AUKUS and the Nuclear Option: the Life and Death of the Attack Class Submarine

[@lewisrosenfels536]

I don't think I've ever been so excited to see and to commit myself to an hour 20 of geopolitical and technological discussion!

[@TheBooban]

Lol, me too, and I don’t have time to watch it in one go.

[@peterjames9610]

Me as well, I’m sitting here thinking of jobs I need to do around the house, they can wait.

[@philmills4473]

I've been watching aussie cossack. I didn't realize what Australia was going through.

[@RobertReg1]

Check out Dan Carlin's Supernova In The East 🤜❤️‍🔥🤛

[@convasilikas8267]

Me too, couldn’t stop watching it.

[@hypohystericalhistory8133]

Before anyone comments, yes the frequency of "indeed" and "additionally" in this video has been noted, I didnt realise how much I was doing it until I listened to the final product.

[@Wedgetail96]

Hadn’t noticed. This is an absolutely brilliant and informative account of this entire process and outcome. Some in the media need to take a breath, set aside 1 hour 20 and educate themselves. Thank for a wonderful product.

[@terrenceodgers5866]

You have put together another excellent presentation concerning a topical subject that, I, did not notice any problem at all in what you mention. A big 'WELL DONE' to you.

[@daniellyons3585]

Truely, this is not something you have to apologise for. 😉

[@dat581]

Perhaps we have discovered who you really are: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qp6bd6qwfbp6edU

[@theholyasdf3593]

I personally didn't notice

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

As an American ex submariner I don’t know about the maintenance requirements for Australian subs but US nuclear subs only do major refits about every 7-10 years with a minor refit about every 2-3 years. The minor refits are only a few months long with the major refits being a year or so unless refueling is required then it will take a couple years. Also the US sub limits endurance to less than 60 day without replenishment the limit isn’t so much the crew but the food they can carry. It is amazing how much food 120 men can eat in 60 days. We frequently spent forty to fifty days out then in for a couple days to replenish and then out for another forty or fifty days.

[@colinmcgrathinsydney]

Thanks for your input. Interesting and useful information.

[@mjguerin63]

The problem being where as with Collins and proposed Attack all the maintenance is/would be done locally, any maintenance on the reactor and it's associated systems would have to be performed in the USA or UK. That would mean the end of our "sovereign" capability.

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

@@mjguerin63 I served in the US nuclear navy the reactor design would allow all maintenance to be done in OZ. They are fueled for the life of the sub and everything else could be handled locally.

[@colinmcgrathinsydney]

@@mjguerin63 that appears about right. Australia, my country, needs to ditch the dogma of no nuclear power plants/industry. We need to have a home grown nuclear industry, beyond mining it, to combat climate change (nuclear reactors for energy) and materiel support and maintenance of nuclear powered subs. The problem, politically, is the Far Left, a sorry group of ideologues who do more good work for the Chinese & Russians, than they do for their own country.

[@colinmcgrathinsydney]

@@matthewhuszarik4173 what about maintenance of the reactor? I don't believe we have that capability - but wish we had.

[@arack12]

Congrats on your PhD btw. Your work is really impressive.

[@lmx1472]

I'm 13 and this guy teaches me more than my entire schooltime

[@andrewdoesyt7787]

@@lmx1472 You’ll learn more in high school… probably.

[@hanzsolo5460]

@@lmx1472 highschool will teach you more of the necessities. This channel can’t be compared to school really

[@lmx1472]

@@hanzsolo5460 But does school teach you the life and death of the attack submarine? No.

[@wecare838]

Wait he is a phd? What was his research topic?

[@wildbillstreet]

As an old former submariner (1970 - 1974), I can agree with the commentor below on the endurance limitations of a nuclear boat. We were limited only by our food supply and our longest underwater deployment was 72 days. Was my last patrol, so I remember it well even all these years later. Loved the presentation and am glad that I found your series of shows recently.

[@charlesmorgan8440]

Thank you for a clear, logical, well researched, comprehensive and bullshit free explanation of all the history, capability requirement and reasons behind this strategic choice. A refreshing change to the triviality of most coverage.

[@nbome2733]

This comment aged like fine wine, so many KZbin channels focus on the bullshit, I like to call it “filler information”, just the redundant and very minimally important facts of the matter that don’t culminate into much else other than a video stuffed full of small facts about small things

[@markboschen9310]

You continue to publish videos that are well-thought-out, well-researched, and well-presented. Thank-you for your hard work.

[@TheDesertraptor]

It would appear the French have forgotten they backed out the Eurofighter program and left the UK and others while they went and developed the Raffaele

[@Clickathon]

word is they also bribed some Indians to go for Rafale over Typhoon and the corruption probe is still ongoing

[@Klliansimabras]

It would appear you doesn't want to create a capable fighter of nuclear mission or land carrier so we pulled out.

[@SirAMG63]

@@Clickathon yes, there has been some corruption from the French side, but the Typhoon was rejected for the Indian Air Force’s needs and crucial requirements before the Rafale was selected and shortlisted . Rafale was chosen because of a cheaper maintenance costing and overall lifecycle. France even dropped the prices of 36 Rafales and will do the same once we get F4 variant. They did not bribe us over getting a financial advantage over Typhoon.

[@Clickathon]

@@SirAMG63 Have you read into the corruption probe? When corruption is involved what is known publicly is irrelevant to what really happened privately. The rumour is secret dealings with Rafale happened BEFORE the Typhoon was rejected, so AUKUS could be revenge. I wouldn't jump to conclusions until we find out more.

[@SirAMG63]

@@Clickathon simply, we have more experience with French jets. Plus, the Eurofighter multiple players involved, Germany being a country that has great economic ties with India, but different strategic interests in some areas. And rumours will remain rumours once nothing has been found. One *rumour* was that Airbus had even decreased the final bid of the Typhoon by 20% even after the Rafale was picked. Nothing was found. So a bribe happening is unlikely…..that’s it.

[@jacquesdahlet7207]

Hi, French citizen here. I appreciate your take on this. Lots of media were sh*tting on Naval Group or the French governement after the cancellation of this contract. This is particularly humiliating, as most - if not all - non-specialized media are simply casting doubts on the performances of the Barracuda short fin, and on the capacities from the French to deliver a good design. France makes a point in preserving its military indépendance as much as possible, reason why we develop our own weapons. The armament industry is one of the rare French industries that still exports well internationally, so when we lose the « biggest contract of the century », we take it badly. I’m convince - as you mentioned - that the delays were mainly due to tough négociations on technology transfers, and responsibilities. Not so much technical challenges. I also believe that the French governement reacted as it did, partly because it lost a strong partnership in the pacific region, home to 1.6 millions French citizens in a few islands. I don’t think it’s just about submarines, it’s also about French military presence in the pacific. As a side note: has any country ever sold a nuclear ship (submarines or other) to another country? I’m not sure in 2009, Australia could have gone shopping for a nuclear submarines, whether French or American? Anyway, great work with this video

[@Ozraptor4]

Not quite the same as selling, but the Russians have leased nuclear-powered submarines to the Indian Navy since the late 1980s.

[@Nathan-ry3yu]

I would thought it would been nice if Australia mixed it up by building 8 nuclear powerd submarines with UK and US and maybe purchase atleast 4 Barracuda conventional version subs from the French and used them for around the Antarctic region. And more closer for our region. Would had been ideal . I believe my Australian government could had handled it better with Macron. And atleast praised navel grouoe for coming up with a design. It would had give people the prospect that navel grouoe came through and did its job at least. But the conventional submarines is no longer absolute for Australia geological location and now has to turn to nuclear powerd submarines. This would had helped navel groups keep its reputation. And gave people the prospect it wasn't the submarines itself reasons why Australia cancelled. But the type of Submarines that was now needed. Macon may not had gotten so pissed of. I can't blame him

[@jungfer27]

The educated analyst we needed! It would appear the media, Australian media especially, has once again stoked the issue.

[@aymonfoxc1442]

Thankyou for being the first figure in the media to accurately describe both the technical / strategic process of the Attack Class program, along with the contractual obligations and Australian rational for the change. Everything was pulled together very concisely and effectively.

[@danielbarnes7559]

This is a fantastic analysis of the RAN's requirements as well as all well as the political implications

[@christianoakley1686]

That was wonderful and extremely informative. Its the first time I have seen a detailed history of Submarine Capability in Australian Service and it was really well done. The enabling side of Submarine capability was detailed well. As was Submarine capabilities (though not necessarily a history of operations, which is fair enough). The rational on home built submarines was articulated well. I'm not sure the Australian Government underestimated the French Government reaction? The fact is AUKUS was one of the most extraordinary partnerships in modern times,...with a almost unprecedented agreement in the transfer of technologies in Nuclear Submarine Capability (and many other military capabilities, many of which have not been announced). Bearing in mind the extraordinary nature of the agreement,....it seems to me that secrecy was paramount and the Australian Government calculated that AUKUS Commitment was worth a hell of a lot more than informing the French Government,...with the associated risk of the AUKUS deal leaking out, before the three leaders were ready to announce the agreement. It is entirely possible (even likely in my view) that the reaction from the French was expected,....but did not gain prominence over the potential outcome of the AUKUS agreement and outcomes. The Government, could in my view, accepted French reaction as a cost AUKUS. 'It is what it', as they say. At the end of the day,..the actual warfighting capability is still decades away. This is, in my view unacceptable. I think personal transfers to the US/UK Navy should be a priority. Attaching Australian (both civilian and military) to US or UK Submarines and the infrastructure enabling the Submarines and their operations has to commence ASAP. If 8 Submarines is what is forecast, then surly the first 2 should be off the shelf with the remaining built in Australia (notwithstanding your excellent argument on why they should be built in Australia)? Or leasing the first two. The training liability is bewilderingly immense I would have thought? Its imperative we start now. I guess the problem is,..........who do we go with?? The British Astute Class,.....or the Virginia Class Block IV (not V)?? Bearing in mind, the last of the ordered Astute Class (HMS Agincourt) is well on its way to being built. Whereas,..the Virginia Class has decades of construction still to go. That's a tough one. Loved the video. Congratulations on the PHD and looking forward to your next installment (the end of the new Guinea Campaign is really something I am looking forward too). Excellent and thanks.

[@TheBooban]

I don’t think the Australian govt. estimated anything at all. They were dealing with 3 major powers in the world at the same time and the govt. was just too stupid and incompetent in dealing with it. All they had to do was give him a call the week before. And I understand the Astute class is a no go. That have moved on with no reason to look back. A version of the Dreadnought class is the best choice.

[@christianoakley1686]

@@TheBooban Well, the Dreadnought Class is a Ballistic Missile Submarine,...so not sure where you are going there?? As for the first bit,.......each to their own. But any cursory examination of the timeline would inform you that AUKUS has been a around for quite a while (just not publically) and any suggestion that a week was all the Government had to make a decision is not backed up with facts.

[@TheBooban]

@@christianoakley1686 yes, it is a boomer. And the future uk fast attack submarine will be based on it. Similarly the future US hunter killer will be based on the Columbia ballistic missile submarine. That’s where I am going with this. Use the Dreadnought hull and modern reactor. Shorten it. Outfit it with Astute or Virginia battle systems.

[@TheBooban]

@@christianoakley1686 i didn’t say they made the decision in a week. I said to tell the french a week ahead of the announcement.

[@tsubadaikhan6332]

@@TheBooban As said earlier the Dreadnought is a boomer. But there may well be a time gap in which we can entice some of the UK's engineers & boatbuilders down here to train our building staff. Along with putting some of our submariners on British & American boats to train, we may actually get these things built quicker than you think. I'm sure the last Astute wasn't identical to the first - They would have gained knowledge along the way.

[@mikelebrindisi4267]

The quality of these videos is just absolutely brilliant. I've been seeing most of your videos and I have to say I'm loving them all, I've learned so much and the amount of research and knowledge that you have is very impressive! I would love to see in future a guide on the People's Libaration Army (including other branches) to know about the Chinese Military. Also, a guide about the Loyal Wingman Drone when info on that is more available would be fantastic to hear and if I had to suggest anything else, another Q&A video would be fun. Keep up the awesome work mate and congrats on the PhD!

[@royalukas8144]

I learned so much from your presentation. Thank you! A few years ago, I happened to drive through the small Idaho town of Atomic City. There, amid the sadness of a small American town in decline, I noticed a submarine conning tower above ground. It was a memorial to the initial work on submarine power from a nuclear reactor at Experimental Breeder Reactor 1, which was outside of town. The elderly gentleman who I met there was a machinist who worked at EBR-1. I'll never forget him and what he and I talked about.

[@stitch77100]

As a French, I really enjoyed your video and your analysis : it is very informative and factual. One key element to understand the reaction of France on this matter is that relationships work very differently between the Anglo-Saxon business habits and the more Mediterranean friendship : the deal was seen as more than just a business deal, and was opening the way to a more rich relationship between two neighbours (French Polynesia and new Caledonia are very close-by), and some Aussies were already being trained in France (they came with their family most of the time), and forged some friendships there. Even if the breaking of the deal was perfectly legal and within the bond of the agreement, the surprise of it (as you perfectly summed up) was considered inconceivable at the time : how 3 friend and allies could not warn us even privately about such a big deal ? That's our flaw : we care to much and invested ourselves to much in this defense agreement. We were even planning scholar plans to train the future Australian workforce in submarine design, building and maintenance, and were building a economic and industrial network of suppliers and builders on site (a point that you forgot, but was part of the deal : local building of the future submarines) The French outrage was then quite understandable : we were planning for a long term investment (not economics, but almost personal) in your defense industry, so that yours could grow and show how French are reliable contractors and their products are actually really not bad. But the total opposite occurred : French defense technology, one of its very pride, was mocked and overlooked. Described as obsolete and subpar, and the imaginary cost and delay increases, advertised by the local and international press were spreading faster than Covid to anyone curious about defense or military equipment. It is already being mocked and ridiculed by its ally, under the pretext of not being as good as US products (which you may know is actually untrue, like MICA and Meteor missiles being better than their US equivalents) but being "not as good" as the first in class does not mean you're bad. Plus, it's only sold that way in English speaking media, the other ones being a bit less assertive. So, as you mentioned, the reaction seemed excessive from your point of view, but was fueled by several causes, one of them being pride, the tarnished image of its military and also disappointment from (what e believed to be) 3 very close allies. Was it excessive ? Perhaps yes, but it felt necessary for future diplomatic relation (especially towards the USA) Was it justified ? Bloody absolutely ! Did it accomplished anything ? Only times will tell, but it has gone a bit both ways for now, and it's still only 1 year old... So thank you if you read my long rant to the end, I hope it will shine some light about the matter. I'm still hoping the RAN will get something good for its defense in the end, for the sake of all the Aussies, and their neighbours. A great video, and sorry for the lengthy response

[@thetinychapel]

Excellent program. My dad, who served on an OZ-based USN sub during WW2, would have loved this! He loved Australia and always commented on how well he was treated by the people there. Plus he evidently found lots of tennis partners as well.

[@troopieeeeee]

thank god, soporific australian man is back to talk about defense policy and geopolitics. his voice soothes my existential dread

[@tdgrev]

That was an absolutely superb analysis. Well done and keep up the fantastic videos and content you're putting out. Cheers

[@SgtAndrewM]

Far better than any main stream media

[@InimicusXII]

So good seeing your content when it isn't constrained by 3 minute time margins. Still love your tiktok stuff regardless but youtube lets you really shine mate, keep it up.

[@Jopacob]

Thank you. learned more in under 1.5 hours here than in daily reading of Australian News over 16 years. The excellent audio and visual quality is surpassed by the fantastic, complete quality of the content. You cover history, technology, finance and politics, world class.

[@JustMe00257]

Very well researched and presented. Fair and thorough analysis. The last few minutes really explain how the whole situation developed and are more than sufficient to understand the issue but I found the history of the Australian sub programs very interesting. The diplomatic angle indeed seems to be the prime trigger of the French reaction. Cheers from the country of Naval Group 👍🏻

[@NoName-ds5uq]

At 33 minutes you show the sinking of the former HMAS Torrens in the the 1990s! I served on another DE, HMAS Stuart. We did a deployment with Torrens in ‘89-90 and I knew a couple of the guys onboard. A very well considered video, thank you.

[@IanGerritsen]

The video on the topic I've been waiting for! Glad you're covering it.

[@kcharles8857]

This should be purchased and aired by the ABC to clear the confusion. It is more coherent and factual than anything I have read or seen by the Australian media, on this subject. Amazing effort.

[@seankong9733]

When we needed him most… he returned

When the news broke one of my first thoughts was, "I Wonder what hypohystericalhistorys take on this is". Thanks for giving us all the info in this wonderful Video.

[@ThaFunkster100]

Wow you are finally back! And with a very interesting and topical subject, I have been wating for your next video! I have this afternoon's entertainment sorted.

[@turbo_jimmy4065]

I love that you included Paulines Pump Jet in your B roll selection 😆

[@topiasr628]

After having this video in its entirety I must say this is phenomenal work. I really appreciate the added insight into this much more complex issue

[@bjnuma01]

The accolades in the comments below are well deserved. I’ve been waiting for your next instalment and the wait has been truely worth it. Since the announcement by “that fellow down under” I’ve had many questions enter my noggin and I think you’ve just answered them all. With all the garbage on the net these days, you’re well researched, well presented, unbiased presentations are an absolute breath of fresh air. You’re an example of why Australians are notch above the rest. Well done…..and try not to keep me waiting so long next time!!😉

[@truthsRsung]

Brendan, I was right there with ya until you turned on the nationalist pride. Qs for your noggin: After countless cyber attacks, is the risk acceptable to be on the same network as the Americans? Do wars start because diplomacy fails or does one country invade another just because they have the biggest guns? Who needs friends when you have nuclear attack submarines?

[@aymonfoxc1442]

@@truthsRsung Interesting questions: Every network is vulnerable to cyber attack - the Americans less than most. Naval Group already had a big data breech regarding the Atack Class project. Wars mostly start out of need or because of ideology (i.e. a need for resources or political / religious ideology). Something people often forget is that these same reasons can also be a cause to ally with a given party or vice versa, and even to avoid conflict altogether. Everybody needs friends. To illustrate, the Americans, British and French all have nuclear submarines and court friendship.

[@truthsRsung]

@@aymonfoxc1442 ......I can agree with one of your statements. Everybody needs friends. I don't see how you derive the idea that the US is less vulnerable to cyber threats when they have the biggest target on their back. If I treated my friends like countries treat each other, and use your justification for War, I would be alone. I may oversimplify an issue here, but I can't justify the risk of placing a nuclear reactor and explosives in the same confined area and putting it in the Ocean. Now add to that the vessel is likely to be attacked. And why go through the expense and complications of human accomadation id not to be a redundancy for the on board computers? Noone cries about how many drones get shot down.

[@truthsRsung]

@@flowerpower8722 ...Is that sarcasm? It escapes me sometimes when expressed in written form.

[@MrGsteele]

@@truthsRsung People who don't have ballistic missile nuclear submarines. As for explosives "in the same area as a reactor," that has been the case since the Nautilus went operational in 1954, 67 years ago. Not exactly what you'd call a catastrophe-ridden history.

[@algesmith857]

A relatively minor correction on the number of 'O' (Oberon) submarines Australia owned and operated was 6 not 4 as mentioned in the early stages of the article. HMAS's Oxley, Otama, Otway, Onslow, Ovens and Orion.

[@Slipprymongoose]

This is the most technically detailed video I’ve ever seen about our submarines ever. I remember the farse back in the day about the collins and that how the media said the original Sony PlayStation with a single push of a controller button could accomplish the same as 47 keystrokes on the collins system. Again no idea how capable and advanced our subs are in the modern world makes me proud that we did this. I have a mate who is currently serving on a collins and every chance I get I ask him what it’s like and how it operates. What I don’t understand is why it wasn’t more widely reported that we had the exit clauses built into the agreeements with the French and we simply exercised this? As much as I didn’t like the liberal government at the time this would have eliminated much or the criticism leveled against us. Fantastic edit please if you can I’d like to see more about our submarine history and service

[@GARDENER42]

I've found every one of your presentations to be factual, comprehensive & informative. Excellent stuff.

[@littleredbull1140]

Your videos on more modern systems are a thing of gold, with no real competition as well!

[@cmdrsabot4757]

Another incredibly in depth and high quality video, awesome work, keep it up 👍

[@zaxzan]

Thank you for this video H3, it’s important to have these details available to all and to be presented in the clear, succinct and adult fashion as you do. Always appreciated.

[@phvisser13]

A very well researched and thoughtful video, very enjoyable too. Nice work!

[@lindsayfrost2303]

Excellent summary of the submarine saga! One minor nitpick is the seeming confusion in the earlier part of the item regarding 'surfacing' and 'snorkelling'. The implication seemed to be that the two were the same, when in fact they are not. Another minor issue is the claim that an SSN has a zero indiscretion rate. In fact whenever a mast is exposed there is a chance of detection, so no submarine can be said to have a zero indiscretion rate. Hopefully the near future will see Australia with a combination of SSN and SSK which will cover all our needs.

[@anthonykelly5352]

As always, worth the wait, and such a splendid topic. I have always believed that anything less than a nuclear sub was just not sufficient for the role we use our subs in. I am glad the Collins class will have an extensive MLU to maintain and indeed improve their lethality, and I believe if retained and deployed from Darwin as a deterrent in the Arafura, Solomon and Coral Seas would secure the northern approaches whilst allowing the 8 nuclear subs to range far and wide providing nightmares to any would be aggressor. A fleet of 8 SSN and 6 SSG would give us a significant and credible deterrence capability and a mixed fleet of stealthy and capable subs that could and would make any military incursion fraught with danger for surface and subsurface vessels. Basing the SSN fleet, wisely, and the SSG fleet in the north, we could easily establish a critical gap making any beachhead strategy unviable in terms of both mainland Australia and it's Island territories. I feel the most likely scenario would be the lease of 2-4 Los Angeles class, mixed crews, to establish our capabilities whilst manufacture ramps up, and employing the capabilities of the Collins alongside them would give us a credible deterrence capability from the start of the build program. Yes, Manning is an issue, however it is not the vast problem many seem to believe it to be. The Collins has a modest crew size and even the Los Angeles class, in small numbers as an interim capability would expand the fleet manning requirements, it would still be a wise and cost effective deterrent and make any prospective aggressor consider significant losses in surface groups should a shooting war commence suddenly. Subs are a force multiplier, the Collins, if patrolling Australian waters and territories, could easily make the approaches too risky to consider without significant and credible ASW capabilities, as for enemy submarines, the combination of SSN, SSG and Hunter Class as well as P8A would make Australian waters too deadly for any hostile submarines to consider anything less than a submarine death trap. I believe the Australian public at large would have no problem with increasing our defence budget and size to enable such a capability which would in turn protect our sea lanes and also our maritime exclusion zone. P8A and Collins makes it risky, add the Hunter and AWD, it's just too risky, add the SSN and it is suicidal to consider any military action in Australian waters. Now just another 3 Hunters and 3 second hand Ticonderoga CG and we have a fleet that would make us feared and respected in time of war, add some F35B to our LHA capabilities, or take 2 soon to be sunk Tarawa class from the USN and deploy the F-35B and perhaps even fully refurbished AV8B from them and we have a fleet that is credible, capable and significant. A dream, perhaps, but consider being short of assets in a shooting war, and no amount of money is going to provide the surface, subsurface and maritime air we need when we need it. The time is short, the risks are great but to lose in what is inevitable with the CCP is unthinkable.

[@markway8208]

I agree Australia should keep the Collins Class operational for as long as possible as a deterrent and your suggested deployment from Darwin is spot on.

[@truthsRsung]

Spot on..... Who needs friends when you have a nuclear attack submarine? Who needs a nuclear attack submarine? People who treat their friends like this. Toe may toe, toe mah toe. Civilized folks agree that wars happen when relationships fail between nations. Krupp advertises that you'll get attacked if you don't buy the biggest gun. Same story 100 years ago.

[@bernardedwards8461]

The Astute-type attack subs are a good choice, but it should have been made 10 years earlier. The 2nd Pacific War will probably be over by the time Oz gets its new subs unless the Allies can manufacture them a lot faster than usual. In WW2 there was a sense of urgency which enabled the US to build a Liberty ship (medium size freighter) in 24 hrs, though this was a special effort and they normally took a bit longer. With the same sense of urgency i'm sure they could buid an Astute in half the time it normally takes. It would be frustrating if they were delivered after the war was over. China needs 5 or 6 years to build up its armed forces and to persuade Taiwan to unite voluntarily, so the odds are it will be another 5 years until war breaks out, but it could be sooner than that.

[@GARDENER42]

@Brett Mitchell Politically & operationally unacceptable. The subs have to be built & maintained in Australia in order to be effective & immune to shifting political allegiances & pressures.

[@bernardedwards8461]

@Brett Mitchell Well they do need to, because its not much use delivering the subs to Oz after the war is over. Most likely war will break out in 5 or 6 years, but you can't rely on that. The situation in SCS and ECS is so tense and volatile war could happen at almost any time. SCS is a powder keg just waitng for a spark to set it off. A small incident could rapidly escalate. I'm sure the first subs could be built within 5 years and possibly less if the will were there to do it.

[@peterbenke1962]

Second time I have seen this video. Fantastic analysis of this issue. Probably the best in the world- including the dark room people. I have every confidence in the future. I believe in America and I believe in America and countries like Australia, France, Italy and the UK. We all share the same values, the same religions, the same goals for our countries and our children. We all share them same hopes for the world as a peaceful place for human beings and nature. This is a sign - These things go back long before the middle of the last century.

[@originalkk882]

I went onboard an Oberon class sub at a Navy Day in Portsmouth as a child back in the 1960s. It was so cramped, I cannot imagine spending many weeks on board at a time.

[@tinto278]

😃

[@davidelliott9817]

Your content is always amazing. It would be great if you could do a couple of videos on the US and British options that mite replace or feed into a future design for Australias future subs. Also it would be great to understand more about what the AUKUS alliance actually covers.

[@tinto278]

AUKUS is tech sharing agreement and not an alliance. Tech includes nuclear submarines, cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence and quantum technologies. 👍👍

[@chrishewitt1165]

Australian submariners have wanted nuclear boats for decades. The moratorium has forced us to settle for second best for decades. The attack class was the result of trying to make a diesel boat perform like a nuclear one. This is a fantastic outcome for Australia

[@mjguerin63]

I don't know how you could conclude that.

[@chrishewitt1165]

@@mjguerin63 I'm a submariner. I did my training in the UK and joined Otway in 84

[@Nathan-ry3yu]

I Just hope Australia keeps Labor and the Greens out of governments. They will have this project cancelled we be stuck without any submarines

[@chrishewitt1165]

@@Nathan-ry3yu I think it is already dead in the water. There has been no follow up and Slowmo was shot down by creepy Joe in Scotland

[@julianshalders6047]

Politicians in Canberra couldn't organise a shit fight, good at wasting tax payers money, Turnbull wanted a French nuclear submarine built with diesel engine capability,😂 costs hundreds of millions for no result 😂😡😡🔥

[@wolfson109]

Excellent video. You're clearly very well informed and well spoken, and also clearly an Australian patriot. Best regards from a British patriot, who is very proud of the new partnership.

[@blanchjoe1481]

Thank you for the hard work putting this excellent piece together. While it is enjoyable to see another nation state deal with the French geopolitically ( something the USA has experienced during the WWII and Charles de Gaulle periods ), not recognizing this interplay from afar was, at worst shall we say, an Australian "faux pas". Without the need to bend to political doctrines, or to increase the profits of private media conglomerates you were able to take a "headline" and translate it into a historical and current perspective, it is work such as yours the makes the Internet and KZbin a valuable medium.

[@gregpaul882]

I’m a big proponent of the Anglo-sphere. Couldn’t help but notice Australia 🇦🇺 is the first acronym in the AUKUS acronym. Australia is the centerpiece of security architecture for the Pacific.

[@andrewsmall6834]

Finally! You're really making us wait for great content. We would REALLY appreciate updates on when to expect new content.

[@alexanderknudsen8302]

Thank you so much for your fantastic historic/modern military videos! You are my favorite KZbinr!

[@isaacblackman1996]

As for the Baracuda nuclear option, I can't see why sourcing nuclear fuel is such a clinch. Its civilian grade and could be potentially sourced from a variety of nation suppliers with a civilian nuclear industry. The UK-US option requires weapons grade fuel, meaning your fuel supply options are entirely dependent on them. I know they won't require refuelling in their lifetime but that can lead to other issues. The main being if you do have to refuel them, because their replacement isn't ready in time or because a problem has been detected, you now have to refuel a reactor that was never designed to be refueled. HMS Vanguard is a prime example, went into drydock in 2016 for a refueling it was never mean't to recieve and it hasn't come out yet, despite having been supposed to come out in 2018. Having a reactor that is designed to be refueled gives you added flexibility, also submarines are in dry dock all the time for refit and repair, i'm not sure how valuable a none refuelable reactor is seeing they need to come in anyway. As for dealing with spent fuel, your gonna get that problem at end of life anyway, look at the problem the uk is having with breaking up their old nuclear submarines.

[@oliverwells8011]

Usually they replace they entire reactor instead of trying to refuel one that isn't meant to be refueled

[@isaacblackman1996]

@@oliverwells8011 I don't think they do, haven't heard of that before. Wouldn't you have to properly dismantle the submarine to do this and then reassemble it after. You might be better off making a submarine from scratch. Honestly, I'm not 100% sure about this though but it sounds like a long and expensive process.

[@GSteel-rh9iu]

Looking like its going to be a UK nuclear sub SSNR (post Astute-class). I'm watching this again and what a fantastic production, kudos to you Mr. Surfing PhD dude. The Virginia-class should be great for establishing RAN operations and training etc.

[@fooo2241]

Excellent video, more details than i expected to ever learn on the issue.

[@theholyasdf3593]

I just want to say I'm going to be thrilled to see this happen throughout the next decade

[@michaelcorbidge7914]

It's not certain yet .

[@tdb7992]

This truly is an excellently researched video. It's so nice to hear this explained thoroughly. From my own (somewhat uneducated) point of view, I'm glad we went with the US/UK option. The ability to gain IP from both the Us and UK in other areas (as part of the AUKUS agreement) such as cyber warfare and nanotech is probably what I like the best. Additionally, as a nation we're very close to the US, and even closer to the UK. I'm more than happy for our friends to have access to our ports and intelligence installations. I'd be happy for the UK to move into the spy base in Pine Gap. If the UK wants to launch satellites from Australia, sure, go for it.

[@billfoster6479]

I reckon your videos have to be one of if not the best. Please keep up the great work,

[@cratuki]

Thanks for the content. Some feedback - (1) I think you could have given more emphasis to Australian concerns that local-content arrangements were not being met. A recurring theme of coverage in The Australian has been that Naval Group was treating Australia as a captive customer. (2) It would have been interesting to get a better understanding of French strategic concerns in the Indo-Pacific, and how a close relationship with Australia might be useful for its coverage of New Caledonia and smaller territories.

[@aymonfoxc1442]

France has regular ports of call in six Australian harbours. So, the relationship with Australia is certainly very important to the supply of their forces and assets in the very least. Strategically, we are both members of Five Eyes and Australia is the only Western Democracy / the only country with concrete commitments to help them in the South Pacific. Thusly, even if indirectly supporting them, Australia can be relied on as a fundamental partner in responding to any crisis that may present itself in French territories in the Pacific (i.e. transiting through Australian airspace and refuelling their own responding aircraft here).

[@aymonfoxc1442]

As for the idea of Australia being treated like a captive customer, I think Hypohisterical History's point on this was that Australian media are largely responsible for this perception but it is an ill-conceived and misinformed view. I say this because the Attack Class project has the 'off-ramps' built into it by virtue of being divided up into different contracts for different stages, rather than a contract for the project as a whole. We've paid what we agreed to pay and the cost hasn't actually blown out from what was first agreed to by our government during the competitive evaluation process. In other words, the project was going about as smoothly as you can expect for such a big development and acquisition. The reaction of the French Government may largely be for domestic audiences, so as to avoid the appearance of being unaware of the project being in peril. Hence some of their now proven lies in the days immediately following the announcement. Such a reaction has not helped their image in Australia and has worsened the perception that they were treating Australia more like a cash cow than an ally.

[@cratuki]

@@aymonfoxc1442 France is not a member of Five Eyes.

[@aymonfoxc1442]

@@cratuki Woops sorry, I think mixed my sentences up with another chain of thought for another convo but I think the rest is on point. It's also worth noting that France is, part of NATO, so I don't think there will be any big change in French strategy because they need to remain capable of meeting requests by the US. I think that 'need' and their continued growing military presence is in part owing to the psychological scars from time as a shrinking colonial power, their desire to hold onto territory and Macron's vision for a global France. Ultimately, the existing rules based order and free passage around the Pacific will remain important to France's economic and military security. Hopefully, they recognise this all too salient reality, after all they have over one and a half million citizens in the Pacific.

[@JefElder]

@@aymonfoxc1442 The French growing military expenses are not motivated by any psychological consideration but by their geopolitical interests. First point, as almost everywhere else, the decolonization of Africa has resulted in boundaries that do not take into account the rivalries between the different ethnic communities. Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, Chad and Cameroon are currently at war for this precise reason. 20 years ago, only Sudan and Somalia were suffering from religious terrorism, but since the destabilization of the Middle-East, this religious component has spread almost everywhere and it is rapidly worsening situations that were already difficult. Therefore, and to put it simply, if you remove the French troops from Africa, you will have hundreds of bloodbaths, everyone will hold the French responsible (see the Rwanda affair) and tens of millions of refugees will try to reach Europe. Second point, only the US and France have troops with real combat experience at a regimental level (the British troops have left Afghanistan in 2014) ; to put it simply again, the only non-French European soldiers with real combat experience are in the French Foreign Legion. Both the US and the French are perfectly aware that the other European armies are no match for the Russians and this is why the last French strategic plan (2021) has stated that France needs to prepare for a high intensity conflict. One last comment : the US does not request anything from the French, they know too well that the French are cleaning their ISIS mess in Africa and they are extremely happy not to be involved in this quagmire so they help the French as much as they can, but without boots on the ground, of course. Only French soldiers are allowed to get killed.

[@stacyclarkson6202]

Sounds like we're getting the Band back together!:)

[@Spectre-tv7wi]

Literally the best thing that has happened this year

[@olivegrove2615]

absolutely. 👍

[@jasoar1563]

not till we have them even then, its still not enough considering you can only field half of what you have and the size of Australia. Although i do believe the government is setting up a continuous build we need like 20 or 30 to actually provide a serious threat even then maybe not enough

[@jamesroche3253]

Outstanding video - Thoroughly researched and very well explained. Great work

[@legbreaker2762]

Hopefully this opens the door to the development of nuclear power for civilian use.

[@sir_vix]

Unlikely. Nuclear reactors are scientifically interesting but the cost outweighs the utility for Australia due to a range of factors. Varied combinations of solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and tidal with capacity storage and long range transmission networks are more feasible as alternatives.

[@andreasbimba6519]

@@sir_vix Yes you are correct. Prof Andrew Blakers of the ANU has demonstrated that renewable electricity with pumped storage hydro along with long grid interconnectors is cheaper than new build coal or gas fired electrical power and far cheaper than nuclear.

[@Manawatu_Al2844]

Look up HB11, a Hydrogen and Boron based Nuclear reactor, with lasers to help ignite the reaction. Australian made.

[@andreasbimba6519]

@@Manawatu_Al2844 An interesting link that could be a promising path for fusion power.

[@Manawatu_Al2844]

@@andreasbimba6519 surely now if possible, we can have this type of reactor in place across the world. And no longer a excuse to block off Nuclear power by our politicians and or anti nuclear activists. Probably a power station that's the size of a house.

[@MrBat000]

That was an awesome video! Well done! It was very informative and straight to the point. I hate videos that bore you to death by non stop talk of irrelevant information. Thanks for the upload. I’m from Sydney by the way.

[@blueboats7530]

The French are appalled because it's so normal in the US, UK, AND France to keep a decades long program going despite a change of requirements, and anything else. Good on AUS to be able to pivot after 10 years, but this will get harder and harder the more the indigenous industry investment gets stuck-in.

[@abuseofmainstreammediacanh5713]

Yep, cost got out of control ...... French perspective: If you buy a Ford, then you insist it's gonna have a Toyota engine, Rolls Royce electronics and a BMW interior.... the hole thing built by your handicapped cousin in the kitchen of your aunt, then, at some point you decide that the dog of your dad should have a part of the work too.... guess what happens to the price-tag?

[@gnolan4281]

This tutorial is truly, as the French would say, a tour de force. Seldom have I seen any presentations as compelling, well spoken or as in depth as those of hypohystericalhistory. I also immensly enjoyed learning of the Aussie true grit in Papua New Guinea. Our narrator is a superb supplement to what Drachinifel is to the naval cavalcade of events of yesteryear. Wow.

[@raceace]

Dead set the most thorough analysis from the multitude of sub forums on the Submarine fiasco. This report is a White paper in its own right. The description of the Submarine industry being adolescent, fits in beautifully with Australia finally having to make some hard adult decisions albeit belatedly.

[@sammurphy5454]

I've been waiting on your take on this topic since it dropped in the public- well researched, written and presented as always

[@rjeffm1]

If the RAN does not buy an essentially MOTS SSN, the timeline will be much longer than those for the Attack class. Costs will also balloon. I have no issue with the arguments presented here, but the ability to resist "tweaking" the design will need severe discipline. Good luck.

[@jkraw1]

Discovered you on TikTok couldn’t be more happy that I did you make some great content thanks 👍

[@MotoSwagger]

Thoroughly researched and presented... confirmed my thoughts regarding Morrison's diplomatic blundering towards the sensitive French and explained why the nuclear option addresses the fast-changing geopolitical landscape in the Pacific... I'm hoping that there has been some work done to mend French relations, after all they too are a substantial player in our backyard as well! I remember visiting an Oberon sub as a kid, would love to tour a Collins class sometime - thx and congrats on the PhD.

[@brunol-p_g8800]

The French are a closer neighbour than both the USA and the UK, with their territories in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, including New Caledonia and Wallis & Futuna that are just next door to us.

[@ind347]

A fantastically in-depth critique of this series of projects and contracts/military planning and history relevant to the modern submarine in the Australian experience. I just wish all the arm chair critics would take the time to actually educate them self by watching this so they can learn something instead of rehashing 10 year old complaints and voice uninformed comment on the recent decisions by the Australian Government re cancelation of the Short Fin option. Thank you.

[@Jason987262]

Excellent overview of the situation as always. Agree the diplomatic situation could of been handled a lot better we didn't need to alienate the French we need the free world alliance standing together string against china

[@daveallan-petale4441]

Superb analysis and summary. HMAS Ovens is on the slipway at Fremantle though shut to the public at the moment - always intriguing to visit. And then in the distant there's Garden Island, home of the Collins', and the Indian Ocean beyond. Will be many crucial years ahead

[@gregorythompson5826]

Seems like that sub/display boat is always closed. I was very lucky to get a tour in 2019 and it had only just reopened. Lord knows how long it will be closed for.

[@199diesel]

* This is SUCH a great documentary about this situation * - In wartime, when war lasts longer than 24 hours, the attack class type of boat is not survivable in a specific area when the enemy has as many assets as the Chinese military. The nuclear boat is designed with the real possibility of nuclear war, in mind. Having nuclear boats and expanding on them is extremely important. In one area- With sea skimming hypersonic weapons in existence and on the horizon, snorkeling submarines can and will be destroyed on the surface by a low flying conventional or nuclear payload traveling over 10,000 mph and higher, being hit by one or more before the weapon/s are even detected, let alone before a dive. Non nuclear submarines will not be able to enter the area of battle without Extreme risk. Furthermore, having nuclear boats means the Chinese or any nation, will think twice about making any type of aggression against Australia, not knowing where the boats are, or what types of munitions they are carrying. I am a US citizen and I love France but this is the only decision to be made in a new cold war world with a godless enemy. Australian forces are some of the best, and fiercest soldiers in the world. I'm glad you guys will have the finest submarines in the world, and it should be said, we will benefit from Australian knowledge as well. Perhaps the best option would have been to include France.

[@highwayman6805]

Whether it’s a historical video or modern news video, you put out fantastic material. Keep it up!!

[@VainerCactus0]

As soon as I saw the news I thought to myself "I can't wait for HypohystericalHistory to make a video about this!"

[@VainerCactus0]

Personally I believe the French overreacted and look silly, but we should still have let them know a few days before.

[@sophrapsune]

This is perhaps the best presentation on this matter anywhere in the public domain. Thanks!

[@TheDesertraptor]

DCNS should have been disqualified when a senior gov official involved left Gov to work for DCNS. Major conflict of interests

[@aussiemilitant4486]

This has become the norm in Australian Politics. Politicians are all out to set themselves up for their post-political careers by passing legislation, approving development, sales and purchasing of land etc etc to companies and countries that do not have to go thru the same scrutinisation as others. Then out of the blue said politicians leave politics and become board members of company's involved. Definitely no conflict of interest, because they had no interest in improving the lives of Australian's over improving their own personal lives. We are a country of whores, we own nothing and everything that is built is substandard, overpriced (or under-priced if that provides similar benefit) and never finished/delivered on time.

[@rodneyholland1867]

@@aussiemilitant4486 A good summary of the issues with the procurement program is well outlined by Sub-brief: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nWPZn5afp854lbM

[@gregs7562]

It'd be great if you did a break down of the 2 options. Obviously as a Brit I'd favour Astute (especially given its lower manning needs, however it lacks VLS cells and launches tomahawk through it torpedo tubes) but the sheer economies of scale plus the VLS on the US boat surely makes it the favourite.

[@ThaFunkster100]

Would you be interested on doing a video analysing the other weapons included as part of AUUKUS?

[@colinmcgrathinsydney]

Yes, i agree. Good idea.

[@asdreww]

I watch you on Tiktok & just realised you had a KZbin! This is great stuff man. Like almost on a different level to typical social media content...

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

The Australians are surprised when the French throw a hissy fit when something doesn't go their way... The rest of Europe: You guys must be new here. (Seriously, that's pretty much the French M.O. I wouldn't read too much into it.) That said, the lack of any communication would be considered rude to most countries, and I certainly don't think it's hubris for the French to assume the project was going ahead if they had heard nothing to the contrary. I actually struggle to believe the Australian government could be so oblivious to how that would come across as to do it without intending some sort of slight. Basically, I think that the manner in which the project with the French was ended suggests that the Australian government/Navy weren't happy about something in the process on Naval Group's end.

[@willymac5036]

I don’t know, maybe the Australians were unhappy about the fact that France was trying to charge them $90 Billion for 12 diesel electric submarines. That comes out to $7.5 Billion per submarine. Submarines that routinely come in at around $300 to $400 million each. The US Navy’s Virginia class block V submarines are $3.45 Billion each. $7.5 Billion is just too much to pay for a submarine. It sounds to me like France was trying to take Australia for a ride, and now they are upset that they aren’t going to be able to bilk the Australian people out of Billions of taxpayer dollars. Granted, I don’t know the details of the contract, but any way you look at it, $90 Billion is too much to pay for 12 diesel electric submarines.

[@patolt1628]

Interesting but, as you can imagine, in France we have a completely different perspective. There was nothing wrong with the French, there was a contract signed for one of the most advanced attack submarines in the world, the only difference with the French Navy submarines being that they were not nuclear powered. The truth is simply that Australians have been blackmailed by the US in one way or another to buy their solution. Australia is just a toy in the hand of the Americans (the UK as well by the way), a vassal state. Moreover good luck with nuclear submarines since it's a different story compared to conventional ones: it will take 20 years to get the subs and then be able to operate them and don't be naive, the Americans will not share any technology with Australia. Some Nato nations bought the F35 with the same hope and they got ... nothing. I don't think the Australian government has deliberately terminated the contract just to bother the French but I note that, in the anglo-saxon world, everybody seems to be happy with this situation: after all, pissing the French off is always fun, isn't it? So the argument is now that containing the Chinese supposes a change in strategy and getting the nuclear subs that Australia never wanted (that's why the "French subs" were not nuclear) ... This is very weak. Strange change of opinion. At last playing with legal details in the contract to argue that nothing at any time might have prevent Australia to inform or not about a change in direction is just bad faith and hypocrisy. The icing on the cake is to say that it's hubris for the French or why not French fault and that it's hard for Australia to understand the reaction! Obviously we don't have anything in common and we'll never understand each other. We are as far away from each other than with the Chinese. Btw I heard that in the same time Australia is willing to get rid of the Tiger helicopters they have purchased in order to replace them with ... Apaches. But it's probably a coincidence, isn't it? Anyway matters are clear now and we will not forget.

[@BallisticSollution]

@@patolt1628 Australia was not "blackmailed" by the US, Naval Group were well aware of our issues with continual program slippage, Australian industrial content issues and cost increases for many many months in the lead up to the decision to cancel the deal - not too mention there were "exit gates" written into the deal so either side could cancel; Australia chose to exercise it's option to cancel. Australia made a prudent decision based on it's own strategic requirements and the deteriorating geopolitical situation in Asia, of which France only has a minuscule involvement in; although that argument could also be made with reference to the UK as well, perhaps even more so. I view any European involvement and interest in Asian security issues as paper thin and extremely limited. Australia and United States have actually verifiably significant geopolitical and strategic concerns throughout the entire region, vastly more-so than any European power. And before you start to proclaim French interests in the Pacific, let me remind you, mainland France (where the vast majority of French military capability and population is located) is over 10000km's (as the crow flies) to the SCS and ~10-15000kms transit distance via sea to Fleet Base West in WA alone - plus another ~4-8000km transit to the SCS dependent on transit routes taken. Australia, on the other hand is only about ~4000km as the crow flies from China and ~4-8000km transit to the SCS (again dependent on transit routes taken). We live here, the vast majority of French citizens do not. We know the complexity of getting into the nuclear powered boat game, that is why it was originally off the table, the situation changed (although from a realist point of view, the West/Australia has been incredibly slow to react to China's growing power, to the point where we are now behind them in some areas). As for the differences between US/UK and French nuclear technology; the US/UK reactors last about 30 years without refueling, the French reactors last 10 years, and we would be beholden to French whims and costs for refueling every decade, for every boat we had - not too mention they would all have to transit to France every time they needed refueling, that is an unacceptable situation and the reason Australia/RAN did not take the option of the Suffren class SSN. On the other hand, any US or UK boat would serve the lifetime of the reactor then be decommissioned. Be aware that Australia was under absolutely no obligation to tell the French about the AUKUS alliance, none whatsoever. Does France come to Australia about it's own strategic decisions? No, it sure as heck doesn't, so why should Australia, the US or the UK be beholden to France to disclose our vital military partnerships and strategic decisions? The only part here that was of any relevance to France was the Attack class cancellation, and we notified you of such; which according to the legalities of the contract and the contract exit clauses, we were well within our rights to do so. France literally does not have a leg to stand on here, we covered our bases legally and every decision has been made to the letter of the contract. No, Australia did not do this just to "piss off" the Frenchies, we did it because it was in our own military interests to do. Do I think the situation could have been handled better, sure, that goes for all sides in this issue, but the French reaction has been nothing short of childish - grow up. Sometimes circumstances and requirements change and reality forces a significant shift in direction, that is what happened here. If France can't get over that, then maybe you were the wrong partner from the start. The decision to drop the Tiger is again based on operational experience with French equipment and supply chain issues, it has taken over 15 years to get 22 Tigers into service which have been hampered by cost overruns, operational deficiencies, very late IOC/FOC and very high operational costs. The Apache on the other hand is far cheaper to operate, will have plenty of available spares when we need them, and will integrate well into ADF and joint AUS/UK/US military interoperability requirements. It is the helicopter we should have gone with all along. The same goes for the woefully inadequate NH-90 (MRH-90), it's issues are just as wide ranging, again, the better option would have been the battle tested UH-60 design from the US, rather than the developmental NH-90. It should be noted that both these decisions were political, rather than prudent military decisions, so the blame rests on developmental platforms from the French/EU and stupid Australian politicians more interested in votes rather than military capability. You won't forget? FFS, seriously, there are more important issues here than losing out on a $90 billion AUD (a complete and utter rip off might I add) submarines deal. To be fair, I actually think the Attack could have been a decent, but limited submarine. It certainly would have been interesting to see how it went, but there have been concerns about it's actual capabilities. This is more-so related to its weapons load being only 28 torpedoes/anti-ship missiles or TACTOM. It's staying power in a fight is limited compared to the Astutes 38 warload or the Virginia's expanding warload in the Block IV's and V's with the introduction of the Virginia Payload Module. I'm just as glad that it was cancelled for something that will have the teeth and the range to operate throughout our region with the torpedo and long range strike capability that allows for a wide range of missions and the staying power to execute it's missions in the region.

[@patolt1628]

@@BallisticSollution A lengthy argument ... Although this may surprise you, I can understand your point to some extent. It's a change of strategy: OK, let's put it this way. You have decided to put your fate in the hands of the USA. I can understand that in the Pacific context although I don't think China will attack Australia (they don't even have the capability to invade Taïwan...). Moreover, knowing that the USA are currently the biggest military power in the world, the contribution of Australia with a bunch of US submarines in this big game might be "paper thin and extremely limited". What you want is a life insurance, I hope you'll get it. Anyway this change in strategy comes obviously with a complete change in military equipment so that everything not american becomes immediately inadequate, expansive and so on, and a 60 billion € contract is simply terminated. It's legal (no doubt about that) but of bad faith and if we are disappointed and unhappy, it's childish! Unbelievable! That's where we differ strongly. Once a contract is signed, this scenario is very unusual. All contracts associated with a technical development have some delays and sometimes some additional cost, always and everywhere, even in the USA (cf. the F 35 among others), except if you buy "off the shelf". The additional costs, if any, are not supposed to be paid by the customer because there is an agreement on the selling price, unless the customer has wished to take part in the development. Then it's clearly defined in the contract, all the costs are reviewed and agreed periodically by all the parties involved at every defined milestone and usually it's going well. In all complex systems development, compromises are inevitable, technically and financially. That's the way it is and the way it works. But termination of a contract is something happening as a last resort and is very serious. That's why if, from an anglosaxon perspective, it's just pragmatism, almost nothing, for us it's a slap in the face. We will survive the loss of the money but we'll keep in mind that Australia is not a reliable partner (that's what I meant saying we'll not forget). Next time don't issue an RFP, go to the Pentagon and ask them what you need: we both will save time and money. Regarding helicopters, by chance I have been in this business for 35 years, as a pilot in the military, then an experimental test pilot and eventually as an engineer in aircraft industry. The Tiger is used by 3 countries only (outside Australia): that's not a lot but it is considered as a good H/C, especially by the French Army which has used it in combat (Afghanistan, Mali) without problems. If you prefer the Apache, fine, but you should not have bought the Tiger ... By the way, when you complain about French equipment, I remind you that the Tiger is not a French H/C, it's Frenco-German. There is a saying in France: "If you want to kill your dog, just tell he's rabid". I know better the NH90 since I have been involved in this program for 10 years. It's a different concept compared with the UH60 but it is used in combat in Mali with the Tiger without any major issue and is operated by 13 countries in hot and cold climates (from Oman to Norway). Nobody complains about it except Australia. So "woefully inadequate" seems excessive to say the least. We have the impression that Australians are never happy and complain about everything. We sent many people from Eurocopter in Australia to help preparing the commissioning of the MRH90 (it was not free of charge for industry): everybody loved Australia but came back tired because "everything was more complicated than anywhere else"... You know, it's a pity but we have to admit that we have very different mindsets, not really compatible. You are "pragmatic", we are "emotional", like cat and dog. Best wishes for happiness for your honeymoon with America, you will be their back-up soldiers but it should be fine since you are belonging to the same world. However be careful since the US have abandoned all those who have ever trusted them in the last 50 years. They speak English but they can let you down overnight.They are "pragmatic" ...

[@azurman3]

@@willymac5036 It is not about $90B but 90B of Australian dollars of 2021, which means 12 submarines for $66B (in $ of 2021) !! Thus that means AUS$5.5 for each submarine. Initially, the contract was up to AUS$50B (AUS$4B per sub) but increased to 90 mostly due to FOREX rates. In those $66B, only 26% was planned to be paid to France, the rest going back to Australia as the submarines were to be built within the country.

[@Andy81ish]

Dude, this was very informative and well done. It looks like someone in the navy is doing their job. I was looking at the new Hunter Class Frigates the other day and other then the number of MK41 cells it looks like they will be larger, more capable then the Hobarts. Care to do a video on that? Also the new OPV?

[@beautifulfouse]

This is a wonderful acknowledgement that we realize we all need each other and are acting on it which is a surprise. That shows how serious we are taking the Chinese situation.

[@reallyhappenings5597]

AUKUS is a good thing!

[@mjguerin63]

Yeah, in 20 years!

[@bustermorley8318]

Easily the best and most comprehensive explanation of the complexities that Australia face with the Future Submarine program

[@josephyang4997]

As we in Taiwan are now trying to develop our own submarines with 0 experience whatsoever, there are many lessons we must learn from Australia's example. Also we wish we were so lucky as to have 3 nations offer us weapons and platforms. Usually we just get almost out of date US equipment

[@colinmcgrathinsydney]

Australia, US and UK should always help Taiwan, the whole Free World should help Taiwan.

[@matthewredman7814]

I have fear the western world could cold shoulder Taiwan if it were ever attacked

[@colinmcgrathinsydney]

@@matthewredman7814 yes, I understand your worry on that matter. Political leaders... who knows what they'll decide at the hour war is to be decided. We do know that Taiwan will fight to the bitter end, therefore, we must hope and write to our politicians, that our respective govts provide all materiel support to Taiwan in the interim period. A heavily defended and weaponised Taiwan has a strong chance of keeping the CCPs military at bay, humiliating it and defeating it politically on the world stage. Taiwan's stoicism and bravery in the face of tyranny may then be enough to tilt the scales and see a united Free World fight for Taiwan's freedom no matter the cost. The CCP is a menace to all nations if they are not confronted, the sooner our political elite realise this, the sooner they can be defeated by a united Free World

[@davidburland6576]

India and Vietnam have advanced coast defense missles both nations could be very friendly.

[@Manbemanbe]

Superb, mate. This really helped fill in the gaps in my understanding that aren’t covered in the regular news.

[@garyhankinson5695]

While I agree with views that France could have been informed earlier than the announcement. But how would it look if France brought up the subject publicly before the official AUKUS announcement. I’m sure something would have been leaked to the press.

[@TheBooban]

They could terminate the contract without mentioning AUKUS.

[@brendenbrewer2956]

@@TheBooban why the frogs would have still had a fit give a rest frog it was always a shit deal for Australia

[@TheBooban]

@@brendenbrewer2956 doesnt matter if it were a shit deal, you entered into it and awarded it to them. Takes two to tango. You should gracefully exit. Maybe the french would have still thrown a fit. They would have less reason to do and that would be on them. Being polite is on you.

[@z_actual]

Best break down of Australia's submarine ambitions

[@bryce4724]

I think goung with aukus was a better choice but the french are right he should have flown in and personally explained why, it almost felt unaustralian in how we politically handled it

[@casuallatecomer7597]

Agreed, AUKUS needed more time to develop before it was enacted for the world to see, the way it's set up right now is too "in your face" for other nations (France, China and regional south-east Asian countries) in my opinion it should've been drawn out slowly, with more details and the exact nature of what's involved coming through bit by bit so as not to provoke too much backlash.

[@chrisrabbitt]

The French aren't just a little bit wrong they are out of line, not Australia. Given the way France has treated Australia it was the best thing for Australia to do. The French didn't live up to the letter of the contract and instead delayed it by a decade then asked for more money. If you knew anything about military contracts you would be aware of just how unacceptable that is and certainly wouldn't feel bad for France who screwed themselves.

[@TheBooban]

@@casuallatecomer7597 Even Australian citizens were surprised. Politicians owe it to their voters to let them at least think about it for a bit before. There is no contract here, this was an announcement of nothing and could unravel anyways.

[@notshapedforsportivetricks2912]

The Australian government's handling of the announcement was clumsy in the extreme. Admittedly, the deal for the french boats was a lousy one for Australia in terms of both cost and delivery, and was only done as a vote-buying exrcise by the execrable Turnbull to save the seat of his cup bearer Pyne. Nevertheless, when you are breaking a deal that big, it was unfogivably gauche not to provide the french qith fair warning and offer them some sort of participation in the new project. That said, both the UK and the US should also have been aware of the offence that would be caused and have taken the appropriate precautions.

[@masterofpuppets7295]

@@notshapedforsportivetricks2912 actually the 3 governments involved have done exactly what was required when it comes to extremely important defence matters... SECRECY. In this day and age i'm suprised they managed to achieve it between 2 let a lone 3 western democracies.

[@shaunreid6851]

Love you're content, I wish somebody would do this kind of deep analysis for UK military procurement and matters.

[@marktucker8896]

While I understand the reasons why you would think purchasing a French SSN would not work. It would have been a better way to deal with both the fallout of the cancelation of the attack class and provide a framework for section of what comes next to have announced a new competitive process to supply an SSN to the RAN. I see no reason France could not have been given an opportunity to submit a proposal to supply and support the Barracuda Class. Even if France had no chance of winning, it would have at least been a way for Naval group to exit with its honor intact. Something that as a friend, yes should have given consideration. Unfortunately, one of the nasty surprises coming to the Australian Government is how long it will take to see an SSN commissioned into the RAN. Realistically we are talking the late 2030's before the RAN sees the first boat. Given that both US yards and the British yard are busy with what are the business period in submarine construction since the Reagan era build up. Even construction in Australia would be hard to imagine with key suppliers at maximum capacity during this period already supporting five massive programs (Virginia, Columbus, Dreadnought, SSNX and SSNR). If Australia wants an SSN this decade or early in the next, the French is the only real option. I would rule out an Indian sub built with Russian tech. Unless somebody is silly enough to think buying 35-year-old Los Angeles Class subs and trying to do a refuel and major overhaul in Adelaide is a clever way to employ Australian's.

[@hypohystericalhistory8133]

Sorry mate I'm not sure this makes much sense. You are concerned about the amount of additional time it will take to get an Australian SSN capability into the water, yet you want to have a new competitive evaluation process that will include the French even though they have no chance of winning? Can you explain that reasoning for me? As for the timing, Collins is already going through the LOTE program which is explicitly designed to give the RAN space to allow the new boats to be in the water in the 2035 - 40 time period. But we should not pretend that we know what the delivery schedule will be for the Australian SSNs just because a couple of Americans have said that it will be decades. If we chose a reasonably off the shelf design and we source the reactors completes then we could see the first keel laid down by 2025 - 2026 with a boat in commission by 2035. We just don’t know enough yet. And finally you are ignoring the possibility of eitehr a) basing US SSNs in Australia with split crews or b) leasing some 688i class boats for a 10 year period, both of which have been talked about by the Australian defence minister.

[@marktucker8896]

@@hypohystericalhistory8133 Firstly I do not think anybody disagrees that we handled terminating the attack class program poorly. What we did was legally correct but was politically wrong. By saving that we will not even consider the French nuclear submarine option we have defamed the French in a profoundly powerful way. We have implied we think their latest nuclear sub, the pride of French Navy and Industry, developed at considerable cost to the French taxpayer is a load of crap. The French take their national pride very, very seriously. This is what the spat is about, not the fact we cancelled the program. I am not sure even the Australian Government appreciates this. The only way to fix this is say, we are sorry, we didn't mean to offend you in this way. If you include them in the selection process that surely must come next, you can cool the fire we have unintentionally lit. Make no mistake we need to do something to put out this fire. While I understand the desire to rush for the SSN option, this is too important to rush, too risky to get wrong. We need to think about other options for countering China in the short term. More P-8's is something you can and should do short term when we talk about ASW. Containerized deployment of LRASM, something the USN is already working on, would fill requirement for deploying them in large numbers. There are plenty of options to be considered for the role of being the immediate counter to Chinese aggression. That said adding an SSN to the RAN in the long term makes a lot of sense. Had we made this decision ten years, would have been no problem, thanks to budget cutbacks, we could have had out pick of build slots in the US, but our timing is simply terrible. I understand that a LOTE for the Collins will occur, that is a matter of public record. There has been a lot of talk about we could just lease a US Boat. This is simply not possible. The USN has a massive boat shortage they are trying to deal with. The reduction in construction between 1995 and 2012 is now seriously impacting the fleet. They have announced an increase in build numbers, but with Columbia having priority, they are limited in how many Virginias they can build in the short term. The USN have told congress they will go under the floor of forty-eight boats in the early 2030's and will not reach the sixty-six boats target until 2048. It is not that the USN does not want to lease boats to Australia, but the fact it would undermine the USN Sub fleet to do so which prevents it. I agree we will see more US and British Boats visiting Australia, that we will see Australian's study in the US, serve on both US and UK boats to gain experience and all this will help. When they talk about there may be an interim option, they are talking about seven boats which the USN retired over a decade ago instead of doing the midlife refuel and overhaul. The USN officially considers these boats to be held in reserve. The problem is they have been sitting for 12 to 24 years and would be in terrible condition as a result. Just think of the corrosion that would have built up over that time. The USN Yards which could do the work are struggling under a maintenance backlog as well. Talk about a perfect storm. The bottom line is Biden has promised Morrison something the USN simply does not have to give.

[@sachalorber8470]

@@marktucker8896 Before saying 'legally correct', I'd like to say this has not been well established yet. And both the ADF and Naval are discussing about this right now. The French continue to believe this was not done according to the contract, that stipulates an 18 months review period which Australia has not agreed to yet.

[@TheBooban]

@@sachalorber8470 yes, because Australia was so rude, the French will extract every penny they can for canceling the contract. All was needed was a heads up phone call the week before canceling the contract. Current Australian govt. was very foolish. And this is the second time. The Japanese also feel dissed. Powerful Asian neighbors are watching Australia’s political bungling. Members of ASEAN do not want to be humiliated in the way Australia treats it’s friends.

[@TheBooban]

@@marktucker8896 US companies are not going to refuse billions of Australian dollars. Maybe their yards are full, but the idea is to start an Australian yard, isn’t it? And for the sake of the AUKUS partnership Congress may not minding missing a couple of boats over ten years. But the UK needs the work and the timing is almost perfect. Australia could have Dreadnought based subs.

[@SirAMG63]

Loved this video. Regards from an Indian ally 😇

[@kreol1q1q]

My only criticism is that I would have liked more time being afforded to the "Why are the French so upset about this?" segment, and that too much nationalist bias seems to seep into the frequent callouts of French "histrionics". For such an extremely well constructed video to have a conclusion that boils down to "the French are hysterical, but maybe we should have told them a couple of days earlier to avoid their overreaction" is saddening. A proper examination of possible causes for their "hysteria", as well as a proper assesment of the failures of Australian diplomacy to grasp those causes would have served much better.

[@EK-gr9gd]

The French offered SSNs for the original tender, Australia declined nuclear propulsion.

[@samiamgreeneggsandham7587]

You seem to assume fault for France’s butt hurt on the cancellation lies with Australia. I would argue that the French never in fact saw the deal as part of any kind of “strategic” relationship. Why would they? They have no skin in the game, and don’t seem to intend to put any in. It was purely a commercial relationship for them, and even in that regard, they did not act in good faith. Their fake outrage merely aims to distract from their own inability to deliver.

[@gawdsuniverse3282]

Most people have no knowledge of what transpired throughout the whole sorry saga of the submarine deal with the Naval Group. From the start, after signing the deal, the French company has tried to renege on every guarantee they made. The most egregious is the French trying to stop local Australian companies from being involved in the construction of the subs. The Morrison government had grown increasingly concerned about cost blowouts, schedule slippages and commitments to use local contractors. Since 2016 there have been 2.5 billion dollars paid by the Australian government, over fours years and the French haven't even finished designing the subs. The French asked for an extension nearly two years ago which would extend the design completion date from July 2022 to September 2023. This is fraud, asking for more money and time extensions, it is just a tactic to extort as much money out of Australia as they can while they deliver the bare minimum. The French have been angry and belligerent when dealing with the Australian government and local business in Australia from the start of the contract to the present day, with a willingness to immediately be confrontational when challenged about any part of the process. This is why they lost the contract, no progress, constant lies and nothing tangible for 2.5 billion dollars. The Naval Group have proved they can't be trusted.

[@JohnHughesChampigny]

@@samiamgreeneggsandham7587 "They have no skin in the game"? Well, other than the 1.3 million French citizens living in the region.

[@samiamgreeneggsandham7587]

@@JohnHughesChampigny The French are simply not on the field of play. Their colonial possessions are not under threat in the way Australia is, and in any case, those are not core possessions. Their behaviour shows that. When has Charles de Gaulle ever deployed to the Pacific? Aside from a single brief deployment of a submarine earlier this year, they’ve shown little interest in the strategic situation other than in using it as leverage to rip Australia off. But don’t worry. When push comes to shove, I’m sure the RAN, USN and RN will do their best to insure France’s 1.3 million subjects in the Pacific aren’t harmed.

[@jasonmack5522]

absolutely loving the video so far love your work mate

[@RandomNickyDee2]

A lot of commentators seem to be assuming that Australia is going to end up with the Virginia Class... I suspect its far more likely that Australia will actually be getting a version of the British Astute Class. The Astute class is significantly cheaper (which will be an important part of the decision), it requires fewer crew (which will be important as Australia lacks the numbers of submariners to expand its fleet rapidly). The Astute is also manufacturerd by BAE, who Australia have existing links to through the Hunter Class/Type 26 programs. The Astute is cheaper, in many respects more modern, easier to run and readily exportable. I'd be very suprised if Australia ended up with the Virginia Class.

[@rayjames6096]

The PWR2 in the Astute is a bad design, the PWR3 that will be in the Dreadnought class is based on an American design that's in the Virgina class already, and the Virgina class is better so the Astute is not more modern.

[@tomjowitt8554]

@@rayjames6096 not sure how you can say Virginia is better than Astute. The reactor issue has been sorted. By all the accounts I have Read Astute is a better sub, cheaper and needs less crew. Also it features a better squared bow (front) that is a quieter design. Next gen Virginia looking to adopt that design BTW. The only thing Astute lacks compared to Virginia class is vertical launchers for anti ship hence it needs 20 to 30 less crew. The Astute however uses its horizontal launchers for its anti ship options. The real issue for Australia is availability. You need subs now. US has no spare sub manufacturing capabilities. UK may have but is soon ending Astute production - unless Aus books it quick. Suspect Aus may lease some old Los Angeles class from US or old Trafalgar class boats from the UK to train up on. There are plenty of choices awaiting decommissioning.

[@rayjames6096]

@@tomjowitt8554 The PWR2 reactor on the Astute is a faulty design and will not be on the Dreadnought class, that will be a PWR3 which is based on the S9G an American design that is on the Virginia class. The Virginia class is larger so it has a larger crew. The UK has no spare submarine production capability. That bow nonsense is irrelevant.

[@tomjowitt8554]

@@rayjames6096 We agree to disagree then. I agree the Virginia is a slightly bigger boat (but the Astute is faster...so what?). Both boats are really good subs, and I was just pointing this out. However if my bow comment is nonsense, why are the US going to adopt it? Suggest you check out Sub Brief's review of the Astute. He is an American ex submariner to see his take on the squared design of the Astute. He also backs up my comment about the vertical launchers on the Virginia needing extra crew.

[@rayjames6096]

@@tomjowitt8554 The Columbia class does not have the same bow design as the Astute.

[@Buck-mp4yi]

I just found your channel this morning. I am already a huge fan. I love these videos

[@YaMumsSpecialFriend]

The french reaction is most likely due to Morrison’s insulting diplomatic ineptitude and blatant duplicity toward Macron personally. So whilst technically I totally agree re contractual gateways etc, diplomacy isn’t bound by such black and white commercial agreement. There was far more to our relationship than dollars and francs and Morrison has severely damaged our increasing military cooperation.

[@simonhattrell5321]

Quite right. I think 'diplomatic ineptitide' sums it up very well. The guy either did not listen to advice from diplomats or is completely lacking in any understanding of a very proud nation. I wrote a personal letter to Macron and got a very courteous reply. I note too that Turnbull got on the phone to Macron.

[@BTechUnited]

@@simonhattrell5321 It seems to be a recurring theme that former Prime Minister's are doing the current PM's job for them, see also Kevin Rudd getting hold of Pfizer representatives.

[@michaelcorbidge7914]

This is the bloke who was on holiday in Hawaii when the fires were happening and he couldn't see why he should return to offer moral support. Same bloke who fuqued up the vaccines acquisitions resulting in more lockdowns and billions of dollars lost . He informed Malaysia and Japan by phone conversation but France was last on his list and he just left a text message like a teenager lacking courage. As a Pentecost he would have actually believed that saying a prayer would h a ve made it all work out fine.

[@sixstringedthing]

It was a Coalition government that got us stuck with the $90B FSP Hybrid White Elephant deal with Naval Group in the first place, sticking the middle finger up at the Japanese and Germans in very poor form thanks to lobbying/croneyism from pollies and their industry mates, and a revolving door for incompetent defense ministers. So I suppose it's fitting that another Liberal PM should oversee the diplomatically disastrous backpedal when the US and UK offered an alternative to bail us out. And here I was hoping that some lessons were learned through the Collins class acquisition. Turns out that such lessons are irrelevant when the people involved in negotiating the contract are mostly interested in feathering their own nests, Australia's strategic capability be damned.

[@lesflynn4455]

Well that was a very interesting 80 minutes of comprehensive analysis and reasonable, well thought-out opinion. Thanks very much for the post.

[@turbine6338]

This was an Amazing break down of the pros & cons for Australia's next Submarines. Yes the French did have a good sub, but when taking account of the situation in the South China Sea's and beyond they chose the right sub, being unclear. We must also remind ourselves the way the French conduct themselves when they can't get their own way. Great example, how they are treating the UK during the ongoing Brexit situation

[@michaelcorbidge7914]

The AUKUS nuclear submarine is by definition a nuclear weapon especially if it uses 98% enriched weapons grade uranium. The constitution does not permit Australia to have nuclear weapons. The 6% enriched uranium fuel rods of French nuclear are simply a safer option but likely still unacceptable. Morrison announced the deal on that day in a notched up Aussie accent as if it were a fait accompli. I don't think it's all done n dusted .

[@michaelcorbidge7914]

The AUKUS nuclear submarine is by definition a nuclear weapon especially if it uses 98% enriched weapons grade uranium. The constitution does not permit Australia to have nuclear weapons. The 6% enriched uranium fuel rods of French nuclear are simply a safer option but likely still unacceptable. Morrison announced the deal on that day in a notched up Aussie accent as if it were a fait accompli. I don't think it's all done n dusted .

[@samthomson6087]

Exceptionally well presented and researched. Watched this and your F-35 program video and am amazed how high quality your coverage is. Subscribed and liked sir, you deserve it for putting together such well thought out, fascinating videos.

[@RandomAussieGuy87]

KZbinr SubBrief does an excellent overview of the Attack class project. Goes into detail about how industry lobbying won out over proper procurement processes.

[@IanGerritsen]

Subbrief is a champ, excellent content too. Some others like Caspian Report go more into the political side but Subbrief covers the sub side very in depth.

[@RandomAussieGuy87]

@@XMeK What makes you say that?

[@chris_yang]

Watching this is much more comprehensive and provides the historical and political aspects in sharper detail.

[@aussiemilitant4486]

@@IanGerritsen I used to like Caspian report alot, but whenever he makes any content relating to Turkey or Turkic peoples his bias shows and it shows badly. He is intelligent, well spoken and well researched but all that is for naught if your quickly fall back to bias overtones because the subject is closer to home.

[@rodneyholland1867]

link here... If you like diving into detail, I agree totally, it is worth watching. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nWPZn5afp854lbM

[@maxt7525]

Another great factual presentation well done! Can you do one on the MRH90 taipans?