some US designs (still built in the UK, with the nuclear reactors built by Rolls-Royce in Derbyshire, for the boomers the warheads built at AWE Aldermaston, UK subs are their own design, for example Astute has space for 38 weapons, whether torpedo or sub launched Tomahawk or sub Harpoon.. the US 688 class, and the Virginia class, not including their VLS, have space for 26 weapons with four tubes, compared to 38 with six tubes for Astute). So Australia will be buying into an extremely mature submarine nuclear enterprise that has been going for 70 years, produces the best subs in the world both American and British, while also maintaining their own industry for example UK SSN have British built and designed sonar, torpedoes and combat system... the next generation will probably have a joint US/UK/AUS combat system and Mark 48 ADCAP / Spearfish replacement, as Australia wants to buy American on that. But compared to the massive cost France has paid for inferior submarines, and during the cold War built 6 SSNs of a single generation that were perhaps equivalent to a Soviet Victor I, the UK built around 20 SSN over four distinct, iterative generations. Buying into this nuclear submarine club will be expensive and hard work, but once you go nuclear you go all nuclear. Having 8 SSN will be a fantastic capability for the RAN, it will bind the three core AUKUS Anglophone democracies even closer, and bringing Australian engineering know how and universities and another 25 million people will add even more brains to the existing nuclear enterprise, the SSN-AUKUS will be a fantastic sub and Aus will probably start by doing joint crewing of the four Virginia class that will be based in Perth (along with one Astute rotating) and eventually Australia will fully crewing and buy one of those Virginias, and slowly a second and third, while the US continues at least four of its own subs. Fremantle will have a standing joint British Australian American submarine force in Western Australia of 8 SSNs (four American, three Aus, one British), which will checkmate China. Their trade and vital imports from the middle east will be utterly stopped by such a nuclear attack sub forxe in Fremantle that can transit ro the Strait of Malacca or South China Sea It will be glorious
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 The question of where to direct resources was a major issue, Australia understood that if the Nazis won the battle of North Africa, conquered Egypt and cut thr Suez Canal, that would gravely endanger Australian national security and its economy. Churchill also said that ultimately if they had to choose between protecting Egypt and Australia, then Australia would come first. And pretty much as soon as Japan declared war, Australian troops in the Med were sent back and by 1942 were engaged against the Japanese Empire.
@@PosthumousAddress they weren’t sent back. It was a political furore that Churchill resisted, knowing the value of Australians as shock troops. MacArthur was on the record as having little regard for Australian troops. Insisting that they fought in backwaters and not gain unnecessary glory on the island hopping trip across the South West pacific.
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.
Outstanding ,rewarding the viewer with a broad understanding of the AUKUS program beyond the typical media coverage of the “ hurt feelings “ of the French . Capabilities , time lines and strategic threats all mandated a different solution to the one on offer from the French program and superficial review of the Australian political issues makes it clear why this was not acted on initially. Most of note however is the absolutely correct analyses of the ridiculous characterization of China as a victim of the same international world order that transformed it in 40 years from a country with limited industrial base and severe poverty to an economy nationally in contention with those of the West. The benefits of participation in this world order were afforded the Chinese despite their complete disregard for intellectual property rules , poor access to Chinese domestic markets for western companies and predatory trade practices with governments subsidies for key industries that were designed to erode overseas industrial capacities. Chinese attempts at hegemony in trade relations with many overseas trading partners awakened the world as to what the new Chinese amended rules based order would look like and their rapid military buildup has tipped their hand as to the mechanism by which they plan to amend these rules. Well done.
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. 😄👍
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.
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
The US and Australia have bled and died together along with Britain for hundreds of years (thinkaboutthat)and we will stand shoulder-to-shoulder until the end of time. Never be ashamed of having an alliance, its just like a family...ie-The only people you would fight and die for. It should be taken very seriously. The drums are beginning to beat once again my brothers
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.
20 AIPs is insane, they would have to be tiny German size SSKs, which would take an age to transit to their patrol areas (and in fact have to noisily run their diesels all the way in their transit to patrol area)
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.
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.
The MSM also exaggerates and leaves information out. They're lying to the Australian population about the nuclear submarines. The costs, the manufacturing and operation of the vessels.
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.
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.
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?
Aukus is not about submarines (Australia will lease 2nd hand US boats) but about building the facilities that would support basing of US subs in Australia.
Sort of ... however it will also be building the AUKUS submarines with the UK. Long term there are many areas where they will collaborate using the AUKUS framework.
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
This is a good manner of information delivery. I would like to say the amount of information constantly being given without sectioned blocks does make it either slightly confusing or slightly boring… slightly.
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?
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.
Given Virginia builds up to block VII have been programmed out to the 2040s, its likely the UK Dreadnohght programme has been a testbed for a lot of new tech the US will adopt
I think part of the issue might be that H3 does a lot of Australian centric content, whilst Perun is specifically prohibited from discussing Australian defence and procurement subjects - so any remaining overlap might be limited.
I still belive Australia ought to try and aquire a squadron of B-21 stealth bombers. They dont require air refueling due to its long range and can carry far more cruise missiles than the fleet of neuclear submarines for less money. This is thought as being in addition to the subs. UK should do the same
I agree with you 100%. Submarines can sneak around but they are so expensive that you can only afford to have a few of them, they can't be everywhere at once, and they have to return to port to rearm which can take weeks. B-21s have the range to take the fight to the enemy, launch large numbers of standoff weapons from a safe distance, and then fly back to rearm and do it all again the following day. Their capability for the sustained delivery of meaningful military effects seems limited only by the availability of munitions, the cost of jet fuel, and the limits of crew fatigue, and far exceeds that provided by a slow moving armada of naval warships with missile magazines of limited depth. They would be a good asymmetric option for an island nation like Australia. No invading amphibious naval force could withstand repeated ALCM attacks from even a small fleet of B-21s for long. Facing destruction, an invader would be obliged to withdraw long before they landed on Australian shores. Given that there have been recent indications that the US would be willing to provide them, it seems strange that the recent Australian Defence Strategic Review ruled them out. No reason was given, at least in the report released to the pubic. Even if they cost $1B each, it seems like a very cost effective way to defend Australia when compared to the cost of the AUKUS submarine project, and could be made available in a much shorter time frame. There must be details that they are unwilling to discuss. Perhaps they felt that a similar capability could be provided more cost effectively by P-8A Poseidons carrying LRASMs or C-17s carrying palletised JASSM-ERs. Hugh White is a vocal advocate for scaling back the surface vessel fleet, and instead investing more in air power and submarines.
@@timmilder8313 As a middle power, it is not in Australia's interest to initiate a strategic conflict with any nation, but it is in their interest to be able to deter military adventurism in their northern approaches by having the capability to sink warships i.e. aircraft carriers, and destroy forward-deployed missile launchers, before they can threaten their northern bases, and to be able to contribute significant capability to their alliance arrangements. Stationing strategic bombers on Australian soil has advantages for the US in terms of dispersal of assets, complicating the planning of aggressors, and having broader access to aircraft maintenance facilities. This is why the US has been rotating 20% of their B-2 Spirit strategic bomber fleet, the slow motion and recallable component of their nuclear triad, through RAAF Amberley. (i.e. 2022 Bomber Task Force deployment component of the Enhanced Air Cooperation Initiative under the Force Posture Agreement between US and Australia). www.eurasiantimes.com/alarming-deployment-us-b-2-bombers-are-stationed-in-australia/#:~:text=The%20image%20from%20Planet%20Labs,in%20Australia%2C%20which%20is%20unprecedented. In addition, larger production runs bring down unit cost. An Australian squadron would allow US aircraft to undergo maintenance at a location in the south western pacific beyond the reach of all but the longest range Chinese ICBMs. That would be handy if USAF Anderson AFB was threatened and US strategic bombers stationed there were obliged to disperse at short notice. Australia's military planners get nervous when US presidents i.e. Trump make comments about withdrawing from NATO and wanting US allies to become more self-reliant; so, it comes as no surprise that they would be considering the possibility of reinvigorating their own long-range bomber capability, something they lost after the retirement of their F-111s. The acquisition lead time for B-21s is likely to be long, and you only get to fight with the assets that you have and not the ones you would like to have; so, now is the time for them to have that discussion. History has shown that Australia will stand with the US when it goes to war. All they need is the capability to join the fight.
Wow! Im a real nerd when it comes to military matters, I had no idea about how good the Dreadnought (and SSN-AUKUS) will be. You make a very persuasive case for how awesome the class will be; and how cool that parts of the UKs next SSN will have parts coming from an Australian supply chain, vice versa
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.
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!
This isn't your Dad's ITAR. Going into AUKUS is joining what has been an exclusive club of two for almost 70 years. There will be no export of this tech from Aus to other parties.
Hasn't happened. And who knows when it will happen. Its like my brother in Law. He has and old car he wants to restore in his garage for 26 years, it sits and sits.
Y'know what, isn't it a bit backwards that one builds a massive surface fleet, carriers and all, without a potent submarine force to protect it? To me this sounds more like a case of keeping the shipyards and industries humming, paying people wages lest they get some ideas about changing government. A bit of parade and propaganda probably doesn't hurt too. It's just their fumbling opaqueness about what they're doing, along with a fair sprinkle of face saving and court intrigues, that is endangering everybody else =="
Another component of nuclear waste generated by Australian industry is the nuclear waste that is a biproduct of extracting and refining mineral resources. Most of this refinement is done overseas (which has generated controversy). It seems likely that Australia will have to accept the burden of processing nuclear waste in some forms regardless of having a nuclear energy industry,
Either that, or pay through the nose for it. Then, there is the consideration of the ethical responsibility for responsibly disposing of that wasted- the US doesn't exactly have a great record on that front, eh? That is a complication that I hadn't considered... (Cheers? Ugh...)
@@alanbstard4so you want to potentially lose a war because of a few keg’s of waste? There are thousands of reactors all around the world who deal with this disposal without a problem day in day out. Speak for yourself not the rest of Australia
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'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.
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 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.
They were a very good sub.... They should have bought up a few extra ones before going to Collin's
I listened to a podcast where they talked about how the Aussie Oberons were upgraded with an extremely advanced fire control system for Sub Harpoon, and also getting data link information back (telecom back from ADCAP) and that the USN was quite impressed with what the RAN did with their Oberons (which, like Collins, were pretty large for diesel boats, at least compared to say a 209)
@@tdb7992 In reality they were ghastly places to work. The whole thing STINKS of diesel and the submariners and most of the surfaces in the boat have a sheen of diesel on them
You could always spot a submariner when they first got back by their greasy outlook. lol
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
Nailed it. President Biden probably said more than he was meant when he did that interview and said how AUKUS "checkmates China", due to rotation of one RN Astute and four Virginia USN (which will be based there at Fleet Base West and will probably start having mixed crews and eventually be the Virginias the RAN gets, working up to fully crewing them, before SSN-AUKUS enters service)
It's about USN and RAN nuclear subs that could carry out blockade of the Straits of Malacca and choke off Chinese imports in any conflict
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.)
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!
BABE WAKE, A NEW 2 HOUR DOCUMENTARY ON NAVAL POLICY JUST DROPPED.
Love your stuff!
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 “ .
@@hrnfw4818 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"
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
It's been too long since the last deep dive! Great to see you putting out the quality content again
I’ve been waiting weeks for your next video! Love your content!!! Please never stop
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!)
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
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
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.
This is a fantastic assessment of the AUKUS agreement! Thanks!
Guess im not going to sleep just yet. love this channel
Wow - at first, seeing an over 2-hour slot for this vid, I baulked - but I did it in stages, and I'm glad I did - very comprehensive, very clear, and conclusions spot-on. Also, I am better educated - I wasn't really sure how the three-pronged cooperation in the AUKUS pact would work, now I have a much firmer grounding, especially glad that all three nations will see substantial benefits from this.
Always worth the wait when you put out a vid mate. Thanks the the deep dive into the AUKUS program.
The quality of this video is insane. Extremely well done mate
This was an incredible video.. Thanks for your efforts! Excellent work!
Ahh I’ve been waiting for this. This is my fav page, thanks for you’re solid work legend!
Glad to see a new video man!
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.
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.
Extremely informative. It's kind of you to put in so much work. Very helpful.
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.
Having Australia as a friend always good. Pissing France off is just a bonus.
Especially when you can stick Australia with the bill.
@@adrien5834 The US Navy has been guaranteeing free trade on the high seas for 80 years, now.
@@dk6024 That's what you guys call it, sure. So what, Australia owes you the money for services rendered, is that your point?
@@adrien5834 was Australia coerced or blackmailed? Was the deal done in bad faith?
@@dk6024 I don't know, but I assume not. But what was your point, exactly?
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.
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
Bro, I have had no idea what to think of the deal, or what the capabiities were. So much misinformation and media hot takes. You've really given me a clearer picture of what the whole situation is, thanks my man, great video.
Been patiently waiting for new H3 & did not disappoint!!😂
Excellent, comprehensive, (as always)Thank you!
Outstanding as usual. You have succeeded in changing my mind on the subject.
Hell yeah, I come home from work and see a HHH video. Thank you
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.
Nice work,this is better than anything on tv.
Good work your videos are always informative and entertaining. I know its hard work and I appreciate your efforts. Another great upload as always.
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
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?
@@trolleriffic Exactly. Also, the AuSSNs will just as likely be operating south of India sinking Chinese merchant shipping and blockading the Strait of Malacca
Absolute fantastic fucking video as always. Your content keeps me going.
Powerhouse stuff mate, well done.
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.
Came here for a nuclear sub, got a lesson on Anglo-Australian relations 😂
What a superb video. Best thing I have seen or read on AUKUS. Well done. Subscribed!
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.
The delay in opting for a nuclear submarine was a blessing. Firstly, the invention of an ultra-long-life maintenance-free nuclear reactor core was only a recent development, and previous itterations of the nuclear sub were inferior. Secondly, China will not be a serious threat to the Western Alliance for decades. Thirdly, a mix of mid-sized conventional subs for patrols close to Australia and large nuclear subs for patrols thousands of kilometres from our submarine bases would be more economical anyway given the extreme price the US is charging for their nuclear subs.
Compared to what the French were going to charge, an insane $7 billion per sub when the UK builds Astutes for £1.5 billion and Virginia are built for $2.8 billion. Australia is investing substantially to buy into the US/UK nuclear submarine enterprise to be sure it has had to pay in about $8 billion to be admitted to the club (which is now on its sixth generation of SSN; Royal Navy had HMS Dreadnought, then Churchill class, then Swiftsure, then Trafalgar, now it has pretty much just finished building its seventh Astute class, as well as its Dreadnought SSBN). SSN-AUKUS will be the sixth generation of British SSN, similarly US is on around the same iteration. France is only on its second; it started building its first SSN, the Rubis class, in the 1970s, until 1990 and three of the Rubis are still in service! The oldest still in service was laid down in 1983! And the class was considered dogshit until they did a complete rebuild of the initially flat-faced bow. They still have three of that first generation in service, slowly being replaced by their second Suffren generation.
People can carp that the UK is "dependent" on the US, the reality is that by having the 1958 nuclear agreement by which the UK was able to receive US nuclear technology, especially the nuclear propulsion and to buy the missiles and re-entry vehicles (but not the "physics package" of the UK nuclear deterrent) the UK has saved countless billions and got a better capability. The Frenxh have retained complete sovereign control and have paid through the nose for it; they paid more, to have a worse submarine and fewer of them. The UK has worked closely with the US, chosen to use some US designs (still built in the UK, with the nuclear reactors built by Rolls-Royce in Derbyshire, for the boomers the warheads built at AWE Aldermaston, UK subs are their own design, for example Astute has space for 38 weapons, whether torpedo or sub launched Tomahawk or sub Harpoon.. the US 688 class, and the Virginia class, not including their VLS, have space for 26 weapons with four tubes, compared to 38 with six tubes for Astute). So Australia will be buying into an extremely mature submarine nuclear enterprise that has been going for 70 years, produces the best subs in the world both American and British, while also maintaining their own industry for example UK SSN have British built and designed sonar, torpedoes and combat system... the next generation will probably have a joint US/UK/AUS combat system and Mark 48 ADCAP / Spearfish replacement, as Australia wants to buy American on that. But compared to the massive cost France has paid for inferior submarines, and during the cold War built 6 SSNs of a single generation that were perhaps equivalent to a Soviet Victor I, the UK built around 20 SSN over four distinct, iterative generations.
Buying into this nuclear submarine club will be expensive and hard work, but once you go nuclear you go all nuclear. Having 8 SSN will be a fantastic capability for the RAN, it will bind the three core AUKUS Anglophone democracies even closer, and bringing Australian engineering know how and universities and another 25 million people will add even more brains to the existing nuclear enterprise, the SSN-AUKUS will be a fantastic sub and Aus will probably start by doing joint crewing of the four Virginia class that will be based in Perth (along with one Astute rotating) and eventually Australia will fully crewing and buy one of those Virginias, and slowly a second and third, while the US continues at least four of its own subs. Fremantle will have a standing joint British Australian American submarine force in Western Australia of 8 SSNs (four American, three Aus, one British), which will checkmate China. Their trade and vital imports from the middle east will be utterly stopped by such a nuclear attack sub forxe in Fremantle that can transit ro the Strait of Malacca or South China Sea
It will be glorious
hell yea. this is your best work yet, hh. big up that
Ok white boy lmao 🤡
Holy! Nothing makes me happier than a new hypohystericalhistory upload. Best channel on YT ngl
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
@@grosey11 The question of where to direct resources was a major issue, Australia understood that if the Nazis won the battle of North Africa, conquered Egypt and cut thr Suez Canal, that would gravely endanger Australian national security and its economy. Churchill also said that ultimately if they had to choose between protecting Egypt and Australia, then Australia would come first. And pretty much as soon as Japan declared war, Australian troops in the Med were sent back and by 1942 were engaged against the Japanese Empire.
@@PosthumousAddress they weren’t sent back. It was a political furore that Churchill resisted, knowing the value of Australians as shock troops. MacArthur was on the record as having little regard for Australian troops. Insisting that they fought in backwaters and not gain unnecessary glory on the island hopping trip across the South West pacific.
Thank you.!!! I’ve gobbled up almost all of your
RUclips and TicToc content! THANK YOU!! I’ve learned so much!
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.
Outstanding ,rewarding the viewer with a broad understanding of the AUKUS program beyond the typical media coverage of the “ hurt feelings “ of the French . Capabilities , time lines and strategic threats all mandated a different solution to the one on offer from the French program and superficial review of the Australian political issues makes it clear why this was not acted on initially. Most of note however is the absolutely correct analyses of the ridiculous characterization of China as a victim of the same international world order that transformed it in 40 years from a country with limited industrial base and severe poverty to an economy nationally in contention with those of the West. The benefits of participation in this world order were afforded the Chinese despite their complete disregard for intellectual property rules , poor access to Chinese domestic markets for western companies and predatory trade practices with governments subsidies for key industries that were designed to erode overseas industrial capacities. Chinese attempts at hegemony in trade relations with many overseas trading partners awakened the world as to what the new Chinese amended rules based order would look like and their rapid military buildup has tipped their hand as to the mechanism by which they plan to amend these rules. Well done.
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
Well, that was excellent. Thank you.
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
Another awesome dissertation, thanks again you for your excellent work mate 👍
This is such a great video. One of the most objective and unbiased videos.
Thank for your increase immersion in my cold water play-through.
The US and Australia have bled and died together along with Britain for hundreds of years (thinkaboutthat)and we will stand shoulder-to-shoulder until the end of time. Never be ashamed of having an alliance, its just like a family...ie-The only people you would fight and die for. It should be taken very seriously. The drums are beginning to beat once again my brothers
Sometimes siblings(allies) go off the rails.
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.
20 AIPs is insane, they would have to be tiny German size SSKs, which would take an age to transit to their patrol areas (and in fact have to noisily run their diesels all the way in their transit to patrol area)
It’s been too long. This is much anticipated, thanks!
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
Great work. Well articulated. Keep ‘em coming
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.
Thanks!! Fantastic, dealing with all aspects. Rebuts the nonsense we often hear in the MSM about how nuclear submarines are unnecessary.
The MSM also exaggerates and leaves information out. They're lying to the Australian population about the nuclear submarines. The costs, the manufacturing and operation of the vessels.
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?
Love everything you do. Thank you for all the great content
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.
That 2 hours went by quick. Great vid!
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?
Aukus is not about submarines (Australia will lease 2nd hand US boats) but about building the facilities that would support basing of US subs in Australia.
Sort of ... however it will also be building the AUKUS submarines with the UK. Long term there are many areas where they will collaborate using the AUKUS framework.
wow this is informative & wow does the media miss-represent military facts!
One of the first in line! Excellent work.
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.
This is a good manner of information delivery.
I would like to say the amount of information constantly being given without sectioned blocks does make it either slightly confusing or slightly boring… slightly.
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?
Excellent work again!! Thank you sir!
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
Given Virginia builds up to block VII have been programmed out to the 2040s, its likely the UK Dreadnohght programme has been a testbed for a lot of new tech the US will adopt
Let's not get carried away. The whole Australian Navy is like, 50 ships...
DO A COLLABORATION WITH PERUN. FOR THE LIVE OF GOD.
I think part of the issue might be that H3 does a lot of Australian centric content, whilst Perun is specifically prohibited from discussing Australian defence and procurement subjects - so any remaining overlap might be limited.
@@sir_vixprohibited or simply doesn’t cover it?
@@cameroncarley7958 He doesn't cover Australian stuff as he works for the Australian government as a defence analyst
Awesome video man.
"Go big or go home.........good on ya, Aussies"
-The God Of Procurement
we always fuck up the procurements. Why?
What an excellent presentation. Thanks
I still belive Australia ought to try and aquire a squadron of B-21 stealth bombers. They dont require air refueling due to its long range and can carry far more cruise missiles than the fleet of neuclear submarines for less money. This is thought as being in addition to the subs. UK should do the same
I agree with you 100%. Submarines can sneak around but they are so expensive that you can only afford to have a few of them, they can't be everywhere at once, and they have to return to port to rearm which can take weeks. B-21s have the range to take the fight to the enemy, launch large numbers of standoff weapons from a safe distance, and then fly back to rearm and do it all again the following day. Their capability for the sustained delivery of meaningful military effects seems limited only by the availability of munitions, the cost of jet fuel, and the limits of crew fatigue, and far exceeds that provided by a slow moving armada of naval warships with missile magazines of limited depth. They would be a good asymmetric option for an island nation like Australia. No invading amphibious naval force could withstand repeated ALCM attacks from even a small fleet of B-21s for long. Facing destruction, an invader would be obliged to withdraw long before they landed on Australian shores.
Given that there have been recent indications that the US would be willing to provide them, it seems strange that the recent Australian Defence Strategic Review ruled them out. No reason was given, at least in the report released to the pubic. Even if they cost $1B each, it seems like a very cost effective way to defend Australia when compared to the cost of the AUKUS submarine project, and could be made available in a much shorter time frame. There must be details that they are unwilling to discuss. Perhaps they felt that a similar capability could be provided more cost effectively by P-8A Poseidons carrying LRASMs or C-17s carrying palletised JASSM-ERs.
Hugh White is a vocal advocate for scaling back the surface vessel fleet, and instead investing more in air power and submarines.
c-17 can do what we need for long range strike. Look up 'Rapid Dragon is a palletized and disposable weapons module',
As an American, hopefully not.
We don't need any of you making strategic decisions we will have to clean up.
@@timmilder8313 We are under the same command, no reckless mistakes like Trump Macron or Merkle. ⚡🦅
@@timmilder8313 As a middle power, it is not in Australia's interest to initiate a strategic conflict with any nation, but it is in their interest to be able to deter military adventurism in their northern approaches by having the capability to sink warships i.e. aircraft carriers, and destroy forward-deployed missile launchers, before they can threaten their northern bases, and to be able to contribute significant capability to their alliance arrangements.
Stationing strategic bombers on Australian soil has advantages for the US in terms of dispersal of assets, complicating the planning of aggressors, and having broader access to aircraft maintenance facilities. This is why the US has been rotating 20% of their B-2 Spirit strategic bomber fleet, the slow motion and recallable component of their nuclear triad, through RAAF Amberley. (i.e. 2022 Bomber Task Force deployment component of the Enhanced Air Cooperation Initiative under the Force Posture Agreement between US and Australia).
www.eurasiantimes.com/alarming-deployment-us-b-2-bombers-are-stationed-in-australia/#:~:text=The%20image%20from%20Planet%20Labs,in%20Australia%2C%20which%20is%20unprecedented.
In addition, larger production runs bring down unit cost. An Australian squadron would allow US aircraft to undergo maintenance at a location in the south western pacific beyond the reach of all but the longest range Chinese ICBMs. That would be handy if USAF Anderson AFB was threatened and US strategic bombers stationed there were obliged to disperse at short notice.
Australia's military planners get nervous when US presidents i.e. Trump make comments about withdrawing from NATO and wanting US allies to become more self-reliant; so, it comes as no surprise that they would be considering the possibility of reinvigorating their own long-range bomber capability, something they lost after the retirement of their F-111s.
The acquisition lead time for B-21s is likely to be long, and you only get to fight with the assets that you have and not the ones you would like to have; so, now is the time for them to have that discussion. History has shown that Australia will stand with the US when it goes to war. All they need is the capability to join the fight.
Wow! Im a real nerd when it comes to military matters, I had no idea about how good the Dreadnought (and SSN-AUKUS) will be. You make a very persuasive case for how awesome the class will be; and how cool that parts of the UKs next SSN will have parts coming from an Australian supply chain, vice versa
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.
Does the C stand for Canada?
@@mikefish8226Canada should join AUKUS, we need nuclear subs without a doubt.
Extremely informative video. Thank you for posting.
Another excellent presentation 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
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.
This isn't your Dad's ITAR.
Going into AUKUS is joining what has been an exclusive club of two for almost 70 years. There will be no export of this tech from Aus to other parties.
Hasn't happened. And who knows when it will happen. Its like my brother in Law. He has and old car he wants to restore in his garage for 26 years, it sits and sits.
So true.
Y'know what, isn't it a bit backwards that one builds a massive surface fleet, carriers and all, without a potent submarine force to protect it? To me this sounds more like a case of keeping the shipyards and industries humming, paying people wages lest they get some ideas about changing government. A bit of parade and propaganda probably doesn't hurt too. It's just their fumbling opaqueness about what they're doing, along with a fair sprinkle of face saving and court intrigues, that is endangering everybody else =="
Very good video. Thank you
Honey wake up, hypohystericalhistory uploaded.
This was honestly a very magnificent video, I really enjoyed watching it.
Another component of nuclear waste generated by Australian industry is the nuclear waste that is a biproduct of extracting and refining mineral resources. Most of this refinement is done overseas (which has generated controversy). It seems likely that Australia will have to accept the burden of processing nuclear waste in some forms regardless of having a nuclear energy industry,
one good reason to get the French nuclear boats. LEU
Either that, or pay through the nose for it.
Then, there is the consideration of the ethical responsibility for responsibly disposing of that wasted- the US doesn't exactly have a great record on that front, eh?
That is a complication that I hadn't considered... (Cheers? Ugh...)
better off with French boat where that is not so much a problem, and no specialist onshore facilities required
@@alanbstard4so you want to potentially lose a war because of a few keg’s of waste? There are thousands of reactors all around the world who deal with this disposal without a problem day in day out. Speak for yourself not the rest of Australia
@@PLAYER2035 i am pro nuke sub. read my comments
Great Video really enjoy all your content, thanks