me2

Yes me too - I find the modern analysis much more interesting.

Love all your work ...

Yesss

It sucks because nobody else covers it

yeah submarines do seem to win excersizes from what ive seen. it makes me worried for the royal navy which by reputation has great asw warfare pedegree but can you reliably defend your carriers from subs?

Have you ever visited the Oberon class submarine in Fremantle? There's one on display at the WA Maritime Museum. I did a tour with a submariner. I imagine you'll enjoy it getting to see your old workplace again.

They were a very good sub.... They should have bought up a few extra ones before going to Collin's

I listened to a podcast where they talked about how the Aussie Oberons were upgraded with an extremely advanced fire control system for Sub Harpoon, and also getting data link information back (telecom back from ADCAP) and that the USN was quite impressed with what the RAN did with their Oberons (which, like Collins, were pretty large for diesel boats, at least compared to say a 209)

@@tdb7992 In reality they were ghastly places to work. The whole thing STINKS of diesel and the submariners and most of the surfaces in the boat have a sheen of diesel on them You could always spot a submariner when they first got back by their greasy outlook. lol

Agreed, it's absolutely ridiculous how uninformed so many people are about this.

I still don't like this sub deal... Too much financial burden which can be used on other portfolios

@@fatdoi003 exactly

best go to the sources of the experts in the various specialist piblications

Australia acting as if AUKUS is a 100% go ahead as long as Australia government and and ship builders and RAN can meet the demands needed to make it happen. The real threat is it hasn't been approved by congress yet to allow the technology transfer to make AUKUS happen. So far several issues has mounted on congress to not approve the technology such as list below 1. Admirals claimed the US won't be able to provide Virginia class submarines due to falling short for their own. 2. Military strategists experts within the US claim Australia not fit to meet the needs for accidents if was to accur. 3. Pressure is mounted on congress from other countries claiming to ban US submarines from allowing to use their ports due to AUKUS pact in protests. This will be a problem for US to maintain strength in the indo pacific and through Asia. This has arisen concern with many US senators in backlash for Australia to have technology to be able to build the submarines. AUKUS is a gamble. And Australia to be able to build submarines or even have gap Virginia class submarines is nothing more than a wishful dream road. It hasn't been guaranteed despite the challenges Australia will face on its own to make it happen. The US president can approve the submarines. But it cannot go ahead without congress approval in technology transfer. That's the reality Australia is facing

Same, the amount of robot voice videos on this topic that all sound like they've reworded the same poorly written article are the worst thing on here.

There are good arguments against nukes. Nukes are noisier and constantly release easily tracked waste heat from their reactors... these drawbacks are mitigated by keeping to cold deep seas. Unfortunately the seas between Australia and China are mostly warm and shallow, ESPECIALLY the naval choke points we'd need to protect Australia or even blockade China if that's your bag. The Japanese certainly realise this, and the Russians too. Even China itself... they have been building diesels new for good reason even though they've easily got the manufacturing to go all nuke. The Americans have even been thinking about bringing back diesel subs because of their advantages in litoral waters. It's just not the inherent limitations of nuke technology either. Going nuke makes Australia completely reliant on the US. Former Australian Intelligence Officer and military academic Clinton Fernandez wrote a whole book on this. Australia is surrendering the idea of being an independant middle power in favour of needlessly our sovereignty... becoming a sub-imperial power just as US power wanes. Attached to a declining power just as we were in the old days before WWII with Britain. The US MIC has been trying to encourage this thinking in Australia for years... it's sad the Labor government signed on to this.

Agreed. In a real war a diesel boat will have to be lucky beyond belief. Or the carrier is given specific orders to perform its mission in such a way that it loses its most important attribute.

Did New Zealander just fall on her sword over this?

In a real war, subs do not attack carriers. They attack logistical lines. Like the replenishment fleet of the enemy, or merchant ships with food/fuel/materials. Why use a sub to take down a carrier, when you can use missiles, mines, airplanes etc? As skewed as the exercise was, it had ONE goal. To train the fleet in finding the sub. Which they never did. For weeks. The WHOLE fleet were unable to do it. And it was successful. The US changed their ASW protocols to better be able to find AIP subs, including a more clear emphasise on helicopters with dipping sonars. No, the reality is that if a war between China and Taiwan broke out, the most effective way to combat China is to block all sea lanes to and from it. This can be done with great effect by conventional, silent subs. To snorkel every 3 weeks close to Sumatra, and still basically block all oil delivery to China, is vastly different than "prowling the ocean like a great white shark". It is cool and all, but not strictly necessary in a REAL conflict.

😂

He knows his stuff

Hough me too haha. Just imagine

I understood that reference

I think HypohystericalHistory deserves to be up there with Perun.

The Malacca Strait is a bottle that is easily corked.

Yes, and their lack of capability in the field is also shown by their inability to construct nuc boats of their own that are less than decades/generations behind- I would think that this would also be evidence of a likely inability to successfully counter modern SSNs, due to a lack of understanding of submarine acoustics, etc, if only for lack of practical experience... Though, I recall recently seeing an article (which I didn't read) that had a headline that went something like 'China's newest class of nuclear subs are no longer a complete joke', which, tbh, doesn't really make it seem like they've made a heck of a lot of progress. (spelling/grammar edit)

​@@grosey11 I wonder if the practical aspects of such a blockade have been given enough thought... Japan, the ROK, ROC, etc, may have a thing or two to say about it: will every ship be stopped and searched, etc? And the clock is ticking on that one, too, with all of the infrastructure being built towards alternatives- ports and pipelines, etc, that would push the theoretical blockade back to the straight of Hormuz, which would far more problematic, both militarily and geopolitically (not that Malacca would be as easy, strictly militarily, as it us portrayed: for example, China may not have a sub fleet that could counter it, but (whatever massive problems their land forces have), Russia sure does...).

@@bholdr----0 ...You do realise detection and counterdetection are basically entirely separate things, right? This is excluding the fact the PLAN operates conventional subs that are already extremely quiet, which throws a wrench in the works of the whole "They don't know anything about submarines." After all, the distinction between nukes and conventionals acoustics-wise is mostly in the reactor, rather than some fundamental difference in quieting philosophy.

Ugh... of course. That us why I qualified my comment. Read it again. (See: 'a likely', and, 'if only', etc... its frustrating when people- not necessarily you (another qualification) seem to try to score points or whatever when someone (even marginally) disagrees while trying to contribute to the conversation)... NUANCE! (Also, 'entirely separate things'... jeez... do you think, for example, that the US doesn't learn from their own mistakes, successes, technology, etc, etc? I would understand if you thought that they were obverse, etc, but, 'completely'? Ugh.) Edit- pls excuse my tone, it isn't personal, I'm just tired of the narrowness of oblivation superseding nuance and conversation, it's not just you.)

The secret to maintaining commitment (more important than cooperation) is tying up financial investment years in advance. The cooperation aspect is ensured by the deeply embedded Five Eyes. There is an operational need for a smaller super silent type of conventional submarine. For use in places where the large nuclear boats cannot safely go. FYI. The COVID origin is now confirmed to be a leak from a PLA lab in Wuhan.

This sub deal ain't gonna get my vote...

@@fatdoi003 we need both Nuke and D/E subs. This particular deal is not good

@@alanbstard4 French subs are already nuclear... why not just change the order from diesel to nuclear?

@@fatdoi003 I agree re nuke boats. New Suffron class great boat. Still need D/E as well. A mixed fleet. type 212 plus suffron class nuclear boats

True. AI, QM, Air and Sea Drones, Scramjets and other hypersonics and, long range missiles.

@petersinclair3997 yeah and permanent presence of u.s. and uk nuclear submarines, air power etc.

No sovereignty for Australians in their own country.... Still slaves to the masters

Nailed it. President Biden probably said more than he was meant when he did that interview and said how AUKUS "checkmates China", due to rotation of one RN Astute and four Virginia USN (which will be based there at Fleet Base West and will probably start having mixed crews and eventually be the Virginias the RAN gets, working up to fully crewing them, before SSN-AUKUS enters service) It's about USN and RAN nuclear subs that could carry out blockade of the Straits of Malacca and choke off Chinese imports in any conflict

That's a good analogy.

Haha, it actually like Australia getting capability against Imperial Japan only in the late 1960s, long after the war has finished. You 'll get the submarines in the 2050s by which time the concept of a big nuclear submarine will be obsolete and the competition between the US and China has already been resolved. It's just a scheme to rob you of half a trillion dollars you could have used for your own development. Remember, the US has no friends, you are a potential competitor too., the one that is especially dangerous because you are an isolated continent rich in resources.

When it come's to Naval asset's our military political / planning has such a bad record it border's on treasonous and now that they are going woke I don't hold much hope for the future , even now number's in the labor party = our government are building to prevent the nuclear sub initiative all from moving forward at all .

I wouldn't think of it like that at all. It may be way too late by the time we get them. If we do get them in time, they will be a huge asset for deterrence.

At the current pace of the AUKUS program, versus Xi's often stated intent to get Taiwan back by 2026 (which would almost certainly ignite a war), this would be more like Australia getting all the tools to defend from Japan in the 1950s, some ten years after the war with Japan had already started and finished.

Sadly people tend to have short collective memories. China tipped their hand on what their preferred revisions to the rules based order would look like in their trade feud with Australia. Potential vassal states should take note , as an American I feel that Australia has an important lesson to teach the world on this issue lest we “ sell the rope they plan to hang us with “ .

@@harryrosenthal4818 Too late. Australian iron ore and metallurgical grade coal is used to build China's Naval fleet. Funny how iron ore was not one of the products banned by China.

@@peterinns5136 Reminiscent of the Australian iron ore trade to Japan in the 1930's coming back south in the 1940's.

@@SpeedyCM Exactly. It was scrap metal in those days "Pig Iron Bob"

Yes the west was mesmerised by the size of the potential chinese market and were played like real suckers by the chinese. When business is driving foreign policy this is the sort of management of national security you get. Even the US which gives high priority to national security matters got screwed by them. This deception by the chinese continues as they talk peaceful rise while building a huge navy at record speed while giving no hint as to their intentions. At least now a few people are starting to wake up to the threat. Let’s hope it is not too late.

Wait, as in Mel Gibson the actor?

Which ones?

Yeah, but then he also warned us about the Jews. Dunno if his fears are the same as ours.

the west also benefitted greatly from the trade and it lifted 700 million people out of poverty and china could have still traded with countries outside the west and then only those countries would've gotten the benefits

your country is going broke

Aussie born dual Brit/Aus citizen here. I'm also very pleased that Australia and the UK will build SSN-AUKUS together. The relationship between the Anglosphere democracies (and especially the UK/US/AUS core, unlike Canada and New Zealand which are not entirely reliable).

It's ridiculous. I swear I heard like a decade ago that we would be building our own subs here in SA, then later we gave the contract to France or something? Now here we are a decade later and a billion dollars in the hole, back to the original plan. Our government is so shit, I wouldn't be surprised if they're built too late.

I'm 22, born in 2001, so they will be in the middle of deliveries as I turn your current age

Especially when you can stick Australia with the bill.

@@adrien5834 The US Navy has been guaranteeing free trade on the high seas for 80 years, now.

@@dk6024 That's what you guys call it, sure. So what, Australia owes you the money for services rendered, is that your point?

@@adrien5834 was Australia coerced or blackmailed? Was the deal done in bad faith?

@@dk6024 I don't know, but I assume not. But what was your point, exactly?

I agree with your argument, and I must say that when I did my six years in my Jungle Green Suit, in the end, I was feeling optimistic that we wouldn't be making war anymore. Extremely Silly of me when my Grandfather was a Gunner in the Great War, my Father was a Gunner in the Second World War, I never left Australia so I just practised for the entire time of my enlistment I just can't convince the blokes at the RSL that despite who my friends were and what they did plus the souvenirs they gave me I only left Country for holiday's in the USA. Then my Son joined the NAVY and was a Bridge Officer, so four Generations of military service and I stayed home, but I wish that the Government would fast track the building of factories for ammunition production, possibly start a Bushmaster acquisition program for the full range of their Transports and Weapons system's. Also, with modern materials and engines re-visit the Jindervic, it may be subsonic, but with an update, it would have a range of well over a thousand miles. And the SkySweeper is a cheap and quickly deployable answer to, again with modern materials and equipment very adequate for everything from mortars to jet attack planes, Ukraine has taught us that it is better to have to dispose of old ammunition than not have enough. I watch what's going on, and I am concerned about the time frame we are looking at.

''.... that economic ties will prevent countries from invading each other...'' have you heard of Danegeld? [Danish -money] Old European countries tried that already [paying the Vikings] didn't work ...

@@user-McGiver uh economic ties does not mean only tribute or paying bribes. Are you suggesting that Western Europe and the USA have been paying protection money to Russia and China so that they won't attack them.

@@dnguyen9747 I mean that history shows that paying, using or dealing with hostiles is stupid and dangerus!... who choose hostility as a way to communicate should be respected for that choice and treated as one... as a hostile!

@@user-McGiver in that case, we should have nuked Russia, China and North Korea by now.

I guess that's why two of them hit undersea mountains at high speed...world class sensors are no match for stupid people in charge.

conventional subs better in shallows of South China sea. nuke boats better open sea

@@alanbstard4 Yep. Also, easy to see in clear shallow water.

@@bossdog1480 The Germans had that problem in the Mediterranean during WWII.

@@alanbstard4Subs wouldn’t be operating there, it’s too heavily monitored. There are other spots along the trade route with deeper water that would be happy hunting grounds.

we always fuck up the procurements. Why?

England is dad.

France may have been the birthplace of the Enlightenment but Britain, the USA and the rest of the Anglophone empire have been it’s life support system and have tried to propagate a rules based order which attempts to be win / win for the participants. Any chance you could get the Kiwis to up their game a bit ?

USA refuses to sell Canada Nukes subs, and the only reason Australia got them is USA is concerned about losing power in west pacific and Australia having 1 month fuel supply. So we couldn't fight a war. USA have no choice but to give us nuke boats. Don't think you were happy about it

Australians are not fond of the ol' Empire, as our national identity was mostly formed in WWI, in which British officers had, shall we say, not the best reputation with us. WWII didn't help. But by the same token, we've never forgotten the US's involvement in the pacific (despite Douglas MacArthur). It's hard to overstate how important the two world wars are in how we see ourselves. That's not to say we dislike the British now, much less the UK, and we haven't forgotten the good they've done.

@@some_random_wallaby this Australian is fond of empire. We may yet need it again

Radio and sonar work differently you couldn’t receive radio to each other because radio waves wavelength are large and the difference in seawater density at the thermocline caused the incident ray to veer off enough to miss you. Sonar is sound waves and I believe it’s to do with how fast sound travels in water and again the varying density of water in the thermocline and the doppler effect.

You may be correct In 2023 but in 2043? I think everyone is ignoring what a gamechanger spaceX starship is going to be. A rocket that can put 100 tonnes into orbit. Launched several times a week and at a fraction of the cost. I put it to you a constellation of giant satellites will be able to pick up a snorkelling submarine.

That may be true then, but now and into the future with real time imagery analysis that can be crunched by AI on higher and higher resolution photo's I think its more than possible. I mean even commercially you can run photo's through an AI and get it to recognize patterns, let alone what million dollar budgets+ do on military databases.

It also depends on how many you have. If you have enough satellites orbiting to have constant coverage, you can maintain a track while it is physically possible to see the sub from space. I don't know if the CCP has that capability right now and if they could maintain that capability when everyone wants to shoot down enemy satellites, but I would assume they're planning on putting lots of eyes up there as quickly as possible.

I think he covered the narrow swathes of satellite imaging in another video, pointing out that it was not the same as tracking required to direct fire/missiles.

There's also the two 65,000 ton QE class carriers of the Royal Navy which aren't as big as Fujian, but I wouldn't bet on them being inferior. The F-35Bs they carry are definitely going to be superior to their Chinese counterparts.

@@trolleriffic yep good point, they're probably a toss up depending on the situation. Fujian probably better when you need suffiently large aripower to wage a large air to ground campaign and QE probably better at an outer air battle with F-35Bs

How about the South China Sea?

@@keibin92 SSNs

You get it! Gotlands is suitable if you want to play in the Baltic pond

@@keibin92 If the South China Sea was next to Australia then SSKs would make a lot more sense. Unfortunately some thoughtless idiot went and put it thousands of km away near China instead! What's that about?

​@@trolleriffic Exactly. Also, the AuSSNs will just as likely be operating south of India sinking Chinese merchant shipping and blockading the Strait of Malacca

Well grudgingly Churchills choice not to reinforce a failure (Singapore) might have been right. And our boys made Kokoda a success despite McArthurs ignorance of the mountainous jungle terrain. The relationship with the motherland was never the same. Since then we have been infatuated with all things uncle sam and briefly then looked towards China as partners. It has come full circle.

@@grosey11 UK going into the EU was the problem

​@@grosey11 The question of where to direct resources was a major issue, Australia understood that if the Nazis won the battle of North Africa, conquered Egypt and cut thr Suez Canal, that would gravely endanger Australian national security and its economy. Churchill also said that ultimately if they had to choose between protecting Egypt and Australia, then Australia would come first. And pretty much as soon as Japan declared war, Australian troops in the Med were sent back and by 1942 were engaged against the Japanese Empire.

@@PosthumousAddress they weren’t sent back. It was a political furore that Churchill resisted, knowing the value of Australians as shock troops. MacArthur was on the record as having little regard for Australian troops. Insisting that they fought in backwaters and not gain unnecessary glory on the island hopping trip across the South West pacific.

Much of Australia’s GDP comes from Knowledge and Services industries. Australia’s huge mining companies are transnationals with international shareholders. Thus, Sino-Australia trade has wide international implications, including if Australia were to decouple trading with China, while knowing other contributions to economy mean Australia would hurt less than the dire implications on China.

I don't get what your impling? You need to educate yourself in Australia's history. Actually it's the USA that is China's no1 trading partner! and China has infiltrated way more in the US defence establishments than China has politicly in Australia. Australia have pushed against Chinese threats thus suffered trade cancellations .......we do not sit on the fence nor do we sell our sole to the devil. It's in our history.

For reference, the USA’s 3rd largest trading partner is China.

There will be plenty of security provided by the UK and America.

Australian been permanently infiltrated by u.s government, think tanks and NGO... Just sick of being American lapdog

Compared to what the French were going to charge, an insane $7 billion per sub when the UK builds Astutes for £1.5 billion and Virginia are built for $2.8 billion. Australia is investing substantially to buy into the US/UK nuclear submarine enterprise to be sure it has had to pay in about $8 billion to be admitted to the club (which is now on its sixth generation of SSN; Royal Navy had HMS Dreadnought, then Churchill class, then Swiftsure, then Trafalgar, now it has pretty much just finished building its seventh Astute class, as well as its Dreadnought SSBN). SSN-AUKUS will be the sixth generation of British SSN, similarly US is on around the same iteration. France is only on its second; it started building its first SSN, the Rubis class, in the 1970s, until 1990 and three of the Rubis are still in service! The oldest still in service was laid down in 1983! And the class was considered dogshit until they did a complete rebuild of the initially flat-faced bow. They still have three of that first generation in service, slowly being replaced by their second Suffren generation. People can carp that the UK is "dependent" on the US, the reality is that by having the 1958 nuclear agreement by which the UK was able to receive US nuclear technology, especially the nuclear propulsion and to buy the missiles and re-entry vehicles (but not the "physics package" of the UK nuclear deterrent) the UK has saved countless billions and got a better capability. The Frenxh have retained complete sovereign control and have paid through the nose for it; they paid more, to have a worse submarine and fewer of them. The UK has worked closely with the US, chosen to use some US designs (still built in the UK, with the nuclear reactors built by Rolls-Royce in Derbyshire, for the boomers the warheads built at AWE Aldermaston, UK subs are their own design, for example Astute has space for 38 weapons, whether torpedo or sub launched Tomahawk or sub Harpoon.. the US 688 class, and the Virginia class, not including their VLS, have space for 26 weapons with four tubes, compared to 38 with six tubes for Astute). So Australia will be buying into an extremely mature submarine nuclear enterprise that has been going for 70 years, produces the best subs in the world both American and British, while also maintaining their own industry for example UK SSN have British built and designed sonar, torpedoes and combat system... the next generation will probably have a joint US/UK/AUS combat system and Mark 48 ADCAP / Spearfish replacement, as Australia wants to buy American on that. But compared to the massive cost France has paid for inferior submarines, and during the cold War built 6 SSNs of a single generation that were perhaps equivalent to a Soviet Victor I, the UK built around 20 SSN over four distinct, iterative generations. Buying into this nuclear submarine club will be expensive and hard work, but once you go nuclear you go all nuclear. Having 8 SSN will be a fantastic capability for the RAN, it will bind the three core AUKUS Anglophone democracies even closer, and bringing Australian engineering know how and universities and another 25 million people will add even more brains to the existing nuclear enterprise, the SSN-AUKUS will be a fantastic sub and Aus will probably start by doing joint crewing of the four Virginia class that will be based in Perth (along with one Astute rotating) and eventually Australia will fully crewing and buy one of those Virginias, and slowly a second and third, while the US continues at least four of its own subs. Fremantle will have a standing joint British Australian American submarine force in Western Australia of 8 SSNs (four American, three Aus, one British), which will checkmate China. Their trade and vital imports from the middle east will be utterly stopped by such a nuclear attack sub forxe in Fremantle that can transit ro the Strait of Malacca or South China Sea It will be glorious

🤡

The MSM also exaggerates and leaves information out. They're lying to the Australian population about the nuclear submarines. The costs, the manufacturing and operation of the vessels.

Wrong.

@@cattledog901 Care you explain your ridiculous statement?

20 AIPs is insane, they would have to be tiny German size SSKs, which would take an age to transit to their patrol areas (and in fact have to noisily run their diesels all the way in their transit to patrol area)

And the technology, ballistic rockets and nuclear production. You don`t even have a civilian nuclear industry... no one would support you in this.

agreed

@@Aendavenau no they would not support us, but we don't need anyone's blessing and we could easily start our own industry

@@Aendavenau We actually do have those things. We also invented and developed a now classified laser enrichment technology.

Nobody wats nuclear proliferation. While Australia "could" build nuclear weapons, it would strain its relationship with western allies, namely the United States, which already offers Australia nuclear deterrence. Objectively speaking, Australia would gain nothing except a new money sink (maintaining a credible nuclear arsenal is expensive) while announcing to the world that they don't trust their biggest ally to actually protect them. For what? For nationalist chest thumping?

Ok white boy lmao 🤡

Sort of ... however it will also be building the AUKUS submarines with the UK. Long term there are many areas where they will collaborate using the AUKUS framework.

China's navy is to neutralize hostile US power projection in it's own backyard.

They’re meant to used for sinking ships.

@@XxBloggs Whose ships?

At present the US Navy has ordered lead in work for the Columbia class SSBN. Expect the follow on to the Virginia class SSN’s be based on Columbia

Given Virginia builds up to block VII have been programmed out to the 2040s, its likely the UK Dreadnohght programme has been a testbed for a lot of new tech the US will adopt

Sometimes siblings(allies) go off the rails.

You miss the point, who cares if it did better on another day, Gotlands is suitable if you want to play in the Baltic pond. Useless if you want to play with the big boys.

@@qbi4614 what has the Gotland got to do with it? The Collins is a much more capable boat.

Does the C stand for Canada?

@@mikefish8226Canada should join AUKUS, we need nuclear subs without a doubt.

I think part of the issue might be that H3 does a lot of Australian centric content, whilst Perun is specifically prohibited from discussing Australian defence and procurement subjects - so any remaining overlap might be limited.

@@sir_vixprohibited or simply doesn’t cover it?

​@@cameroncarley7958 He doesn't cover Australian stuff as he works for the Australian government as a defence analyst

Germany may well end up as a divided country once again, physically partly in NATO but not on the other side of the new wall.

This isn't your Dad's ITAR. Going into AUKUS is joining what has been an exclusive club of two for almost 70 years. There will be no export of this tech from Aus to other parties.