Ex-Nuke ET here. Served from 89 to 97. I was a staff pickup in Charleston and went on to the Springfield, SSN-761. Have a good job in the states. But if one of our partners needs the help, I am game.
Yes, about time we carried more of our share of the load, long overdue but a bigger thanks to the US and UK for sharing this technology, it will be brilliant, eventually.
@SAM BRICKELL ... interesting, given a certain Chief Petty Officer Weapons submariner sitting next to one is currently laughing his sox off at such a ridiculous statement...
How could it have happened ten years ago. Ten years ago the US would not have been willing to share this technology with Australia. Even five years ago I doubt it would have have flown as an idea.
@@AndrewinAus The Americans agreed to give Canada the option to buy Trafalgar in the 1980s. But the Cold War ended and the Canadians started cutting defence spending.
no it isn't. French nuclear boats allow us to keep our sovereignty and no need for specialist shore facilities. we need a mixed fleet, D/E and nuclear as nuke boats are too big for South China sea. New Virginia class boats are $2.8 Billion each. What do we get for $368 billion?
This great news for Australia. This is currently the most advanced submarine in the world and will give Australia tremendous offensive and defensive capabilities.
They will sit out in the ocean doing nothing until the last hour of their, and ours, life. It may not be an hour if those hypersonic missiles live up to expectation. Australia's greatest act of stupidity ever!
Because it’s a lousy deal and hard sell, just prepping the public for the difficult conversations. The usual lame excuses, jobs, security, China China China, Meghan and Harry, so on and so forth.
At what cost??? This is taxpayers funding the global conquest of other nations that Australia should have no business in . We are a middle power that’s run very inefficiently, we should be acting as such. I’m all for a extremely powerful defence force that’s capable of not only defending our continent & strategic interests. That also deters a attack or blockade of our nation through a battle of attrition. We have a huge amount of resources, that’s very thinly defended right now. We are ‘ the prize “ of the developing bric’s nations if we stay on our current course! If I were India & Indonesia, I’d be talking amongst themselves saying “ look at these imperial racist white colonialists , following around the USA thinking they are the sheriff of the Southern Hemisphere. Sitting on all of those resources , we have the disposable men to throw at them & have the cheap labor to turn those resources into huge profits.
Mr Expert, how many countries are currently building SSNs? 7, USA, Russia, UK, China, France, India aaaaand Brazil So would that not make Australia the 8th?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riachuelo-class_submarine @@Red.Hot.Chili.Beans63 The Alvaro Alberto was laid down in 2018 and is expected to be fully operational in the early 2030s. The Riachuelo class DE Subs have been under construction since 2010. Riachuelo itself was commissioned on 1 Sept 22. Brazil is way ahead of Australia and is using its own reactors.
I think a lot of young men would be excited to serve on a modern nuclear submarine. By the time Australia starts taking delivery of the subs, I could see a spike in Navy volunteers.
@@Harldin Uh, sure.. Okay. You're so inclusive. Without men, there would be no Navy. They are literally the backbone of the armed forces. If all women decided to leave the military, no one would notice.. When men stop showing up for recruitment, it's a serious problem.
The deal also means that Australia will become part of the Astute replacement program with the UK at the end of the decade. This is useful because UK subs have a modular design that allows for production to be more easily reproduceable. As expected they will use pre-built and fueled reactors from Rolls Royce to avoid Australia having to develop nuclear cycle capability.
It's about time Australia also ventures into producing its own indigenous weapons. It's strategic neighbours, India and Japan are doing it. No reason Australia should lag behind
Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, head of submarine task force, was not able to convince us with his experienced and professional knowledge on ABC TV last night. This Admiral did not have much to say to convince the folks, there was no depth in his analysis which was not backed by any statistics. His continuous look at the bottom of the screen was bit of a mystery, his performance was poor. I do not think we have a case here to justify such a huge budget for the project. How this officer got promoted to the position and later selected for the project, remains a huge question too?
There's NO way RAN will receive the Block V Virginia SSNs any time soon, however RAN will acquire a submarine that is arguably 'the best' hunter killer submarine in existence. The problem [s] with respect to the UK build are another issue - running two different designs is insane, it'll invite DoD's dysfunction, inefficiencies, and defies logic. This decision gives new meaning to the inked culture of "Australianised". WHY a straight MOTS/FMS for 8 Virginia platforms has not been the only consideration invites what can be seen from the moon - problems on steroids. If reports are factually correct, no wonder the UK PM is cock a hoop. Inserting billions into opening up a 'third rail' of US production is a win win for Australia/US. It also buys off key Senate/House players with pork.
The Astute was a non starter, production from start to finish is 10 years at the moment and we could not give 2/3 of the Astutes of our 5 so far to Australia. Best hunter killer submarine in existance, debatable. The Astute would actually be a better fit for Australia, its cheaper by half and is better by most than the virginia class, we just cannot push them out fast enough. This is more about NATO and especially the USA and UK have access to Nuclear submarine bases, maintenance and logistics in the region. The SSN (R) which is the follow on is the more likely long term replacement for the Virginias, built under license in Australia but that is so far off as to be almost non existant for quite some time. I would still question why Australia actually needs Nuclear submarines at all, the bases and such i understand but the actual submarines im not so sure about, but that is their decision. For my mind the Japanese proposal was probably a better fit for Australia than a nuclear submarine.
@@JohnRWMarchant I agree. The Japanese subs made sense to me . Australia needs to spend money on so many items & quick smart. Nothing makes sense to me .
Nuclear subs fix the range and loiter problems of the RAN's current submarines. Also this allows the RAN to have true blue water capabilities for our fleet. The Collins were great for holding the crucial choke points to our north however lack the ability to keep up with our ships without giving itself away. Atm, if our surface fleet requires our subs they either, have to be pre-positioned at the conflict zone or we get our allies to escort us, taking away their own resources. This is an overall win for the ADF.
@@concernedaussie1330 It makes sense as i said because of the bases, which ia what the US and UK want for Austrailia. The UK and US no longer build conventional submarines so we would have no skin in the game if it were a choice of conventional submarines. To make bases in Australia that can maintain a refit nuclear submarines would only make sense if Austrailia had them themselves. I suspect thats what the deal is really all about, NATO having a nuclear foothold in the southern hemisphere via base or bases in Australia to counter the Chinese. I never understood originally why Austrailia went with the French submarine anyway, thats not saying they are not good, its just they are notorius for delays, cost over runs and such like that even within their own military. For me the Japanese submarine always seemed to fit the bill better for Australia. Of course its a long time from now until you actually get the submarines. Ive heard 2030 for delivery of the virginias, so Australia has 7 years to get its men trailed and the facilities built to look after the new subs. It also has to get this deal through the US congress and senate to actually share the nuclear technology. All in all time will tell whether this was a good move or not. I suspect for the USA and the UK its a good deal in the end. Also Sky News might be wrong as it might make Australia the 8th country to operate nuclear submarines if Brazil gets theirs in 2028.
@@BaconGold790 Oh i agree nuclear subs offer you options that conventioal do not, it depends what your goals are and what you see the ADF getting involved with. Conventional submarines on battery are still quieter than nuclear, then of course you have AIPS which i believe was in the mix with the Japanese proposal. The problem with nuclear is there is a whole other level of cost, not only for the units but also to build the bases and facilities to build, maintain and refit them. Austrailia has the facilities at the moment for the conventional ones, yes might have to update and stuff but it is there, nuclear facilities are a back to the drawing board and build them all, yes you have dry docks but that is pretty much where it ends, everything else is pretty much from scratch to build. Then of course there is the training of people, not only to crew the submarines but also civilian dock workers to maintain them, also facilities for nuclear waste, environmental stuff, the list is endless. The UK only builds on Astute every 10 years there about, our old subs are mostly still sat in Devonport awaiting disposal and all because of the nuclear problem. So yes many would see it as a win for the ADF, but it is a long term thing and things change very rapidly and who is to know what the world will look like in 2040 by the time you start building your own, let alone in 7 years when you recieve your virginia class submarines. Then of course this has all got to get past senate and congress in the USA to share these secrets with Australia.
The Virginia class has the production capacity whereas the UK does not moreover the USN has the training pipeline with robust facilities for training to include 3MTS-moored training ships that are former front line SSN use exclusively for training..More senior officers and chiefs will have to be seconded to active Virginia USN SSN to acquire the skill set need to command and operate a SSN. So this seriously shortens the lead time My only hope is the AUS name the first sub will be HMAS Washington-since we have USS Canberra. My real hope is it will help prevent a war with the PRC in a great pacific war II
yeah, I was wondering about things like that "AUKUS" Class, Naming. Washington has appeal, and to be fair we would then need to have a London I guess :)
Australian ships all have a pre-nominal of His Majesty's Australian Ship (HMAS) and NOT ... HMS! Contrary to your assertion, the UK does have the capacity to build the required number of nuclear submarines. Auth: BAE Systems...
The US submarine production is frankly already behind schedule. The US has a mandated program of 2 boats delivered per year, for the last 5 or so as per a Congressional report deliveries have been at 1.2 boats per year. At the current production rate the numbers of older boats being decommissioned is outstripping the numbers being added to the fleet. I suspect part of this deal will involve Australia paying a significant amount to increase production in the US and then adding production here. The increasing concern over China's intentions is the only reason that the US has decided this time not to rebuff Australia's request for access to this particular technology.
Australia need to consider ordering half a dozen, off the shelf, French/German or Swedish conventual subs to tide them over until the nuclear subs are commissioned.
The complacency of Australia is startling. They have had nearly a decade to get to this point. Building diesel subs was an incredible waste and now we are playing catch up to China
Brother, the entire world's complacency is startling. Even here in the US our population is almost null and void to the threat because it isn't a "homeland" threat. Those of us that are veterans see it differently, but we are a small minority...
we can't afford it. We're a welfare state like most western nations. State own health and hospitals, education etc. We are not going to get rid of that. We have privatised other things which was stupid. Engaged in US style global economics which was stupid. We could afford it if we stopped useless mass migration which costs us about $40 billion a year We sent manufacturing offshore mainly to China, assisting their rise to power, just like the USA did because the globalists ( read USA ) wanted it that way. The deal was we ruin the economy of the country for the benefit of free traders, and the USA takes up our defense Well, the chickens have come home to roost. Just when you need a strong ally, you find out we're fucked! We need both D/E and nuke boats. Looking for DE boats with France was ruined cos of the way they went about it. Also, every time we've bought overseas subs, the USA appears and says " add our combat system ". Then the while thing needs an internal redesign. US systems is an excellent in a boat designed to take them. The Virginia boats when servicing is required could be away for 2 years! I'm still waiting for an itemised account of what we get for $368B
We are way behind the 8ball. Our politicians have alot to answer for when it comes to our's being one of the smallest military in the world. We've got a thriving economy with nothing to protect it. We are effectively sitting ducks.
We are a very long way from being the smallest Military in the world, we are ranked by most military commentators as being well inside the top 20 military powers. While the ADF does not look that big, the quality of equipment, personnel, training, logistics, command and control, ISR, maintenance, ability to rapidly deploy, is far superior to 90% of countries. Yes there are a lot of countries with much bigger Armies but only a few with the ability to deploy a Brigade any distance from home as well as Australia could, a fair few with bigger Air Forces, some with bigger Navies, but very few with the same ability Australia possesses to deploy a Ftr Sqn, or a Naval TF away from home. In Australia's case quality is far better than quantity due to the vast distances involved.
With a coastline over 25000kms. What are 5 subs going to do? This is all about supporting the US military complex. These will be dud's just wait and see.
@@andretorben9995 no idea have you, they are not to defend but to actively protect the shipping lanes of SE Asia...The land will protect us , nothing survives up there, no water.
Just wondering why the US are refitting a Los Angeles Class boat at the moment, is this going to be the stop gap boat or boats, I’ve also heard there may be up to five LA class with a reasonable portion of life remaining, up to 10 years or so?
Why you want an old los Angeles class submarine as a gap when Australia getting the newer Virginia class for the interm gap in 2030s and. In 2040 Australia building the newer UK SSNR submarines. Australia has no choice but to wait 9 years from now before Australia will operate a nuclear powerd submarine
@@Nathan-ry3yu I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that the “Old Los Angeles Class” is the current mainstay of the US fleet and that the Virginias are entering service slower than the USN wants. I didn’t say anything about wanting one, I wondered why they were refitting at least one of them. To me it would make some sense that Australia could end up with one as a training platform to learn how to operate them and then how to tactically and strategically deploy them, 9 years of this training would be invaluable even if on older systems, this saves years of basic training once we get the Virginias.
Your literally the only person who has heard that. 😂😂 Seriously can I have what your on it must be great!!!...3 Virginia with option to buy 2 more in 2030. And 2040..aukus class run by us and uk with us systems...hope that clears up any confusion.
@@peterjames9610 The US is having to keep the LA 688 Class going because they cannot currently produce Virginia's fast enough. In fact the LA Class are retiring faster than they are being replaced. That is why some are going through a life extension to keep hulls in the water until they can be replaced.
This deal is just a joke. America now has only 2 shipyard able to build war shops. Currently they are struggling to supply enough ships for US already. How long you think this deal will be realised? Probably forever!
I remember that. I agreed. I was the calmer who said you are to rent one of those aircraft carriers from the US. I don’t want to Eugenia said it cost too much money. And I said rent. So I remember you you’re a good looking man.
@@AP-ei4jt Chinee subhunters are worthless outside of shallow waters around home ports. Australian SSNs aint going to be charging into the S China Sea, theyre going to be launching 1000 mile maritime strike Tomahawks and 300 mile sublaunched LRASMs and ripping apart your worthless amphibious assault junk.
@@axle.australian.patriot Show proof you have them and have deployed them. Otherwise it's pure Aussie drunken pipe dreams. Check out the Dubai Arms Fair, the Chinese ones are real. That's the difference.
The way these fellows talk is similar to the way the Ukrainian TV commentators did before the war broke out. Now those Ukrainian commentators are all in Poland.
@@axle.australian.patriot If Aussies dare to challenge China, do you think Sydney and Melbourne will be safe? Get whatever submarines you guys want. Just don't keep on bringing up China nonstop. China is pretty sick of these neocons. They are the menace of the planet.
Same way as the US Navy fast attack submarines are armed. A combination of Mk 48 CBASS torpedoes (which Australia already uses) and Tomahawk missiles with conventional warheads.
@danLT The Virginia Class as is and with the upcoming Block 5 variant with the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) is already armed to the teeth it has the original hunter killer characteristics and with the latest block has essentially become a 'bomb truck' as well. hypersonic cruise missiles when they are finally fielded will only accentuate that. I would imagine going into the future the SSNx (Improved Virginia if you will) will only further that trend.
@@alanbstard4 I agree, it was pointed out in one of the public statements that Australia is not acquiring Virginia Class with the 'Virginia payload module' so that would suggest that Block V are not part of the plan. That variant of the boat is not what Australia desires, or it has capabilities that are not a fit for Australia's operational requirements.
Futile, in 10 -15 years these 'new gen' subs themselves will be sea slugs. Chinese are working on magnetohydrodynamic drive. Why wouldn't Australia move quickly forward with 'defence shield' tech and A.I. as viable programs, instead of priority spending 1.5 - 2 Bil on each of these 'old' bad boys.
@ch33psk8 Wow, very impressive 👏 Imagine being you trying so hard. Australia does not stand alone, and it's not Australia that China needs to worry about. But hey, as long as you feel significant. Maybe you should go and live in China seeing how much of a hard on you have for them instead of being a keyboard warrior 🤔
@@germanicbarbarian3473 Have lived and worked in southern China (Nanning), it's a cess pool. People are pretty cool tho. It's the CCP that is truly dangerous. 'keyboard warrior' warm tea burns harder than you.
Don’t get ahead of yourself Aus, Us was a forward operating base for their subs with supply and servicing. Catastrophically expensive, you can’t afford it, whatever is unveiled even if US build and pay for installations.
@@alanbstard4 USD and USA are in a clear decline. They’re not coming back either... more concerned arguing about transsexuals and other perverts than real issues such as their on the edge of a cliff economy.
Ex-Nuke ET here. Served from 89 to 97. I was a staff pickup in Charleston and went on to the Springfield, SSN-761. Have a good job in the states. But if one of our partners needs the help, I am game.
❤️🇦🇺🇬🇧🇺🇸❤️About bloody time!
We've been allies for a century !
Welcome to the team, Australia!!
We've been a team for many decades.
@@buildmotosykletist1987
Not Team Nuclear Subs.
It's about time.
Yes, about time we carried more of our share of the load, long overdue but a bigger thanks to the US and UK for sharing this technology, it will be brilliant, eventually.
Come in suckers.
Nuclear powered not nuclear armed. Big dif
Heck even America's Virginia subs are not nuclear-armed.
@SAM BRICKELL
... interesting, given a certain Chief Petty Officer Weapons submariner sitting next to one is currently laughing his sox off at such a ridiculous statement...
Brilliant move from Australia. This should happened 10 years ago. Marius
We should have gone with Trafalgar class instead of Collins.
How could it have happened ten years ago. Ten years ago the US would not have been willing to share this technology with Australia. Even five years ago I doubt it would have have flown as an idea.
@@AndrewinAus
The Americans agreed to give Canada the option to buy Trafalgar in the 1980s. But the Cold War ended and the Canadians started cutting defence spending.
no it isn't. French nuclear boats allow us to keep our sovereignty and no need for specialist shore facilities. we need a mixed fleet, D/E and nuclear as nuke boats are too big for South China sea. New Virginia class boats are $2.8 Billion each. What do we get for $368 billion?
@@brettmitchell6431 we should be going for mixed fleet D/E and nuke boats. This AUKUS deal is a rip off
This great news for Australia. This is currently the most advanced submarine in the world and will give Australia tremendous offensive and defensive capabilities.
@@WalkInTheLIte Why? Not having a go, genuinely curious.
@@WalkInTheLIte good point.
@@WalkInTheLIte I suspect whoever would threaten Australia.
They will sit out in the ocean doing nothing until the last hour of their, and ours, life. It may not be an hour if those hypersonic missiles live up to expectation.
Australia's greatest act of stupidity ever!
@JJJ Tee ; LOL. Silly comment, missiles can't target any subs.
we Americans love and trust you Aussies ...... but its a shame this is necessary .......
i don't think it is necessary. We should have got French nuke boat. USA is doing this reluctantly, not due to trust
Our defence industry is so secure, how did the content of the deal get leaked?
Because it’s a lousy deal and hard sell, just prepping the public for the difficult conversations. The usual lame excuses, jobs, security, China China China, Meghan and Harry, so on and so forth.
@@AP-ei4jt it’s a great deal !👍 but the details should not be leaked
Albo and co leaked it .. directly to Keating Rudd then on to China
@@edwardbec9844 that is a given !
Wasn't Defence Industry, would have been leaked by the politicians, possibly even deliberately, it didn't happen until it didn't really matter anyway.
Yes it’s about time Australia pays its share this should be good to assist our allies
At what cost??? This is taxpayers funding the global conquest of other nations that Australia should have no business in . We are a middle power that’s run very inefficiently, we should be acting as such.
I’m all for a extremely powerful defence force that’s capable of not only defending our continent & strategic interests. That also deters a attack or blockade of our nation through a battle of attrition. We have a huge amount of resources, that’s very thinly defended right now.
We are ‘ the prize “ of the developing bric’s nations if we stay on our current course! If I were India & Indonesia, I’d be talking amongst themselves saying “ look at these imperial racist white colonialists , following around the USA thinking they are the sheriff of the Southern Hemisphere. Sitting on all of those resources , we have the disposable men to throw at them & have the cheap labor to turn those resources into huge profits.
$368 Billion for 8 subs? That much to assist our allies does not assist us in defending our country
@@alanbstard4 100% i don't like it one bit.
our share of what? Who's fault do you think this is anyway?
@@alanbstard4 it's the Australian government's fault for firstly for being a bunch of gutless cowards .
Mr Expert, how many countries are currently building SSNs?
7, USA, Russia, UK, China, France, India aaaaand Brazil
So would that not make Australia the 8th?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riachuelo-class_submarine
@@Red.Hot.Chili.Beans63 The Alvaro Alberto was laid down in 2018 and is expected to be fully operational in the early 2030s. The Riachuelo class DE Subs have been under construction since 2010. Riachuelo itself was commissioned on 1 Sept 22. Brazil is way ahead of Australia and is using its own reactors.
@@Harldin Thanks for the clarification.
@@Red.Hot.Chili.Beans63 Australia may actually get our first before Brazil with it being built in the US.
could be we get ours before Brazil
I think a lot of young men would be excited to serve on a modern nuclear submarine.
By the time Australia starts taking delivery of the subs, I could see a spike in Navy volunteers.
2055
Agreed
Australia has had female Submariners since 1998, so not just young men.
@@Harldin
Uh, sure.. Okay. You're so inclusive.
Without men, there would be no Navy.
They are literally the backbone of the armed forces. If all women decided to leave the military, no one would notice.. When men stop showing up for recruitment, it's a serious problem.
The deal also means that Australia will become part of the Astute replacement program with the UK at the end of the decade. This is useful because UK subs have a modular design that allows for production to be more easily reproduceable. As expected they will use pre-built and fueled reactors from Rolls Royce to avoid Australia having to develop nuclear cycle capability.
Hopefully the US will also allow Australia to purchase the B21 bomber in the future
they won't
It's about time Australia also ventures into producing its own indigenous weapons. It's strategic neighbours, India and Japan are doing it. No reason Australia should lag behind
agreed
So...my Strine's not the best, but wouldn't these be called "Seppo Subbos"?
Not bad Dick(strine right there), much too long, some smart wit will shorten that up quite a bit.👍
Oz should focus on helping the jobless Aborigines in the bush
They get enough cash from the G and mining rights and dot painting..
They also own whole towns.
we do but they destroy everything we give them
Lol , those Aussie really think to use those expensive toys? How cute!
Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, head of submarine task force, was not able to convince us with his experienced and professional knowledge on ABC TV last night. This Admiral did not have much to say to convince the folks, there was no depth in his analysis which was not backed by any statistics. His continuous look at the bottom of the screen was bit of a mystery, his performance was poor. I do not think we have a case here to justify such a huge budget for the project. How this officer got promoted to the position and later selected for the project, remains a huge question too?
exactly
There's NO way RAN will receive the Block V Virginia SSNs any time soon, however RAN will acquire a submarine that is arguably 'the best' hunter killer submarine in existence. The problem [s] with respect to the UK build are another issue - running two different designs is insane, it'll invite DoD's dysfunction, inefficiencies, and defies logic. This decision gives new meaning to the inked culture of "Australianised". WHY a straight MOTS/FMS for 8 Virginia platforms has not been the only consideration invites what can be seen from the moon - problems on steroids. If reports are factually correct, no wonder the UK PM is cock a hoop. Inserting billions into opening up a 'third rail' of US production is a win win for Australia/US. It also buys off key Senate/House players with pork.
The Astute was a non starter, production from start to finish is 10 years at the moment and we could not give 2/3 of the Astutes of our 5 so far to Australia. Best hunter killer submarine in existance, debatable. The Astute would actually be a better fit for Australia, its cheaper by half and is better by most than the virginia class, we just cannot push them out fast enough. This is more about NATO and especially the USA and UK have access to Nuclear submarine bases, maintenance and logistics in the region. The SSN (R) which is the follow on is the more likely long term replacement for the Virginias, built under license in Australia but that is so far off as to be almost non existant for quite some time.
I would still question why Australia actually needs Nuclear submarines at all, the bases and such i understand but the actual submarines im not so sure about, but that is their decision. For my mind the Japanese proposal was probably a better fit for Australia than a nuclear submarine.
@@JohnRWMarchant I agree. The Japanese subs made sense to me . Australia needs to spend money on so many items & quick smart.
Nothing makes sense to me .
Nuclear subs fix the range and loiter problems of the RAN's current submarines. Also this allows the RAN to have true blue water capabilities for our fleet. The Collins were great for holding the crucial choke points to our north however lack the ability to keep up with our ships without giving itself away. Atm, if our surface fleet requires our subs they either, have to be pre-positioned at the conflict zone or we get our allies to escort us, taking away their own resources. This is an overall win for the ADF.
@@concernedaussie1330 It makes sense as i said because of the bases, which ia what the US and UK want for Austrailia. The UK and US no longer build conventional submarines so we would have no skin in the game if it were a choice of conventional submarines. To make bases in Australia that can maintain a refit nuclear submarines would only make sense if Austrailia had them themselves. I suspect thats what the deal is really all about, NATO having a nuclear foothold in the southern hemisphere via base or bases in Australia to counter the Chinese.
I never understood originally why Austrailia went with the French submarine anyway, thats not saying they are not good, its just they are notorius for delays, cost over runs and such like that even within their own military. For me the Japanese submarine always seemed to fit the bill better for Australia.
Of course its a long time from now until you actually get the submarines. Ive heard 2030 for delivery of the virginias, so Australia has 7 years to get its men trailed and the facilities built to look after the new subs. It also has to get this deal through the US congress and senate to actually share the nuclear technology. All in all time will tell whether this was a good move or not. I suspect for the USA and the UK its a good deal in the end.
Also Sky News might be wrong as it might make Australia the 8th country to operate nuclear submarines if Brazil gets theirs in 2028.
@@BaconGold790 Oh i agree nuclear subs offer you options that conventioal do not, it depends what your goals are and what you see the ADF getting involved with.
Conventional submarines on battery are still quieter than nuclear, then of course you have AIPS which i believe was in the mix with the Japanese proposal. The problem with nuclear is there is a whole other level of cost, not only for the units but also to build the bases and facilities to build, maintain and refit them. Austrailia has the facilities at the moment for the conventional ones, yes might have to update and stuff but it is there, nuclear facilities are a back to the drawing board and build them all, yes you have dry docks but that is pretty much where it ends, everything else is pretty much from scratch to build.
Then of course there is the training of people, not only to crew the submarines but also civilian dock workers to maintain them, also facilities for nuclear waste, environmental stuff, the list is endless. The UK only builds on Astute every 10 years there about, our old subs are mostly still sat in Devonport awaiting disposal and all because of the nuclear problem.
So yes many would see it as a win for the ADF, but it is a long term thing and things change very rapidly and who is to know what the world will look like in 2040 by the time you start building your own, let alone in 7 years when you recieve your virginia class submarines.
Then of course this has all got to get past senate and congress in the USA to share these secrets with Australia.
Don't complain when taxes are increased. The $ have to come from somewhere.
Stop immigration. That costs us about 40 billion a year
should be looking to pump out more corvettes as well.
That's being planned, hold that thought.
Mustangs are better
A lot more!
@@donaldmatthews7226 And more useful than Warships that can't travel from Perth to Darwin without re-fueling.
rather get D/E subs from Germany to suppliment the Virginias
Praise the US
The Virginia class has the production capacity whereas the UK does not moreover the USN has the training pipeline with robust facilities for training to include 3MTS-moored training ships that are former front line SSN use exclusively for training..More senior officers and chiefs will have to be seconded to active Virginia USN SSN to acquire the skill set need to command and operate a SSN. So this seriously shortens the lead time My only hope is the AUS name the first sub will be HMAS Washington-since we have USS Canberra. My real hope is it will help prevent a war with the PRC in a great pacific war II
HMAS Washington would be a better name than an RAN ship being designated a RN ship. ;)
yeah, I was wondering about things like that "AUKUS" Class, Naming. Washington has appeal, and to be fair we would then need to have a London I guess :)
Hell yeah bro that is a great idea mate ☺️
Australian ships all have a pre-nominal of His Majesty's Australian Ship (HMAS) and NOT ... HMS!
Contrary to your assertion, the UK does have the capacity to build the required number of nuclear submarines.
Auth: BAE Systems...
The US submarine production is frankly already behind schedule. The US has a mandated program of 2 boats delivered per year, for the last 5 or so as per a Congressional report deliveries have been at 1.2 boats per year. At the current production rate the numbers of older boats being decommissioned is outstripping the numbers being added to the fleet. I suspect part of this deal will involve Australia paying a significant amount to increase production in the US and then adding production here. The increasing concern over China's intentions is the only reason that the US has decided this time not to rebuff Australia's request for access to this particular technology.
LOL under investing during the LNP years. Sounds like a Labor problem
Its all a matter of choosing which bully you fear the most. What a joke
that's about it
Didn't Australia agree to cede the Port of Darwin to China?
rent it, although they do own half of Newcastle port
Australia need to consider ordering half a dozen, off the shelf, French/German or Swedish conventual subs to tide them over until the nuclear subs are commissioned.
Grumpy Australian The Japanese Soryu class would have been great with their new batteries.
exactly
The complacency of Australia is startling. They have had nearly a decade to get to this point. Building diesel subs was an incredible waste and now we are playing catch up to China
Where was your post and advice 10 years ago ?
Brother, the entire world's complacency is startling. Even here in the US our population is almost null and void to the threat because it isn't a "homeland" threat. Those of us that are veterans see it differently, but we are a small minority...
China has six SSNs, which spend most of their time broken down in dock.
we can't afford it. We're a welfare state like most western nations. State own health and hospitals, education etc. We are not going to get rid of that. We have privatised other things which was stupid. Engaged in US style global economics which was stupid. We could afford it if we stopped useless mass migration which costs us about $40 billion a year
We sent manufacturing offshore mainly to China, assisting their rise to power, just like the USA did because the globalists ( read USA ) wanted it that way. The deal was we ruin the economy of the country for the benefit of free traders, and the USA takes up our defense
Well, the chickens have come home to roost. Just when you need a strong ally, you find out we're fucked!
We need both D/E and nuke boats. Looking for DE boats with France was ruined cos of the way they went about it. Also, every time we've bought overseas subs, the USA appears and says " add our combat system ". Then the while thing needs an internal redesign. US systems is an excellent in a boat designed to take them.
The Virginia boats when servicing is required could be away for 2 years!
I'm still waiting for an itemised account of what we get for $368B
As long as no Australians are there when it gets nuked .......
We are way behind the 8ball.
Our politicians have alot to answer for when it comes to our's being one of the smallest military in the world.
We've got a thriving economy with nothing to protect it.
We are effectively sitting ducks.
We are a very long way from being the smallest Military in the world, we are ranked by most military commentators as being well inside the top 20 military powers. While the ADF does not look that big, the quality of equipment, personnel, training, logistics, command and control, ISR, maintenance, ability to rapidly deploy, is far superior to 90% of countries.
Yes there are a lot of countries with much bigger Armies but only a few with the ability to deploy a Brigade any distance from home as well as Australia could, a fair few with bigger Air Forces, some with bigger Navies, but very few with the same ability Australia possesses to deploy a Ftr Sqn, or a Naval TF away from home. In Australia's case quality is far better than quantity due to the vast distances involved.
Albansleezy: We welcome the new AUKUS submarines ! they will not carry Nuclear Missiles ! - Not this year anyway...
What a waste of money. Is this a joke? In case the Australians haven't noticed, the World is WAY beyond submarines....
What continent do you live on?
With a coastline over 25000kms. What are 5 subs going to do? This is all about supporting the US military complex. These will be dud's just wait and see.
Submarines have the most sophisticated technology around. You're clueless
I guess that's why the Chinese and Russians are building them as fast as they can! You are misinformed.
@@andretorben9995 no idea have you, they are not to defend but to actively protect the shipping lanes of SE Asia...The land will protect us , nothing survives up there, no water.
I think this deal should be investigated. Something fishy is going on. Or some smart ones knew how to fool and squeeze so much money....
exactly
Just wondering why the US are refitting a Los Angeles Class boat at the moment, is this going to be the stop gap boat or boats, I’ve also heard there may be up to five LA class with a reasonable portion of life remaining, up to 10 years or so?
Why you want an old los Angeles class submarine as a gap when Australia getting the newer Virginia class for the interm gap in 2030s and. In 2040 Australia building the newer UK SSNR submarines. Australia has no choice but to wait 9 years from now before Australia will operate a nuclear powerd submarine
@@Nathan-ry3yu I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that the “Old Los Angeles Class” is the current mainstay of the US fleet and that the Virginias are entering service slower than the USN wants. I didn’t say anything about wanting one, I wondered why they were refitting at least one of them. To me it would make some sense that Australia could end up with one as a training platform to learn how to operate them and then how to tactically and strategically deploy them, 9 years of this training would be invaluable even if on older systems, this saves years of basic training once we get the Virginias.
Your literally the only person who has heard that. 😂😂 Seriously can I have what your on it must be great!!!...3 Virginia with option to buy 2 more in 2030. And 2040..aukus class run by us and uk with us systems...hope that clears up any confusion.
@@nathanquinn3499 heard what, this has been on defence news outlets for some time, what bit don’t you think is correct?
@@peterjames9610 The US is having to keep the LA 688 Class going because they cannot currently produce Virginia's fast enough. In fact the LA Class are retiring faster than they are being replaced. That is why some are going through a life extension to keep hulls in the water until they can be replaced.
This deal is just a joke. America now has only 2 shipyard able to build war shops. Currently they are struggling to supply enough ships for US already. How long you think this deal will be realised? Probably forever!
They'll be made out waterproof cardboard
Cardboard? Won't the front fall off? ruclips.net/video/3m5qxZm_JqM/видео.html
Rubbish.
I remember that. I agreed. I was the calmer who said you are to rent one of those aircraft carriers from the US. I don’t want to Eugenia said it cost too much money. And I said rent. So I remember you you’re a good looking man.
It’s these few multibillion dollar subs against a thousand million dollar unmanned sub hunters. Pray for Australia.
LOL, they're as useless as the PLAN's Carriers. They've lost quite a few of them and one went rogue.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 you should sign up for tube duty and confront those robot hunters. Talking shit is not going to get you anywhere.
Are you still blabing on about AUVs lol Do you really think Chyna is the only cuntry that has them 🤣🤣
@@AP-ei4jt Chinee subhunters are worthless outside of shallow waters around home ports. Australian SSNs aint going to be charging into the S China Sea, theyre going to be launching 1000 mile maritime strike Tomahawks and 300 mile sublaunched LRASMs and ripping apart your worthless amphibious assault junk.
@@axle.australian.patriot Show proof you have them and have deployed them. Otherwise it's pure Aussie drunken pipe dreams. Check out the Dubai Arms Fair, the Chinese ones are real. That's the difference.
The way these fellows talk is similar to the way the Ukrainian TV commentators did before the war broke out. Now those Ukrainian commentators are all in Poland.
Pathetic CCP trolling.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 when you troll you got to come up with some convincing arguments. You talk too much trash.
Are you suggesting a war is on the horizon?
@@axle.australian.patriot If Aussies dare to challenge China, do you think Sydney and Melbourne will be safe? Get whatever submarines you guys want. Just don't keep on bringing up China nonstop. China is pretty sick of these neocons. They are the menace of the planet.
@@AP-ei4jt 👈🏻Wumdao 🤖
LMFAO. Now we can stop China?
Yes, we can. That's why the CCP is so angry. They've been put back in their box.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 too late. How may 2 Dollar shops in your area?
@@allahsnackbar2757 : None, they've all closed, replaced by cafe's.
the collective Chinese immigration is more dangerous than the Chinese navy
Australia is and always be a sitting duck 🦆
Japan lost 150,000 troops in the New Guinea campaign. Australia and America 7,000 each.
AngloCeltic Australia will endure long past the CCP.
@@brettmitchell6431 Did Japan have hypersonic missiles and drones?
@@brettmitchell6431 japans tactics was japans problem
Average CCP trolling. Needs improvement.
@PositivePawPaw : Japan had very good tactics, excellent in fact ask any military historian.
nuclear powered ? Okay ........ how will they be armed ??
Same way as the US Navy fast attack submarines are armed. A combination of Mk 48 CBASS torpedoes (which Australia already uses) and Tomahawk missiles with conventional warheads.
@danLT The Virginia Class as is and with the upcoming Block 5 variant with the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) is already armed to the teeth it has the original hunter killer characteristics and with the latest block has essentially become a 'bomb truck' as well. hypersonic cruise missiles when they are finally fielded will only accentuate that. I would imagine going into the future the SSNx (Improved Virginia if you will) will only further that trend.
@@AndrewinAus that block V has nothing to do with Australia
@@alanbstard4 I agree, it was pointed out in one of the public statements that Australia is not acquiring Virginia Class with the 'Virginia payload module' so that would suggest that Block V are not part of the plan. That variant of the boat is not what Australia desires, or it has capabilities that are not a fit for Australia's operational requirements.
Futile, in 10 -15 years these 'new gen' subs themselves will be sea slugs. Chinese are working on magnetohydrodynamic drive.
Why wouldn't Australia move quickly forward with 'defence shield' tech and A.I. as viable programs,
instead of priority spending 1.5 - 2 Bil on each of these 'old' bad boys.
They are not old. Plus, you can upgrade them. And China says a lot of things.
@@germanicbarbarian3473
China does lots of things too.
Should have thought about this 10 years ago
Active ships
Aircraft carriers - 2 + (1 Fitting Out)
Landing helicopter docks - 3.
Amphibious transport docks - 8.
Landing ship tanks - 36.
Landing ship medium - 36.
Ballistic missile submarines - 8.
Nuclear attack submarines - 12.
Attack submarines - 58.
Destroyers - 50
Frigates - 43
Corvettes - 72
Missile boats - 107
Submarine chasers - 26
Gunboats - 17
Mine countermeasures vessels - 36
Replenishment oilers - 16
Auxiliaries (various) - 233*
@ch33psk8 Wow, very impressive 👏 Imagine being you trying so hard. Australia does not stand alone, and it's not Australia that China needs to worry about. But hey, as long as you feel significant. Maybe you should go and live in China seeing how much of a hard on you have for them instead of being a keyboard warrior 🤔
@@germanicbarbarian3473 Have lived and worked in southern China (Nanning), it's a cess pool. People are pretty cool tho. It's the CCP that is truly dangerous.
'keyboard warrior' warm tea burns harder than you.
@ch33psk8 and a broken clock is right twice a day.
At long last welcome to the nuclear age Australia Our heads have been in the sand for far too long. Next build somr Nuclear power stations .
Don’t get ahead of yourself Aus, Us was a forward operating base for their subs with supply and servicing. Catastrophically expensive, you can’t afford it, whatever is unveiled even if US build and pay for installations.
it's ridiculous. Should've stuck with the French offer for nuke boats
US warmonger UK Australia Canada Anglo-Saxon wolf pack the world gangster
Yeah huge benefit... we get a front seat for ww3 🙄🙄🙄🙄
it's all about defending the global status quo, an economic system that has been no good for us
@@alanbstard4 USD and USA are in a clear decline. They’re not coming back either... more concerned arguing about transsexuals and other perverts than real issues such as their on the edge of a cliff economy.
@@karenthomson9749 hi Jaren, I fear you may be right
Oh, Australia is helping to shape the US plans for the indo-pacific. That's what this is all about..........
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
exactly
DELIVERY DATE - 2055 !!! 🤣😂🤣
Harah Rowan about time all we got to get more dams and electricity driven electricity
Kitten Warz!
🐾🐾🐾💩