All the military tech is Uber fascinating and hopefully in 50 years they will declassify some of the wonder engineering involved in epic building projects like a stealth sub. Stealth subs are engineering marvels.
Think it was UK tech who gave to Americans rafting if fittings and equipment on subs for quietness,tiles surrounding the submarine for stealth,latest sonar tech that Americans were blown away what they were seeing, Virginia Vs astute in one on one games ,the Americans couldn't believe it , pump jet tech,UK gave to USA , don't be thinking UK going cap in hand one way tech transfer lol
@Phillip Banes don’t get offended. It wasn’t any form of criticism toward the U.S. merely the nature of things. Here, in the U.S. we are more concerned about internal issues and problems and less likely to absorb any positive news. And to be honest, it’s the way it should be. No hero ever parades himself.
@Phillip Banes well, I must say, you don’t sound very intelligent yourself at this point. Are you having a bad day? A bad week? What did I say that was so terrible that I deserve these insults from you, a complete stranger?
@Phillip Banes I have to add, your comment was so unnecessarily rude that I have to wonder, what was your point? You get off at insulting others? Are suffering from superiority/inferiority complex? Are you so desensitized emotionally that you forget there are people on the other side? This is such a disappointment. As a recent naturalized American citizen I am so proud to find out these pieces of information about my new country that I wanted to share my thoughts. Thank you for sharing yours.
The US doesn't have the capacity to build extra subs for Australia just like that. They are barely cranking out 2 per year. They are trying to build them as fast as possible just for themselves to replace the Los Angeles class subs and keep up with China. So far they've got 22 and are planning on building 66. Australia is still going to need the facilities and ports to maintain it's own subs even after acquiring them so setting it up to build them there is not foolish at all.
the North Korean sub fleet is mostly small coastal diesel subs including midget subs it really shouldn't be on the list as a comparison, India and japan have bigger sub fleets with Actual subs
@@BelloBudo007 : The Shang class is a mess. They obviously claim to have 12 but only 6 have been seen and the 6th disappeared and also disappered from their website.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 China does not “claim” anything because they do not reveal their military data at all. China is believed to have 6 Shang class, and also 6 Type 94 which makes the 12 nuclear subs. However recent images show China actually has atleast 8 type 94s, so the number is 14 with more being built regularly. China keeps their military power discrete, this is a common misconception that China is inflating numbers when these numbers are based on outside estimates not China.
And the cost would not be too different for the US either, Australia costs our defence programs differently, we use a whole program cost, other countries only cost by unit, some includes weapons, some do not. We cost whole of life of the program, real costs. The US does it very differently and have lifetime costs ect in different areas of their budgets and spending.
Please stop reporting on this. I can't bare to witness this terrible use of money anymore. A10 Warthog = 10M.... Can you imagine how much BRRRRRRRT you could get with $200B
I'm getting sick of it too, but national defence is an important issue, Australia was federated over two issues, national defence and border security. The federal government should get it's nose out of everything else.
@@shiznitts That would have to be about the biggest load of rubbish that I've actually read on this subject really and I'm on the fence about it and hate nuclear. Imagine having an item when you're a small and sparsely populated island with nowhere near the capability of potential opponents that might make them think twice about doing something naughty or make it way way more risky? Almost obsolete ground pounders against Gen6 fighters,long range bombers, aircraft carriers and huge amounts of men/equipment?🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@TheFreshman321 oh yeah. That is true. Because of the early decommissioning of the first Rubis class subs. Currently they only have 6 then. Still they would have 10 overall. So the stat above makes no sense. And the UK also only has 6 because the last two Astute are still under construction.
France has 3 Rubis and 1 Barracuda operational, with 1 more Rubis returning to service soon. Plus the 4 Triomphant ballistic boats. So 8 with a 9th soon.
@@tobiwan001 Perle is being rebuilt after the fire. They had to replace her entire forward section. So only 3 Rubis until she is back. Suffren is the only Barracuda operating. The second is just starting sea trials this year.
The way the royal navy builds its subs we have the capacity to make 3 sans and a extra ssn but what is the point in that with the ssns we keep our workforce we spread out the cost and new tech is improving every astute till aukus starts being built as they will be. It takes money,training, and follow through on defence pacts like this we just gave you the plans for our type 24 frigates.
Nuclear submarine for now, next to counter other nuclear subs with nuclear weapons , Australia must be ready to be armed with nuclear weapons or the subs would be only ", half the man". ".Without balls"
Unless you want to live in a country called Australia but dominated by the CCP and have your 1st language be Chinese (and not English), then you should spend money to have a modern and capable navy. You will need it. Australia cannot expect the US (and US taxpayers) to defend every friendly country (like Australia) if those countries are not willing to spend an appropriate amount of money and resources to build up their own military forces. We're in this together. Ed Schultheis Washington state, USA
@@edschultheis9537 well said. Is worth clarifying that Australia is a non nuclear state. They are not getting nuclear weapons. Only nuclear powered subs. Agree Europeans, Saudi Arabia, Australia etc. Must share the burden ( cost). American taxpayer is broke. National debt 31 trillion plus. Freedom is not free. Denver Colorado USA.
No country alone will be able to counter China, it will be a team effort to provide the naval deterrent to stop them bullying their neighbours. Australia will be a valuable part of that team Will, Nottingham UK (lol I liked how the Americans did this bit)
well what other option is there? buy from Russia or CHina no way .... buy from France, that didnt work. Build your own? the ASC government run sub company was to blame for most of the cost overruns with collins and Australia gov companies never care its not there money so there is not many other options. Fixed term contract from germany or the Uk or Japan right from the start under Rudd would of been the best option
The US can’t exactly hand them nuclear missiles with the submarine. It is some thing Australia can easily outfit themselves. There would be pro Tess. There are silos in there they could easily fit nuclear weapons
@@ncq3 Dude, wtf are you talking about? You couldn't be more wrong. Neither the Virginia class nor the Astute class is designed for carrying nuclear missiles. They won't even fit. Trident D5 II nuclear missiles are 44 feet long/7 feet in diameter and weigh 130,000 pounds each. Tomahawks (which Virginia/Astute are designed for and carry) are about 20 feet long/2 feet in diameter and weigh about 3,000 pounds each. Virginias are 377/460 feet long depending on version. Astutes are 318 feet. Ohio class nuclear subs are 570 feet. Virginias and Astutes are about 7800 tons (10,200 tons for Block V), Ohios are 18,000 tons. Columbias are going to be over 20,000 tons. Australia can barely afford nuclear powered subs. You think Trident D5s are cheap or something? Not sure about Astutes, but max number of Tomahawks a Virginia will be able to carry is 40 (Block V). One Trident D5 is equal to 7 Tomahawks in size so no way they are going to just carry 5 to 6 missiles. Proof? 4 Ohio class subs that were converted to SSGNs carry 154 Tomahawks in 22 silos. That's 7 in each one that used to hold 1 Trident D5 nuclear missile. You're not going to be able to just swap in a Trident D5 into a Virginia/Astute sub without major modifications if it would even be feasible. It took about 3 years to convert each of those Ohios to SSGNs. Also, if they could carry nuclear missiles then there would be no point in building a whole new Columbia/Dreadnought class of nuclear subs that are going to carry 16 and 12 Trident D5 missiles respectively. Stop talking about stuff you have absolutely no clue about and spreading misinformation.
ha how do you know that when nobody does even the NAVY. The marketing material? everyone thought the T90 was one of the best tanks in the world and there active protection system obviously doesnt even work if Ukraine can take out so many with Javlins. The Astute needed a lot of US experience and tech to build so its impossible to be the best if the US are helping the UK build it , nobody helps the americans they do it all alone so they can back up there claim. Also most subs are classified how do you know the exact dive depth and sonar range of a french nuke sub when they dont even release that info open source?
A Labor government white paper identified the need for a significant increase in our submarine fleet from 6 to 12. The LNP government then got elected and mucked around for 9 years of indecision and only right at the end of their time stitched up half a deal. So blame the Libs they are the ones who dicked it up.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 Are you sure about that? My understanding is the French offered us the Suffern class and we said no due the refuelling issue. The Turnbull government wasn’t happy with the loss in sovereignty in having to rely on the French construction and refueling of the reactor.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 My understanding was that the Australian government refused nuclear subs, and wanted them diesal powered which was the issue because they were designed as nuclear.
Astute cost about 3bn AUD x 8 = 24 Bn. Where do all these crazy $368 AUD come from.. Even adding 3 x 6bn for 3 Virginia subs only comes to 18 Bn.. + 24 Bn = 42 Bn.. I think the the SSN Aukus will be based on the Dreadnaught class, the UK's Ballistic missile subs, not so much the Astute Class.
The vast majority of the price tag comes from you needing to build the infrastructure to produce the Aukus class yourselves (you've insisted on acquiring the ability to manufacture your own eventually, which is a massive undertaking for a nation that has never built or had any experience with nuclear before). Developing a domestic nuclear capability, not to mention hiring, training and paying a massive workforce to work on this project that you don't currently have is why the price tag is so high.
@@Music5362 Hey, no-one forced you to build an entire new industry - that's your government's choice. But think of it in the long run - how will your economy benefit in 20-30 years time from a massive investment in skills and technology with a brand new workforce of highly trained technicians able to apply their skills to far more than just submarines? Plus in the future, when you build your own replacements, you won't be beholden to anyone else's price tag. But the initial price you pay for that kind of future autonomy is definitely hefty at the beginning - there's no getting away from that.
Maybe. because transfer of nuclear technology you know that u.s is not that open incomes of nuclear tech ut just between u.s and uk who contribute their nuclear research for a long time
No, Australia costs theri defence acquisitions in a different way, therefore different overall costings, in our total number we take more into account and price as a full program, not just a cost price for the assett.
Because we need to do so more than just buy the boats. We need to build an East coast base , upgrade our West cost base, build a shipyard, upgrade our heavy maintenance facility, build a training facility and on and on it goes.
I liked the idea of the South Australian submarine base, but all so far we have heard is talk, no action. How imminent is the Chinese war aggression off? This is like a puff piece for a pie in the sky!
pretty good overview but just a few points to add. China is currently building heaps of Nuke subs with another 12 to add very very soon so its 24 soon with more to come after that at least to 30 and all this by 2035. keep in mind they have about 55 diesel subs and that wont change, they are replacing all the old ones ming class so by 2030 there sub fleet will be all modern with there worst sub being a kilo class which is a bit behind a collins class. The rule is you can build up to 3 modern diesel subs for 1 nuke attack sub thats why Russia and china has so many but the US fleet is better as all there subs combined are far more expensive. It also costs 5 times the cost of a diesel sub to build a ballistic missle nuke sub which the US has 12 vs 4 for most other nuke countries. Germany can build a modern diesel sub like the type 214 for $750 million, the US can build a Virginia class nuke sub for $2 billion. The collins class ended up costing so much ( the most expensive diesel sub by far ) because it was the biggest with the highest range, it also has the best battery recharge generator rate so can stay underwater the longest without needing AIP. Australia paid over double the price of a normal sub just for that an extra 10 percent capability as they always do.
There Navy and sub fleet is pretty bad to be honest considering the size of the country . Its 4 times weaker then China and Australia the US and Japan are far closer to China , there bases are closer . they also left out Taiwan South Korea etc
Why go nuclear submarines? I would opt to go with Space Nuclear hypersonic missiles like the Chinese. Imagine China start selling Space Nuclear Hypersonic Missiles like the one they tested last year circling around the Earth before vertically diving down. Hell, imagine every country will want at least 10-20 of their own. It's coming.
I think it will be better not to spend these money but rather empower the RSPCA to train whales and arm them with nuclear torpedoes. We've got lots of whales around Australia coastlines.
Can anyone explain to me why new submarines are not autonomous. No onboard crew required, smaller, probably cheaper and expendable and if nuclear powered they would only need to resurface to re-arm. Actually come to think of it , I’m a pacifist, let’s forget the whole thing.
You dont know much about subs then with that commet. There perfect for Japan. Diesel sub is harder to detect and better around islands why would you waste money on a long range sub if you were Japan you dont need too you can build more diesel subs and have more
I always wonder how the RAN or Australian Government can afford these subs. With GDP 50% less of the UK or France, 10 times less than China and 15 times less than USA. How will the people of Australia going to pay for it? If you say 20,000 job, say $150k a year x 30yrs equals to about 108 billion and where is the rest of the 260 billion? This is seriously a debt trap for Australia staged by both the US and UK. They are clearly laughing all the way to the bank.
Australia with the Attack class submarines were going to spend possibly $90 billion. The defense of Australia is expensive, but most of the $360+ billion is being spent in Australia creating Australian jobs and developing the Australian economy. Not much is being spent in the UK or the USA. You will be building and operating a BETTER submarine, possibly the BEST submarine in the world at that time... As the American admirals said, "If Australia doesn't want them, well, I will KEEP them!"
@@ronclark9724 these Virginia class subs are way too big for RAN to defend the coastline of Australia. Collins Class will be something ideal in terms of size and crew. Unless of course, we are being forced to fight somebody else’s war in the South China Sea. Otherwise I couldn’t think of anything else as to why we need these ginormous subs.
@@ronclark9724 plus there’s no way all the $360+bln will be spend locally. Basic calculations of 20000 jobs for 30 yrs is roughly at $108bln (ok say $200bln with the inflation). The remaining $160bln will definitely go straight to the USA and UK treasury.
China got bigger fleet but they noisy as hell and no where near usa on spec.The other countries are worse again even Russia got massive problems with they own boomers.
@@justonecornetto80 China has many allies 🤦 The BRICS, the SCO and OPEC countries has already made the move of the first phase de-dollarization. And if you think your Allies will protect your country, you probably need to look at Ukraine now that is a Sneak Peak of the Reality of war.
@@jonatikoisuva2695 BRICS isn`t an alliance. Do you really think Brazil, India and South Africa would got to war for China?🤣🤣 As for OPEC, it`s nothing more than an oil cartel which have to sell to the west in order to survive. Without western money, tech and weapons, the House of Saud would be overthrown within a month. Same goes for the Sheikhs in UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain. Renewables are also coming to the forefront as well and as they do, OPEC diminishes in importance. The SCO? Please don`t make me laugh! A club made up mainly of impoverished kleptocracies is not an alliance. If the west decided to call in all their debts, they would be eating rats just to fend off starvation.
@@justonecornetto80 Do you even know what an alliance is ? 😳 An alliance doesnt mean a military support group 🤦 BRICS is an economy alliance that has 1/3 of the worlds money, if any of the BRICS nation goes to war, they will support that country economically, that is why they a keeping the Russian economy afloat during this Ukraine war 🤦 OPEC depands on the west to survive ? 🤣 Bro the west needs the OPEC, without OPEC's Crude oil your industries and economy will collapse. Renewable energy is expensive and it takes decades to even build multiples of energy plants for a just one state and if energy spikes, the cost of living will spike as well 🫰And The SCO is both economy and a military alliance and is rich with Natural resources and minerals 🤷 The great reset is coming and there is nothing the west can do about 🫡
more crap about subs we may never get, was 150 billion then 200 billion then 350 billion now 368 billion tomorrow it will be 450 billion , so much rubbish being spread
@@stephen10. France never had any nuclear sub for Australia, no country will buy that because France would have to refuel the reactor every 10 years and if you refused there climate change demands they could just blackmail you and then you have a sub you cant use anymore just sitting there. The US is mroe trusted then France and therefore the deal went ahead
The naval and sub power of Britain today is a absolute joke. We should’ve never allowed ourselves to be out of the top 4 navy’s in the world (in the sense of a ally has a big ass navy - joint effort type thing.) being a island nation mostly relying on naval power it’s a absolute joke. The UK nowadays is a absolute joke. And we’re only known as Britain when were doing something potentially bad.
What a div. The RN is the fourth largest navy by displacement. It uses big vessels, not hundreds of tiny ones. And it's a global reach Blue Water navy. Only the US, France and the RN have that capability. Stop being a loser.
Which nations would you put ahead of our navy? US, China, India, Japan? Maybe Russia provided enough of their vessels and crew have been maintained properly (Interested to know)
the Navy of the UK today is in the top 10 in the World and has a better nuke sub fleet and Carrier fleet then China right now. just 33,000 sailors you know countries like Brazil have 80,000 with a Navy worse then Australia. remind everyone how many times the UK has lost in Navy battles before you claim there a joke, they easily beat China in 1850 remember and China is the 3rd oldest country on Earth so they had a huge head start
I think the combination of your new type 26 frigates (12 of them is it?) Plus the AUKUS subs will be very potent. Bear in mind we (the UK) will also have Type 26's and AUKUS subs so we should have great interoperability
@@willn1958 the Type 26 is a terrible choice for Australia in my opinion it was great for the UK and Canada but is terrible for AUS. Why build a type 26 when they could have build that Spanish frigate F100 just a modified Hobart class and built it 2 times cheaper then the UK ship. 10% less capable at at least half the price and it was all proven, worst still the UK frigate is terrible at anti ship and anti air and is completely optimized for anti sub which i think for any ship is just a silly idea as Subs beat ships not the other way around, the Spanish frigate was more balanced and good at everything there was no risk or cost overrun in any of that , Spain could of built it cheap
@@nic7048 When you build expensive defense kit in your country, most of that expense is developing your economy, not another country's economy... Furthermore you develop spare parts in country as well, instead of having your kit sit collecting dust and rust while waiting for spare parts from half way around the world...
Nuclear submarines are not for close quarter combat just like you don't fly a b117 into enemy territory to drop the payload. It's the actual type of payload that's the deterant which in our case will be neither long range ICBMs nor nuclear. All of the big 5 UN security council members have nuclear submarines fitted with nukes and their purpose is just that, an offshore, mobile nuclear deterrent. We are essentially upgrading from a corolla into the bat Mobile but still leaning out the window to shot the same Glock.
Actually the Virginia class we are getting is equipped with tube launched Tomahawk missiles with a range of over 1000 kilometres. When added to the extended cruising range of a SSN the analogy is more like a leaning out the window with a 120 smoothbore cannon firing an APDS. I assume you know the difference between a Harpoon missile and a Tomahawk missile.
@@pwillis1589 how much damage can the non nuclear warhead missiles do? Will we get to make the missiles in Australia? Can they get passed the Chinese anti missile defence (the Ukrainian shot down 60% of what Russians thrown last week with their ad hoc systems)? What air coverage and protection will our newly acquired sub get when we go on the offensive and have anti sub machinery of all kinds above it? Lastly the subs and our navy is just too few to effectively defend the Australian coastline if Chinese navy invades and even less capable going abroad, how do you prosecute the military actions? If your answers includes support from the US then we are back to square one with trying to contain or counter China. This is beyond war machinery and about strategic planning where we either chose to be foreigners located in the Asia Pacific or accept being the most European cultured Asians in the region. No nation in ASEAN+1 which surrounds Australia apart from the Philippines is for armament or USA government's rule based order in the region and Australia export % to China is only second to Taiwan.
@@user-zy9nd2ei2j Depends on what you are trying to hit. Air coverage and protection? Dude, the whole point of a nuclear sub is to not be detected in the first place. The US doesn't fly air cover or have ships traveling with its own subs unless it's attached to a carrier strike group. Subs are not only for launching cruise missiles but also torpedoes against enemy ships. The point is to make China nervous and have to deal with another threat against both it's land and sea targets. Getting these subs is still better than what Australia has got or nothing at all. China is/has threatened Australia already so it's in their best interest to put China at risk. China got all pissed off when this deal was announced so it's already having an effect.
@@user-zy9nd2ei2j 500kg of HE will obliterate a city block or vaporisea a point target. The Tomahawk also has the ability to take a variety of payloads and are significantly more technologically advanced than Russian missiles, much more accurate and stealthy. Do not compare Russian and US missile technology it is chalk and cheese. You seriously overestimate the Chinese navy's ability to project force onto the Australian mainland. They are incapable of successfully doing that. The best they are capable of is an attempt to cut off our supply routes the same way the Japs tried in WWII. That means defeating the US Navy. Once again you give the Chinese Navy too much credit. China will not act militarily, they know they are still too weak, they are not stupid. SSN will however make Australia the dominant military force in the region for any other eventualities well into the future.
Lots of information not there , how many are actually in service , , what about Russia and it's ability to track all submarines , China will also have that capability , and have new missile systems , new underwater torpedoes high speed , see the media knows most the public has no clue about the huge advances in military technology , like directed energy weapons , A,I assisted guidance systems in all types of missiles , the arm's race has been continuously running for a long time massive advancements one side developing a new system the other has to develop new better systems to counter it , like the new Russian hypersonic missile systems , space based tracking systems Ultra high tech scanning underwater through solid rock , America has secret weapons systems they can't even talk about because the world simply wouldn't believe that kind of advancement was possible at this time , many countries have weapons that could literally split earth in half , so most of what the public see is obsolete , Russia has already got unbelievable advanced missile systems . .
@@anthonytatum9772 Whether it is 1 or 100, India is still a country that operates nuclear subs...and they have more planned that will enter service well before any of Australias...they left India off the list because this news article is presented by incompetent amateurs.
I just bought a Sub for Lunch. Didn't cost anywhere near that price. 😆
A lot more healthy too
never really thought about a submarine before until now they’re pretty cool
We also lead the world in incompetent politicians.
And stupid uneducated people who vote for Trumpo the dancing 🤡
Yeah
@@dominicpelle7841 exactly don't forget the people who voted for Bidens brain dead ass
Yep
Yeah we actually screwed up w Trump. Trump would of sided w Russia.
Virginia stealth is the killer👍
All the military tech is Uber fascinating and hopefully in 50 years they will declassify some of the wonder engineering involved in epic building projects like a stealth sub. Stealth subs are engineering marvels.
You should check Seawolf the best of the best, unfortunately, the US discontinued it because it is so expensive.
Not compared to the Astute, the Brits would have it for breakfast.
Think it was UK tech who gave to Americans rafting if fittings and equipment on subs for quietness,tiles surrounding the submarine for stealth,latest sonar tech that Americans were blown away what they were seeing, Virginia Vs astute in one on one games ,the Americans couldn't believe it , pump jet tech,UK gave to USA , don't be thinking UK going cap in hand one way tech transfer lol
It doesn't worth 46 billion dollars the actual price is 3 billion
I learn more about the U.S. from foreign sources than our own.
Great job! Keep it up!
@Phillip Banes don’t get offended. It wasn’t any form of criticism toward the U.S. merely the nature of things.
Here, in the U.S. we are more concerned about internal issues and problems and less likely to absorb any positive news.
And to be honest, it’s the way it should be. No hero ever parades himself.
@Phillip Banes well, I must say, you don’t sound very intelligent yourself at this point. Are you having a bad day? A bad week? What did I say that was so terrible that I deserve these insults from you, a complete stranger?
@Phillip Banes I have to add, your comment was so unnecessarily rude that I have to wonder, what was your point? You get off at insulting others? Are suffering from superiority/inferiority complex? Are you so desensitized emotionally that you forget there are people on the other side?
This is such a disappointment. As a recent naturalized American citizen I am so proud to find out these pieces of information about my new country that I wanted to share my thoughts.
Thank you for sharing yours.
Happy to have you as a citizen :)
@@samthomson6087 thank you 😊
If we can't get them here before our 2025 war what's the point? Added to the cost is the $835 million we paid France in compensation.
@Not Convinced LoL, and went backwards
Yes too little too late
@@douglasyoole4815 But we wouldn't have had the AUKUS agreement which is alot more than just submarines.
so some of our Polies can have comfy lives in England, Monaco, Israel and Bahamas
@Peter... : Good CCP trolling. Now back in your box.
Now that's a knife!!
Attempting to design and build nuclear subs in Australia is foolish. Buying a few from the US is an efficient and expeditious path.
The US doesn't have the capacity to build extra subs for Australia just like that. They are barely cranking out 2 per year. They are trying to build them as fast as possible just for themselves to replace the Los Angeles class subs and keep up with China. So far they've got 22 and are planning on building 66. Australia is still going to need the facilities and ports to maintain it's own subs even after acquiring them so setting it up to build them there is not foolish at all.
@@gigakrait5648 The US is the largest builder of nuclear subs in the world. They could also provide three of their existing Los Angeles class.
the North Korean sub fleet is mostly small coastal diesel subs including midget subs it really shouldn't be on the list as a comparison, India and japan have bigger sub fleets with Actual subs
both India and Japan dont have more subs! Japan has 21 India has about 17
The Shang class will not compete with Astute and Virginias. The sonar alone on these boats will dominate
'The sonar alone on these boats will dominate'. Unclear what you actually mean. I assume you're saying the Shang can not compete. Correct?
this is coming from the bloke that thinks he outsmarted the killbots
@@BelloBudo007 : The Shang class is a mess. They obviously claim to have 12 but only 6 have been seen and the 6th disappeared and also disappered from their website.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 I see. Thanks mate.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 China does not “claim” anything because they do not reveal their military data at all. China is believed to have 6 Shang class, and also 6 Type 94 which makes the 12 nuclear subs. However recent images show China actually has atleast 8 type 94s, so the number is 14 with more being built regularly.
China keeps their military power discrete, this is a common misconception that China is inflating numbers when these numbers are based on outside estimates not China.
Today’s episode is all about why Australia should be paying 48 billion dollars for each submarine. It’s all china and Meghan Markle’s fault 😂😂😂
And the cost would not be too different for the US either, Australia costs our defence programs differently, we use a whole program cost, other countries only cost by unit, some includes weapons, some do not. We cost whole of life of the program, real costs. The US does it very differently and have lifetime costs ect in different areas of their budgets and spending.
No, the actual question is how many of the sub count are in commission.
Showers on diesel boats. No way. Used to stow trash. Water is a resource.
Please stop reporting on this. I can't bare to witness this terrible use of money anymore. A10 Warthog = 10M.... Can you imagine how much BRRRRRRRT you could get with $200B
Going to be phased out before the end of the decade and not much good at anything except ground attack really?
I'm getting sick of it too, but national defence is an important issue, Australia was federated over two issues, national defence and border security. The federal government should get it's nose out of everything else.
@@oldbloke204 And a Nuclear sub is good at exactly what?
@@shiznitts That would have to be about the biggest load of rubbish that I've actually read on this subject really and I'm on the fence about it and hate nuclear.
Imagine having an item when you're a small and sparsely populated island with nowhere near the capability of potential opponents that might make them think twice about doing something naughty or make it way way more risky?
Almost obsolete ground pounders against Gen6 fighters,long range bombers, aircraft carriers and huge amounts of men/equipment?🤣🤣🤣🤣
3:19 France actually has 12 nuclear subs. You counted the SSNs and SSBNs for the UK (7+4) but only the SSNs for France. They actually have 8+4.
France has 6 SSNs
@@TheFreshman321 oh yeah. That is true. Because of the early decommissioning of the first Rubis class subs. Currently they only have 6 then. Still they would have 10 overall. So the stat above makes no sense. And the UK also only has 6 because the last two Astute are still under construction.
France has 3 Rubis and 1 Barracuda operational, with 1 more Rubis returning to service soon. Plus the 4 Triomphant ballistic boats. So 8 with a 9th soon.
@@anthonytatum9772 it’s 4 Rubis and at least 1 Barracuda with the 2nd in commissioning.
@@tobiwan001 Perle is being rebuilt after the fire. They had to replace her entire forward section. So only 3 Rubis until she is back.
Suffren is the only Barracuda operating. The second is just starting sea trials this year.
God bless America and her allies 🇺🇲🦅
The way the royal navy builds its subs we have the capacity to make 3 sans and a extra ssn but what is the point in that with the ssns we keep our workforce we spread out the cost and new tech is improving every astute till aukus starts being built as they will be. It takes money,training, and follow through on defence pacts like this we just gave you the plans for our type 24 frigates.
Best possible deal Australia 🇦🇺 could get!
if only to garentie a product at the end with a timeline and budget that wont change , far far more safe then the french option ever was
I saw my first third bathroom the other day. We are crumbling.
How is it possible for 8 submarines to cost $368 billion? This smells of corruption... 🤔
That`s the cost of the entire program including research and development, base construction, training and of course the subs themselves.
Stuff aint cheap, it's not just submarines, but a lot of infrastructure, especially around nuclear technology.
Nuclear submarine for now, next to counter other nuclear subs with nuclear weapons , Australia must be ready to be armed with nuclear weapons or the subs would be only ", half the man". ".Without balls"
You don't hunt a ballistic missile boat (SSBN) with another SSBN.
@Anthony Tatum I mean, there's SUBROC (Nuclear capable)
But that idea was abandoned for the U.S
India be like - oh my nuclear submerin are super stealth even repoters cant see them 😂😂
A pipe dream.
No expert here. But if Australia is no match to china, Russia, than what's the point on spending so much for this ?????
To help AUS remain a sovereign country in the next decades
Unless you want to live in a country called Australia but dominated by the CCP and have your 1st language be Chinese (and not English), then you should spend money to have a modern and capable navy. You will need it. Australia cannot expect the US (and US taxpayers) to defend every friendly country (like Australia) if those countries are not willing to spend an appropriate amount of money and resources to build up their own military forces. We're in this together.
Ed Schultheis
Washington state, USA
@@edschultheis9537 well said. Is worth clarifying that Australia is a non nuclear state. They are not getting nuclear weapons. Only nuclear powered subs. Agree Europeans, Saudi Arabia, Australia etc. Must share the burden ( cost). American taxpayer is broke. National debt 31 trillion plus. Freedom is not free.
Denver Colorado USA.
@Douglas Yoole well said. Enhancing deterrence, promoting stability.
No country alone will be able to counter China, it will be a team effort to provide the naval deterrent to stop them bullying their neighbours. Australia will be a valuable part of that team
Will, Nottingham UK (lol I liked how the Americans did this bit)
Has anything else happened in the World. Just asking for a Friend 😂
I heard a rumour about a pipeline being blown up and something about Iran and Saudi Arabia and a thing called BRICS but they're all just rumours.
I wonder in news cycles like this what is it they don't want us to know
We are being fleeced and thrown to the wolves. Best of both worlds.
well what other option is there? buy from Russia or CHina no way .... buy from France, that didnt work. Build your own? the ASC government run sub company was to blame for most of the cost overruns with collins and Australia gov companies never care its not there money so there is not many other options. Fixed term contract from germany or the Uk or Japan right from the start under Rudd would of been the best option
Nuclear submarines with no nuclear missiles is kinda useless.
The US can’t exactly hand them nuclear missiles with the submarine. It is some thing Australia can easily outfit themselves. There would be pro Tess. There are silos in there they could easily fit nuclear weapons
@@ncq3 Dude, wtf are you talking about? You couldn't be more wrong. Neither the Virginia class nor the Astute class is designed for carrying nuclear missiles. They won't even fit. Trident D5 II nuclear missiles are 44 feet long/7 feet in diameter and weigh 130,000 pounds each. Tomahawks (which Virginia/Astute are designed for and carry) are about 20 feet long/2 feet in diameter and weigh about 3,000 pounds each. Virginias are 377/460 feet long depending on version. Astutes are 318 feet. Ohio class nuclear subs are 570 feet. Virginias and Astutes are about 7800 tons (10,200 tons for Block V), Ohios are 18,000 tons. Columbias are going to be over 20,000 tons.
Australia can barely afford nuclear powered subs. You think Trident D5s are cheap or something? Not sure about Astutes, but max number of Tomahawks a Virginia will be able to carry is 40 (Block V). One Trident D5 is equal to 7 Tomahawks in size so no way they are going to just carry 5 to 6 missiles. Proof? 4 Ohio class subs that were converted to SSGNs carry 154 Tomahawks in 22 silos. That's 7 in each one that used to hold 1 Trident D5 nuclear missile. You're not going to be able to just swap in a Trident D5 into a Virginia/Astute sub without major modifications if it would even be feasible. It took about 3 years to convert each of those Ohios to SSGNs.
Also, if they could carry nuclear missiles then there would be no point in building a whole new Columbia/Dreadnought class of nuclear subs that are going to carry 16 and 12 Trident D5 missiles respectively.
Stop talking about stuff you have absolutely no clue about and spreading misinformation.
@@gigakrait5648 Virginia class can carry tomahawk missile’s. Tomahawk missiles can carry long range nuclear warheads.
You're kinda ignorant.
The Astute is by far the best sub out there at the moment.
ha how do you know that when nobody does even the NAVY. The marketing material? everyone thought the T90 was one of the best tanks in the world and there active protection system obviously doesnt even work if Ukraine can take out so many with Javlins. The Astute needed a lot of US experience and tech to build so its impossible to be the best if the US are helping the UK build it , nobody helps the americans they do it all alone so they can back up there claim. Also most subs are classified how do you know the exact dive depth and sonar range of a french nuke sub when they dont even release that info open source?
Typical salty Brit...wishing his country's military was still relevant in this world. Sorry. You're a minor power now. Shush...
Doesn't mean much if you can't produce your own weaponry.
Only problem is that we should have had them 10 years ago.
Exactly
At this rate we'll still be talking about submarines, After WW3 starts
A Labor government white paper identified the need for a significant increase in our submarine fleet from 6 to 12. The LNP government then got elected and mucked around for 9 years of indecision and only right at the end of their time stitched up half a deal. So blame the Libs they are the ones who dicked it up.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 Are you sure about that? My understanding is the French offered us the Suffern class and we said no due the refuelling issue. The Turnbull government wasn’t happy with the loss in sovereignty in having to rely on the French construction and refueling of the reactor.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 My understanding was that the Australian government refused nuclear subs, and wanted them diesal powered which was the issue because they were designed as nuclear.
The manning was increased to 58 in 2009, please do some research and not just google Wiki. Actually the fuel lasts for 33 years.
Astute cost about 3bn AUD x 8 = 24 Bn. Where do all these crazy $368 AUD come from.. Even adding 3 x 6bn for 3 Virginia subs only comes to 18 Bn.. + 24 Bn = 42 Bn..
I think the the SSN Aukus will be based on the Dreadnaught class, the UK's Ballistic missile subs, not so much the Astute Class.
The vast majority of the price tag comes from you needing to build the infrastructure to produce the Aukus class yourselves (you've insisted on acquiring the ability to manufacture your own eventually, which is a massive undertaking for a nation that has never built or had any experience with nuclear before). Developing a domestic nuclear capability, not to mention hiring, training and paying a massive workforce to work on this project that you don't currently have is why the price tag is so high.
@@saundyuk If I was faced with a cost of buying in at 24 Bn AUD or domestic build of 368 AUD, I know which option I'd go for.
@@Music5362 Hey, no-one forced you to build an entire new industry - that's your government's choice. But think of it in the long run - how will your economy benefit in 20-30 years time from a massive investment in skills and technology with a brand new workforce of highly trained technicians able to apply their skills to far more than just submarines? Plus in the future, when you build your own replacements, you won't be beholden to anyone else's price tag. But the initial price you pay for that kind of future autonomy is definitely hefty at the beginning - there's no getting away from that.
Stop nuclear warmonger 😢
According to the U.S Government tenders, Virginia-class Subs are $3.5 Billion.. And somehow Australia is paying three times that amount for each one..
Maybe. because transfer of nuclear technology you know that u.s is not that open incomes of nuclear tech ut just between u.s and uk who contribute their nuclear research for a long time
No, Australia costs theri defence acquisitions in a different way, therefore different overall costings, in our total number we take more into account and price as a full program, not just a cost price for the assett.
gotta pay your tributes when you're a vassal state
@@aussienscale : Thanks for posting that. Cheers.
Because we need to do so more than just buy the boats. We need to build an East coast base , upgrade our West cost base, build a shipyard, upgrade our heavy maintenance facility, build a training facility and on and on it goes.
Wrong data...
I liked the idea of the South Australian submarine base, but all so far we have heard is talk, no action. How imminent is the Chinese war aggression off? This is like a puff piece for a pie in the sky!
Talk is cheap, we need submarines, etc now
@@grannyannie2948 You`re getting them. US and Royal Navy subs will be based in Australia while your own are being built.
But why do people in power in Australia think China is a treat to them? It just seems illogical.
@@kabzaify Probably because Comrade Xi has threatened to nuke them on several occasions.
@@justonecornetto80 When exactly did he threaten that?
pretty good overview but just a few points to add. China is currently building heaps of Nuke subs with another 12 to add very very soon so its 24 soon with more to come after that at least to 30 and all this by 2035. keep in mind they have about 55 diesel subs and that wont change, they are replacing all the old ones ming class so by 2030 there sub fleet will be all modern with there worst sub being a kilo class which is a bit behind a collins class. The rule is you can build up to 3 modern diesel subs for 1 nuke attack sub thats why Russia and china has so many but the US fleet is better as all there subs combined are far more expensive. It also costs 5 times the cost of a diesel sub to build a ballistic missle nuke sub which the US has 12 vs 4 for most other nuke countries. Germany can build a modern diesel sub like the type 214 for $750 million, the US can build a Virginia class nuke sub for $2 billion. The collins class ended up costing so much ( the most expensive diesel sub by far ) because it was the biggest with the highest range, it also has the best battery recharge generator rate so can stay underwater the longest without needing AIP. Australia paid over double the price of a normal sub just for that an extra 10 percent capability as they always do.
Deliberately leaving India out from the list
There Navy and sub fleet is pretty bad to be honest considering the size of the country . Its 4 times weaker then China and Australia the US and Japan are far closer to China , there bases are closer . they also left out Taiwan South Korea etc
Why go nuclear submarines? I would opt to go with Space Nuclear hypersonic missiles like the Chinese. Imagine China start selling Space Nuclear Hypersonic Missiles like the one they tested last year circling around the Earth before vertically diving down. Hell, imagine every country will want at least 10-20 of their own. It's coming.
You can't hit a submarine with Hypersonic missiles. It's impossible
I think it will be better not to spend these money but rather empower the RSPCA to train whales and arm them with nuclear torpedoes. We've got lots of whales around Australia coastlines.
Can anyone explain to me why new submarines are not autonomous. No onboard crew required, smaller, probably cheaper and expendable and if nuclear powered they would only need to resurface to re-arm.
Actually come to think of it , I’m a pacifist, let’s forget the whole thing.
Diesel powered? Why even waste your time?
You dont know much about subs then with that commet. There perfect for Japan. Diesel sub is harder to detect and better around islands why would you waste money on a long range sub if you were Japan you dont need too you can build more diesel subs and have more
You didn’t mention the 15 year delay and the 500% cost blow out 😂
Silly CCP trolling Tim.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 fyi it’s is the CPC, call me in 25 years when the rust buckets get delivered 😂
@@timbassett9766 : If they have not 'disappeared' you and if the *_CCP_* still exists.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 🦃🦃
Early 2030's means in 8-10 years dummy.
I always wonder how the RAN or Australian Government can afford these subs. With GDP 50% less of the UK or France, 10 times less than China and 15 times less than USA. How will the people of Australia going to pay for it? If you say 20,000 job, say $150k a year x 30yrs equals to about 108 billion and where is the rest of the 260 billion? This is seriously a debt trap for Australia staged by both the US and UK. They are clearly laughing all the way to the bank.
Australia with the Attack class submarines were going to spend possibly $90 billion. The defense of Australia is expensive, but most of the $360+ billion is being spent in Australia creating Australian jobs and developing the Australian economy. Not much is being spent in the UK or the USA. You will be building and operating a BETTER submarine, possibly the BEST submarine in the world at that time... As the American admirals said, "If Australia doesn't want them, well, I will KEEP them!"
@@ronclark9724 these Virginia class subs are way too big for RAN to defend the coastline of Australia. Collins Class will be something ideal in terms of size and crew. Unless of course, we are being forced to fight somebody else’s war in the South China Sea. Otherwise I couldn’t think of anything else as to why we need these ginormous subs.
@@ronclark9724 plus there’s no way all the $360+bln will be spend locally. Basic calculations of 20000 jobs for 30 yrs is roughly at $108bln (ok say $200bln with the inflation). The remaining $160bln will definitely go straight to the USA and UK treasury.
China got bigger fleet but they noisy as hell and no where near usa on spec.The other countries are worse again even Russia got massive problems with they own boomers.
mister sky do you realize all that you know is shush shush. you;re just guessing . you guess is as good as mine.
🤣🤣🤣 AUS what a waste ... no nukes ... no deterrant ... 6 against 150 to 170 direct threats. Waste of money ... waste of time ...
Australia has allies. Its enemies don`t. Do the maths again.
@@justonecornetto80 you are not very smart, are you?
@@justonecornetto80 China has many allies 🤦 The BRICS, the SCO and OPEC countries has already made the move of the first phase de-dollarization. And if you think your Allies will protect your country, you probably need to look at Ukraine now that is a Sneak Peak of the Reality of war.
@@jonatikoisuva2695 BRICS isn`t an alliance. Do you really think Brazil, India and South Africa would got to war for China?🤣🤣
As for OPEC, it`s nothing more than an oil cartel which have to sell to the west in order to survive. Without western money, tech and weapons, the House of Saud would be overthrown within a month. Same goes for the Sheikhs in UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain.
Renewables are also coming to the forefront as well and as they do, OPEC diminishes in importance.
The SCO? Please don`t make me laugh! A club made up mainly of impoverished kleptocracies is not an alliance. If the west decided to call in all their debts, they would be eating rats just to fend off starvation.
@@justonecornetto80 Do you even know what an alliance is ? 😳 An alliance doesnt mean a military support group 🤦 BRICS is an economy alliance that has 1/3 of the worlds money, if any of the BRICS nation goes to war, they will support that country economically, that is why they a keeping the Russian economy afloat during this Ukraine war 🤦 OPEC depands on the west to survive ? 🤣 Bro the west needs the OPEC, without OPEC's Crude oil your industries and economy will collapse. Renewable energy is expensive and it takes decades to even build multiples of energy plants for a just one state and if energy spikes, the cost of living will spike as well 🫰And The SCO is both economy and a military alliance and is rich with Natural resources and minerals 🤷 The great reset is coming and there is nothing the west can do about 🫡
Why do we vote for these rogues ?
more crap about subs we may never get, was 150 billion then 200 billion then 350 billion now 368 billion tomorrow it will be 450 billion , so much rubbish being spread
@@stephen10. France never had any nuclear sub for Australia, no country will buy that because France would have to refuel the reactor every 10 years and if you refused there climate change demands they could just blackmail you and then you have a sub you cant use anymore just sitting there. The US is mroe trusted then France and therefore the deal went ahead
🤣🤣🤣
India has 36
All made in 1945, lol.
The naval and sub power of Britain today is a absolute joke. We should’ve never allowed ourselves to be out of the top 4 navy’s in the world (in the sense of a ally has a big ass navy - joint effort type thing.) being a island nation mostly relying on naval power it’s a absolute joke. The UK nowadays is a absolute joke. And we’re only known as Britain when were doing something potentially bad.
What a div. The RN is the fourth largest navy by displacement. It uses big vessels, not hundreds of tiny ones. And it's a global reach Blue Water navy. Only the US, France and the RN have that capability. Stop being a loser.
Which nations would you put ahead of our navy? US, China, India, Japan? Maybe Russia provided enough of their vessels and crew have been maintained properly (Interested to know)
the Navy of the UK today is in the top 10 in the World and has a better nuke sub fleet and Carrier fleet then China right now. just 33,000 sailors you know countries like Brazil have 80,000 with a Navy worse then Australia. remind everyone how many times the UK has lost in Navy battles before you claim there a joke, they easily beat China in 1850 remember and China is the 3rd oldest country on Earth so they had a huge head start
Could've doubled our surface fleet, maybe even more, for the same price I think? 🤔
Priorities though right? 🙄
We don't want fishing boats like the PLAN.
I think the combination of your new type 26 frigates (12 of them is it?) Plus the AUKUS subs will be very potent. Bear in mind we (the UK) will also have Type 26's and AUKUS subs so we should have great interoperability
What I mean is the combination of your new navy with ours and the QE class aircraft carriers will give us a strong indo- Pacific fleet
@@willn1958 the Type 26 is a terrible choice for Australia in my opinion it was great for the UK and Canada but is terrible for AUS. Why build a type 26 when they could have build that Spanish frigate F100 just a modified Hobart class and built it 2 times cheaper then the UK ship. 10% less capable at at least half the price and it was all proven, worst still the UK frigate is terrible at anti ship and anti air and is completely optimized for anti sub which i think for any ship is just a silly idea as Subs beat ships not the other way around, the Spanish frigate was more balanced and good at everything there was no risk or cost overrun in any of that , Spain could of built it cheap
@@nic7048 When you build expensive defense kit in your country, most of that expense is developing your economy, not another country's economy... Furthermore you develop spare parts in country as well, instead of having your kit sit collecting dust and rust while waiting for spare parts from half way around the world...
Nuclear submarines are not for close quarter combat just like you don't fly a b117 into enemy territory to drop the payload. It's the actual type of payload that's the deterant which in our case will be neither long range ICBMs nor nuclear. All of the big 5 UN security council members have nuclear submarines fitted with nukes and their purpose is just that, an offshore, mobile nuclear deterrent. We are essentially upgrading from a corolla into the bat Mobile but still leaning out the window to shot the same Glock.
Actually the Virginia class we are getting is equipped with tube launched Tomahawk missiles with a range of over 1000 kilometres. When added to the extended cruising range of a SSN the analogy is more like a leaning out the window with a 120 smoothbore cannon firing an APDS. I assume you know the difference between a Harpoon missile and a Tomahawk missile.
Do you know the difference between a SSN and a SSBN?
@@pwillis1589 how much damage can the non nuclear warhead missiles do? Will we get to make the missiles in Australia? Can they get passed the Chinese anti missile defence (the Ukrainian shot down 60% of what Russians thrown last week with their ad hoc systems)? What air coverage and protection will our newly acquired sub get when we go on the offensive and have anti sub machinery of all kinds above it? Lastly the subs and our navy is just too few to effectively defend the Australian coastline if Chinese navy invades and even less capable going abroad, how do you prosecute the military actions? If your answers includes support from the US then we are back to square one with trying to contain or counter China. This is beyond war machinery and about strategic planning where we either chose to be foreigners located in the Asia Pacific or accept being the most European cultured Asians in the region. No nation in ASEAN+1 which surrounds Australia apart from the Philippines is for armament or USA government's rule based order in the region and Australia export % to China is only second to Taiwan.
@@user-zy9nd2ei2j Depends on what you are trying to hit. Air coverage and protection? Dude, the whole point of a nuclear sub is to not be detected in the first place. The US doesn't fly air cover or have ships traveling with its own subs unless it's attached to a carrier strike group. Subs are not only for launching cruise missiles but also torpedoes against enemy ships. The point is to make China nervous and have to deal with another threat against both it's land and sea targets. Getting these subs is still better than what Australia has got or nothing at all. China is/has threatened Australia already so it's in their best interest to put China at risk. China got all pissed off when this deal was announced so it's already having an effect.
@@user-zy9nd2ei2j 500kg of HE will obliterate a city block or vaporisea a point target. The Tomahawk also has the ability to take a variety of payloads and are significantly more technologically advanced than Russian missiles, much more accurate and stealthy. Do not compare Russian and US missile technology it is chalk and cheese. You seriously overestimate the Chinese navy's ability to project force onto the Australian mainland. They are incapable of successfully doing that. The best they are capable of is an attempt to cut off our supply routes the same way the Japs tried in WWII. That means defeating the US Navy. Once again you give the Chinese Navy too much credit. China will not act militarily, they know they are still too weak, they are not stupid. SSN will however make Australia the dominant military force in the region for any other eventualities well into the future.
Lots of information not there , how many are actually in service , , what about Russia and it's ability to track all submarines , China will also have that capability , and have new missile systems , new underwater torpedoes high speed , see the media knows most the public has no clue about the huge advances in military technology , like directed energy weapons , A,I assisted guidance systems in all types of missiles , the arm's race has been continuously running for a long time massive advancements one side developing a new system the other has to develop new better systems to counter it , like the new Russian hypersonic missile systems , space based tracking systems Ultra high tech scanning underwater through solid rock , America has secret weapons systems they can't even talk about because the world simply wouldn't believe that kind of advancement was possible at this time , many countries have weapons that could literally split earth in half , so most of what the public see is obsolete , Russia has already got unbelievable advanced missile systems . .
😂2040s? Expired tech?
At this rate we'll still be Debating submarines after WW3 starts
You left India of the list...
As they only have 1 nuclear sub officially in service. And a handful of small old diesels.
@@anthonytatum9772 Whether it is 1 or 100, India is still a country that operates nuclear subs...and they have more planned that will enter service well before any of Australias...they left India off the list because this news article is presented by incompetent amateurs.