Can Australia handle its new fleet of nuclear submarines? | Four Corners

Australia is spending up to $32 million a day, over the next 32 years, to build a new fleet of nuclear submarines.
Under the AUKUS deal, it’s the country’s largest ever defence purchase, with hopes it will strengthen ties with critical allies - the UK and US.
But lately, Australia’s ability to handle even its current fleet of ageing submarines is looking shaky.
The navy maintains the Collins class remain a “lethal capability” but over the past few years there’s been fires, floods and significant maintenance delays. At the start of 2023, the Australian Navy had only one battle-ready submarine.
Four Corners investigates whether Australia can deliver on its $368 billion defence strategy, and if it will be enough to deter China’s growing influence in the Pacific.
#ABCNewsIndepth #ABCNewsAustralia

[@russellcullen9913]

The war will be over by the time we get any submarines.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Who wins

[@taipantaipan941]

​@@Eric-kn4ynThe enemy wins. Unfortunately.

[@MrAndyshanahan]

The fact is our strategic situation has changed, and the nuclear option is a better fit. The whole hysteria in the report on the 'problems with waste and handling of technology' is moot. The SG9 reactors for the Virginia class will be manufactured in the UK or US, and sent here as a module that drops into the sub and doesn't need refueling or replacing for the service life of that sub (33 years).

[@TK199999]

Very true, but I also look forward to the next Jurassic Park movie that takes place in Australia when China invades. While local Australian wild life (which I assume is dinosaurs) defeats the enemy ala Avatar except more brutally/bloodily...perhaps with 80's synth beat.

[@johnchin1456]

The french deal was better. It involved the subs being part built in ozzy, with tech exchange. Most servicing, maintenance done in Australia, not abroad in UK, usa deal. Besides costing more, these junk subs will be second hand and very old. Launch codes would be controlled by usa, UK as Australians are treated as infants and not trusted. So funny Australia pisses off it primary trade partner

[@johnchin1456]

33 years? The subs are not far off the end of their service life, being secondhand and prepped fr scrapping

[@MrAndyshanahan]

@@johnchin1456 So in your mind we're spending billions buying rusted out second hand subs? Hmmm. pretty sure that's not the plan.

[@kentershackle1329]

LoL, you think the subs gonna run 33 years straight on? ... the Fuel might not need replacement BUT the whole subs does need periodical maintenance.. every 2.5 / 5 then 15th where deep maintenance is done. This is where the ingenuous french design gonna replace its low radiation rod, cheaper to dispose.

[@robertmiller2173]

As an ANZAC from the South Island of New Zealand, it would be great if our big brother Australia had some really good submarines. Some Aussies try to get stuck into us Kiwis over our defense investment, completely ignoring that our total Population isn't as big as Sydney's! New Zealand's Population is just over 5 million compared to our big brother 26,000,000. Anyway NZ has invested in brand new P-8A's, a magnificent aircraft and perfectly designed to patrol our massive Airspace and Oceanic territory. New Zealand works in well with the USA, Australia in the pacific region and our P-8A's will be working in well with our Aussie, US, Japanese, South Korean, Taiwanese and British cobbers! The Fiords at the base of the South Island would be a great place to hide some submarines. Maybe Aussie could have purchased German Subs, they are non nuke, but run on Fuel Cells and are reputed to be the quietest subs in the world, Israel has purchased these subs! OK their range isn't that crash hot in the massive pacific.. Anyway I'm backing our Allies, mates and cobbers!

[@Nathan-ry3yu]

Theirs no Conventional powerd submarines fit for purpose for Australia region. Even the last choice of conventional powerd submarines choosen was French nuclear power submarine turned into a conventional powerd submarines as they was the only country that was prepared to do it. For RAN. But over budget arguments between the French company and RAN over deadlines and leaks of technology giving to India Australia pulled out of the deal. AUKUS was the best way to go. Just expensive to set up but works out cheaper in the long run. And you end up with better technology and more lethality

[@thelogician1934]

U r getting yourself killed gor being foolhardy. This is not a game. If you lose, the country is annihilated

[@TK199999]

Just so you know recent US Pentagon leaks have shown that Australia would allow China to annex New Zealand to stave off major sanctions from Beijing, not even necessarily an invasion. Arguing that the islands population is mostly sheep and they very communist anyway.

[@johnchin1456]

It will take more than a few subs to protect them from the governments LGBT woke agenda, enjoy!

[@Chip_in]

Nuclear free G ⛳

[@fredericp.2182]

What they didn't say in this reportage is that AUKUS US/GB submarines have already cost nearly A BILLION AUD (555 millions EUROS) in a breach of contract with France and it postponed the delivery of the new submarines to the next century 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@oceanic8424]

Canadian here. It's quite interesting that you have a former RCN sub captain commanding one of your Collins boats. Our Victoria-class boats (4) are also aging, so we'll have to see what the next few govts will do to plan the future path for our submarine capabilities. Submarine capabilities are core defense/warfighting competencies, and they must be maintained. Allowing any lapses in these key capabilities would be catastrophic, and extremely expensive to re-establish from scratch. Really, we should also have a nuclear submarine fleet, but previous govts have always balked at the costs involved. We will follow the progress of AUKUS very closely to see if it could suit us in some form.

[@goodputin4324]

Canada are better off with Scorpene submarines due to its French connection. Bon tonnere!

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Australia indo pacific is a danger zone cost not primary concern here

[@rsinclair6560]

You can have our nukes mate.

[@rsinclair6560]

@@Eric-kn4yn why is it a 'danger zone'. From who ans why?

[@oceanic8424]

@@rsinclair6560 Primarily China's vast ambitions to increase its influence, and military power. They are also very eager to export their brand of communism; they believe that Western democracies are messy, inefficient systems. In many senses they are because they are high maintenance governmental systems, but the autocratic alternatives are NOT acceptable to us. We value our many liberties, and freedoms. The West must put barriers in the way of China's greedy ambitions, and contain their military expansion. Preparedness and deterrence are the ways to avoid potential conflicts.

[@alNange]

Improper to film? With national security potentially compromised? And the ASC officer just took their word.

[@AcesAndNates]

Well you all obviously don’t look Chinese so, have a great day!

[@koalaseatleaves1277]

1) They were beyond the exclusion zone in public waters. 2) What you can see with your own eyes you can take video and photographs of from public areas. 3) There's no media credentials anyone can take photos or video from public areas.

[@rbrookeb]

China already takes advantage of every countries national security structures. Might as well not make it even easier for them.

[@The_Crazy_Monkey75]

Since there is AUKUS, maybe the Australian navy should be allowed to lease Los Angeles Class nuclear submarines that is near retirement until their own nuclear subs are ready for delivery.

[@nickb5311]

worked on these horrible cramped things at ASC for over 6 years. The amount of times they'd need to come in for maintenance was ridiculous. they take filming super serious i remember one dude on site uploaded a selfie taken on board to insta, he got raided by AFP the same day

[@nickb5311]

the Anzac class is no different, there's a ship thats been sitting at BAE for years now used completely for parts

[@georgedres7914]

We spend 6 billion a year maintaining collins why not get some off the shelf diesels built my whomever until we get the virginias

[@MrDisasterboy]

@@georgedres7914 Singapore seemed to get a good deal on its new subs.

[@timrogers9931]

@@MrDisasterboy They have conventional subs, and built for entirely different uses.

[@easternfrontagain]

@@georgedres7914 we already had those sub being built by French, then previous Australian government have killed the deal. Now they’re changing their plans again. Gosh

[@pmp3446]

I think the actual age of the pro submarine deal talking heads should be added to their name when interviewed. That way when every part of this deal lapses we have a data point showing what their individual agenda was with 20/20 hindsight.

[@53kenner]

If WW2 taught Australia anything, it's that it is better to deal with aggressors as far away from your shores as possible. Nuclear boats can reach China and maintain extended patrols off its shore -- conventional boats are far more limited and thus, if there should be a fight, it moves closer to Australia.

[@newton18311]

Americas first line of defence is Europe.

[@Gunni1972]

If WW3 WILL teach Australia anything, it will be, that Missiles do not CARE where AUS submarines roam. The Parliament building Oil and Gas Storages, Powerplants will still be, where they always were. And Weapons reach a lot further nowadays. However, if you think, that 3 Submarines can cover more area or engage more targets than 9, you should check your brain.

[@LeonAust]

Time on station 11 days for a diesel in the South China sea and over 3 months or food reserves for a nuclear sub....big difference. Carrying weapons and drones capabilities are vastly superior for a nuke. oh! nuclear subs run on a power plant that lasts for 30 years. With a Nuclear submarine more weapons capability for land attack missiles so what can happen to us can happen to them. Having diesel subs negate retaliation or a reasonable deterrent....get it!@@Gunni1972

[@dingoeatswolf3663]

⁠@@Gunni1972😂just check the shipping routes China uses to import all those items it needs to survive and function…one sub in the Melaka straight pretty much cripples china acquiring those goods. You should reprogram your brain 😘

[@bobsmith3983]

You should realize China's nuclear missiles will fly over the water and hit Australia proper in a war scenario. How is a sub going to help you with that? Gigantic waste of money.

[@garrysomerville6204]

I think a lot of journalists and people for that matter in Australia talk ourselves down too much, and there were a lot of holes based on little facts that officials would not fill, to make it easier for the journalist to absorb, so as usual, the journalist went down the negative track because it was safer for him. Not that he did anything for the Servicemen that are out there trying to protect and safe guard our security, they should be praised for what they do, we need more people doing this job, so how about a bit more praise for what they are doing then please!

[@kevwills858]

Garry Journalist paid by Murdoch or Fairfax media, generally report what their bosses pay them (ie propaganda) I love journalists too .. The ones that work hard and are Void of intimidation or the herd ... Servicemen are great also, so long as they fight for freedom and defend what's right 👍

[@russellmiles2861]

Oh the Journalist could have gone down far more dark rabbit holes ... They avoided the entire issue of Western nuclear alliance and how our security is embedded in this ... Let alone what role our military plays. And our submarines are not going to every be attacking the PLA-N around the South China sea. That is just never been Australias strategic practice.

[@danielch6662]

​@@russellmiles2861 so what is their purpose,?

[@kevwills858]

@@danielch6662 Their purpose and our purpose is to keep the Dream Alive .. Theirs is for Control and Riches, ours is (should be) to live in Peace, truth and harmony .. Mother Earth is our Mothee ✌

[@Pushing_Pixels]

This journalist never said a bad word about the people serving on the subs, only that we didn't have enough of them.

[@kstang61]

It says a nuclear powered sub will take around 6 days to reach taiwan strait from perth as compared to 3 weeks for a colin class. in the first place, why do you need to go there to fight it is not your war (if any) ?

[@Prometheus4096]

To help the US fight China in a nuclear war.

[@alanbstard4]

exactly

[@bekicot88]

Billions dollar for military budget but minimalism for prevent floods in Australia

[@teckmenglee8060]

Politicians who don't prioritize Australia's livelihoods first, will be replaced at the next elections.

[@rosswalker3457]

The Chinese Navy is large and getting larger by the year, you never hear a politician mention that fact is thanks to Australian iron ore,and quality coal for quality steel production. Can someone in the bubble remind them about Pig iron Bob.

[@jefftse4709]

The Chinese Navy is large and getting larger by the year, that's a common knowledge. The report of it has been overwhelming

[@buck3t_]

Just doing some quick napkin maths, if we just went for the French nuclear subs which shouldn't cost more than $5B each we could have about 73 subs for the price of 8... I'm sure there's more than just the subs and facilities to build them that $368B is paying for but I'm not convinced it's worth it. Also those French subs run on low enriched Uranium which would be less of a concern internationally and we could scale up lucas heights or build another facility to supply those subs rather than relying on the US to supply us.

[@zapbrannigan9770]

I think the biggest problem with the french reactors is that they’ll need refuelling and the yank or british won’t.

[@charlcoetzee281]

The French boats for Australia were a design adaption from the nuclear Longfin Barracuda with 80% commonality. The French are taking their second and third nuclear boats in service. It would have made sense starting with replacement of some of the Collins with the Shortfin Barracuda (the conventional version) and the later ones with the nuclear Longfin Barracuda eventually switching all nuclear over a period of time.

[@superdatcha4218]

@@zapbrannigan9770 it doesn’t resolve the problem as Aussie won’t be able to refuel it as to manage waste …

[@stitch77100]

​@@superdatcha4218 but somehow, they will be able to do so with the Los Angeles Class ? (Or the new AUKUS Class that is still to be designed ?) Plus, what you call "refueling" is only a renewal of the fissile material, to ensure the level of "energy" stays regular during the life of the sub's reactor. Whereas the US and UK design only is power during their lifetime (but start with a "higher energy potential", if you want to visualise it). BUT, because you can't refuel it, no more extension of the lifetime like you did with the Collins. Once they are at their maximum (35-ish years) they are toast and unable to power the propulsion anymore. So, given what happened this time with the Collins, I don't get why you would believe that this would be a good idea (I mean, how do you feel with no submarines at all for several years, because you would not be able to "refuel" them ?)

[@superdatcha4218]

@@stitch77100 Not exactely … US subs use high level of uranium … they don’t need more uranium for extra time, but they are very dangerous if sunk … french sub use poor uranium … they can be « refueled » and are not that dangerous if sunk … and that uranium can’t be use to make nukes

[@tonysu8860]

For the Collins class submarines to have only one vessel deployed should not be too surprising. The US policy is to have 1/3 of the fleet in deep maintenance and upgragrades, 1/3 in nomral maintenance which would leave 1/3 normally deployed. When you're talking about a fleet of only 6 vessels, it shouldn't be surprising that only one ship might be deployed.

[@phil20_20]

Two is a lot better than one though. 😅 Redundancy is essential in a war.

[@SamTheOldMan]

👍I wonder if that ratio changes in times of war?

[@teckmenglee8060]

great work, Australian politicians. I think the common Australians will make better decisions for Australians than the current lot of politicians.

[@Pushing_Pixels]

The the US keeps 1/3 operational and we keep 1/6. Totally normal.

[@douglasnakamura6753]

@@Pushing_Pixels We don't normally keep 1/6 peanut

[@whoisthispianist194]

Navy has a long and terrible history or mistreating it’s people and platforms. There is no way in hell they will pull off this project. When I was a sailor in our Navy there were more suicides than I can count. The culture of bullying combined with the near complete lack of accountability in the Chain of Command will result in dysfunction and despair at every level. We don’t have the infrastructure or the engineering talent to pull this off. Our government has delusions of grandeur. If we MUST have nuclear subs why not buy them for the Americans? At least they have proven they have the skills, the knowledge and a Navy with a team that works.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Sailors are snowfakes u say ?

[@user-nk7yp8sj6o]

Older American here. Perhaps the Australian Navy should consider moving a little further away from the British model of military / navel structure & adopt one more like the Americans use. Take a close look at all the US & UK Navy videos out there, especially those dealing with submarines. Look closely at the crews, how the sailors & officers dress, how the crew members interact & the overall working environment. I might be wrong but it appears to me that there is a difference between the two. Talk to your troops that have served in joint operations with the US military & see if these people have any suggestions. You made some good points. Don't sell your people short, I have no doubt that Australia has the intellectual talent to excel in any field. Look at the potential career & manufacturing opportunities if you explore more joint educational ventures with the US. Get courses into your universities & navy training programs now. Best of luck.

[@whoisthispianist194]

@@user-nk7yp8sj6o we don’t have a fraction of the military budget of the USA, and our talent pool is much smaller. We also don’t have quite the same desire to police the world.

[@timneaves519]

We can’t crew them ,we can’t build them, we can’t afford them. The whole idea has got more holes in it than a sunken U Boat.

[@PeterGort]

17:17 mark, he sounds just like The Honourable Minister For Administrative Affairs, Jim Hacker. I lost the plot when my son pointed it out to me. 😂

[@movieviewing]

There is an inaccuracy in the report when came to uk British sub and there disposal yes there been British subs pilling up but recently there been plans put in place where now know how to dispose of them safely.

[@mrw6156]

Exactly - they are in safe condition unlike the Russian subs just left rotting in port for most of the 1990s.

[@Chrinik]

At first I was gonna call BS on a nuclear submarine engine producing 200MW of power...but he's actually right. The Virginia-class S9G nuclear reactor sits at 210MW

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Nuke power a real dr jekel and mr hyde

[@johnpodo]

Yep Lots of power needed to create high pressurized, very hot steam to spin turbine blades attaching to the propellers and electric gen sets as well.

[@Chrinik]

@@johnpodo well, we used to just burn coal to do the same :P

[@mustangx]

“We are from the ABC” Oh ok - lol that’s really great security

[@alexjapanski6806]

That's the whole point lol, Australia is like a village compared to the superpowers ...

[@non-human3072]

"we are from the SBS" Oh ok- get the f*+$ down now. Eat the ground. Now Should have said ABC

[@denniswedin5605]

Long live AUKUS. God bless Australia

[@brandonstanley9125]

That Australian was so chill about them filming. Here in the states you get body slammed on the first excuse

[@mathewcrick]

27:19 that’s a strange comment given the current Astute is considered, by the Americans, to be a game changer and probably the best SSN in the world. How would the next design be inferior to the Virginia Class? Keep changing your mind you’ll have nothing in 30 years. The British have a bad track record on procurement, but most certainly not on design. Problem is, you’ve at have so far only copied their procurement errors, rather than learned from them. The design will be first class, SSNs don’t come cheap, and the USN and RN know that business well.

[@antoniochang4553]

Paul Keating summed It out well. A waste of resources

[@songlining]

The last sentence is the funniest part, as if Australia is a great power that can afford to lead an arm race.

[@MrX-wd8cm]

ZhingGuo JiaYou JiaYou ! Aodali Dangren Shu de !

[@stevencox75]

im pretty sure its a deterrent and gives us capabilities we didnt have in the past

[@Crashed131963]

Russia is suppose to be a superpower and they only have a GDP slightly higher than Australia.

[@quoccuongtran724]

i think the us of a is gonna pay for the cost lol

[@DavidThomas-oz4zu]

The thought of buying diesel subs, lol. We Australia need nuclear subs now. I mean now.

[@ericclausen6772]

May God Bless you Australia you have had our backs in more than one war

[@hkfoo3333]

yes for paying $368 billions in a fight that has nothing to do with Australia. buying nuke subs without nukes missiles. How the heck does those useless sub threaten a far far more powerful China . Even if the subs are nuke armed ... China already has the tech to easily detect these subs as they did detected two US nuke subs one of which got hit.

[@jonathanbiggar4973]

I wonder how many Collins class we could new build and fix the past problems. With 350billion or so , we probably have learnt a from the Collins and I am not say they are the best bit of kit out there but ten subs in the water changes you tactics at lot more than, three or four. Might even leave a bit of pocket money to fix and maintain the rest of the fleet.

[@rbrookeb]

It’s the difference in capabilities and interoperability

[@prateekmahapatra1789]

its rather 250B plus , 350 includes contingency budgets

[@SamTheOldMan]

The $350billion includes a contingency of 50%. That means the cost estimate now is about $235 billion.

[@RogerPalmer-pi9yb]

Brits build excellent subs. The Astutes are excellent and they were recently able to track Chinese subs without revealing themselves during CSG deployment by the RN.

[@mrw6156]

That is why the AUKUS class was selected ! Also the US yards are maxxed out and the RN already had a replacement programme just about to start for ASTUTE.

[@superdatcha4218]

it seems they are many technicals troubles …

[@stitch77100]

​@@mrw6156 it was not selected, because it doesn't even exist yet. It was adopted on a wishful belief that it would come faster and cheaper than the US-French Barracuda contract, while lodging all chances to have it locally produced. Great plan

[@DavidThomas-oz4zu]

As an engineering student, I can clearly say, Australia must gather Nuclear submarines 2023, the diesel class is just not the answer.

[@kentaylor3728]

Australia should have a submarine tender so Collins can be forward based. That would take a week or more off deployment times. We should also be buying Korean subs (until nuclear arrives) that have range and Tomahawks as well as torpedos to threaten PRC bases and shipping. We need them now not in 20 years.

[@Smokeyr67]

Ken, buying new SSK's would take a decade and cost billions that we can't afford. I'd love to see us have a large Submarine fleet, a dozen SSN's and the same number off SSK's, but unless we want to double the GST, it's not going to happen.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Non nuclear state threatening a nuclear armed state ? We need nukes

[@koharumi1]

When/if the nuclear subs arrive, it would be a clear violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. (The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty essentially requires nuclear weapon states who are a part of the treaty (US, UK, China, Russia and France) to not pass nuclear weapons or technology to non-nuclear weapons states.) So non nuclear subs are the better option

[@sneakerbabeful]

​@@koharumi1Fast attack submarines are never armed with nuclear weapons; the sub is literally too small. Fast attack subs are only armed with conventional torpedos.

[@Kriss_L]

@@sneakerbabeful Not true. The USSR/Russia developed a nuclear warhead for a standard size torpedo, and there was also a nuclear version of the Tomahawk missile. The US even developed a nuclear version of the AIM-9 Sidewinder air to air missile decades ago.

[@FFContent]

27:00 not sure what he’s talking about because British submarines are considered to be some of the best in the world and some of it not the quietist subs in the world.

[@truesouth4784]

If we had of just stuck with the Japanese Soryu, we would have five boats in the water right now.

[@pattygman4675]

The older a sub get the more noise they make, mitigating the noise issues will only go so far. Noise is the biggest enemy of a submarine. We should have started started the transition to nuclear powered subs, at the beginning of Collins service. So in 2023 we could have gone straight to nuclear subs seamlessly. The Collins should be a museum piece by now. Had successive governments had the courage to do so.

[@kentershackle1329]

Till ya realize, Nuke powered Subs are Noiser than AIP conventional....

[@klausschroiff4405]

Indeed - a nuclear reactor is a steam machine with many moving parts.

[@royalaxe]

hahhahahahaha youre kidding right? theres a reason its called a defence force, the defence time will last a few hours... thats it.

[@chriswatt859]

Surely as part of the aukus we could start taking security cleared Oz personnel on our boats cos they will be pretty much the same as our near latest boats

[@keithprinn720]

all supposition but consider that we cant deploy existing boats more than a couple due to resource shortages with crews in serious shortage especially in certain necessary branches. the boats break down unable to attend exercise with the USA off Hawaii when tied up awaiting parts in Singapore despite PR saying they are there lol. The new sub is yet to be designed let alone engineered, trialled after build and tested for service.we cant even get snowy two built in anyway within projections. these boats will be a massive exercise to design, build, test, train the humans etc.our boats conduct certain operations very different to other navies but US and UK will want to order us to operate to support their priorities.

[@jackdhillic7400]

4:10 The boat needs a good hull cleaning. Look at the green algae at the waterline. Might go 2-3 knots faster.

[@muzzmac160]

They can't get enough crews for the Collins how are they get enough crew for more subs that require higher crew numbers. If these subs are ever built they'll make good Dock ornaments.

[@michaguy]

If they can't find Australians to crew them, maybe they could get some immigrants from China. I wrote to my local MP (Labor) about this and got waffle in reply (the crewing and the dock ornaments not the immigrant bit). Ridiculous waste of taxpayer's money.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Life is more comfortable on bigger nuke subs

[@weblightstudio8215]

They will be American crews

[@babychuma1]

It's a prestigious job, more navy men in the US have wings than dolphins. And nuclear subs are luxurious compared to diesel boats.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

@@weblightstudio8215 wait and see early on may be a mix of usa and australian futures hard to predict. Who thought we would get nuke subs pre pandemic the virus from imperial China. Dont you just luv em

[@michaelimbesi2314]

Don’t care much about the submarines, but does anyone know the name of the march being played at 4:30? It’s stuck in my head now but I don’t know what it’s called

[@GehanAdel]

It was amazing to watch something like this not only to enrich my language but also to gather more information about something I didn't totally know about it thanks for this kind transformation.

[@ADHD55]

Australia does not have the skills and labor force to build nuclear subs

[@av_oid]

Not in Adelaide for sure…

[@alanbstard4]

they will eventually.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

​@@av_oid holden good car world class

[@av_oid]

@@Eric-kn4yn nah, AU Falcon.

[@rsinclair6560]

@@av_oid Oh come on guys.....be serious for once this is about our nations defence.....the VJ Chrysler Valiant . We need subs with three on the tree.

[@tilapiadave3234]

As long as the wheel is on the RIGHT SIDE ( correct side) we can probably not crash them :)

[@DavidThomas-oz4zu]

Collins class is a death trap for Australian defense.

[@mikeobrien1971]

I don't understand the negativity surrounding the Astute Class, when it is compared to the Virginia Class. Yes, UK MOD projects have historically come in late and over budget - but when they get there the kit is usually world class. I believe the Astute Sonar system trumps the Virginias every time - or am I mistaken? I also understand the 25 year lasting reactor core (beating anything the French, Chinese or Russians have) was largely developed by, or had a great deal of input from, RR. Just because someone served in the RAN in a submarine doesn't necessarily make him an expert on everything related. Just my opinion from what I observe/study.

[@RogerPalmer-pi9yb]

Astutes are great boats. Yes sonars are the best in the world. They gave the Americans a shock when one went over to test it against a Virginia I think a block 4.

[@nagnag01]

Building a new class of anything is incredibly complicated and difficult and I suspect all new classes of warship come in late and over budget. This is the price you pay for being at the cutting edge of world-class submarines

[@MN-vz8qm]

The British Astute-class submarines, operational since 2010, are newer and incorporate technologies that surpass those of the Virginia-class submarines, which were first commissioned in 2004. Their advanced sonar systems are supplied by Thales, a French company deeply involved in military technology. Meanwhile, the latest French submarines, launched in 2023, are equipped with the newest advancements in submarine technology. Astute-class submarines boast reactors designed to last 25 years, covering their entire service life without the need for refueling. In contrast, French submarines, expected to serve for 30 years, require refueling every 10 years. However, this process utilizes low-grade uranium-similar to what's used in Australia for civilian purposes, such as medical applications-and aligns with routine maintenance operations, arguably making it a practical choice. Australia seems to have been significantly disadvantaged by a 500 billion dollar submarine deal with the United States, which suggests Australia's entrenched alignment with American strategic interests, potentially at the expense of more economical or independent defense options.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Astutes lack VLS capacity & doesn’t carry enough weapons. Simple.

[@fanghan7555]

Whole heartly agree. In fact, the Astutes are far cheaper than the Virginia & from all accounts better. They have built 5 already, & with more underway. Same applies to the type 26 frigates. The UK go 2 in the water, while Aust are still mucking around with their design.

[@SubvertTheState]

To an American, it is not comfortable to watch, but it is nice to see that the head of the Australian Navy will sit down and tell the public the state of the force. I'm used to only being spied on and getting the hand when our government is asked anything.

[@JoeZUGOOLA]

😂😂

[@JoeZUGOOLA]

😂😂!! Ahhh haha you ahve been sat down and explained to by propaganda.

[@tironansunfrendlyskies5040]

Perhaps I am just a stupid man, but why not ask General Electric to build a submarine yard in Australia instead of doing all that? All the US has to do is ship sealed reactor sections, and you are good to go. If the cards are played right, Australia could build Virginia Class subs for the US! God knows we need an additional shipyard.

[@mrw6156]

Not stupid - this is almost what is happening - BAE Systems are using their nuclear submarine expertise in the UK to build a yard in Australia as well as shipping sealed reactor sections to Australia. A new design is needed to maintain the edge over rivals hence the AUKUS design

[@jimgraham6722]

Thankyou. Regardless of nukes we need to build six new Collins. The older ones relegated to training preparatory to decommissioning.

[@hkfoo3333]

Can anyone explain to me , how does a nuke powered sub with conventional missiles threaten China witch has not just normal subs but far more nuke armed subs. What is the logic of spending $368 billions so to be able to dive longer in the waters of SCS or Taiwan and can be very easily detected. Nuke powered subs would be outdated by 2040 when Australia gets its useless subs.

[@tree70737]

Nuclear subs will not be useless by 2040. The world oceans are vast and these subs can go anywhere undetected. The Virginia class submarine doesn’t have to be refilled for the life of the sub (20+ yrs). And they soon will be outfitted with hypersonic missiles and drones. America has been transiting through the South China Sea undetected by China’s navy. These sub will be a game changer for Australia. If these subs wasn’t a threat, China wouldn’t be complaining about the AUKUS deal.

[@quoccuongtran724]

longer operating range, thats the sole reason it got passed

[@kentershackle1329]

@@quoccuongtran724 to do what ? you wanna encroach China waters..? ya think ya gonna be able to get pass ? in Shallow waters ?

[@nagnag01]

Modern nuke subs are just as quiet as D/E subs, but far more dangerous, they can sit and launch land attack cruise missiles from just off the coast, then slip away at greater speeds than surface fleets can manage.

[@hkfoo3333]

@@nagnag01 true. That is why all countries do have nuke sub deterrence. The difference is how able are countries able to detect subs. In this area , China is way way ahead of US or any country in the world. This was illustrated by the recent Taiwan events of exercises and China detected two US subs in Chinese waters one of which was later damaged by a drone sub .. China immediately knew the presence of the subs and carried out intense area and naval detection. You can never see US able to do this.

[@barrycharlessearle5253]

Hi, As a Brit I welcome that Ozzie's will joined the Big League of an SSN Fleet. However I can foresee Lot's of Problems..... Operating SSN is a long and very expensive in crew training, Building the SSN's In Australia, The Infrastructure of the SSN and Training The SSN Crew (Nuclear Engineers) and Training of the Shipwrights of the Shipbuilder's Staff.... In your Programme the UK with the Astute Class is now over budget and the actual Astute Class is late on Delivery. Well you are correct. The Same will be even worse for Australia and there WILL be SERVER COST Overrun's over the Budget.... AUKUS is very good idea in principle, To Deliver and TO full Operational Of Indigenous Built Australian SSN'S will very Difficult.... I have 3 words EXPENSIVE & GOOD LUCK! Regards. Bazz

[@alanbstard4]

it's not a problem, as the expertise is imported to work on the programme. Rather than AUKUS, it should be CANZUK

[@roensoul]

The waste still creates heat. That is still plausible to use as powersource.

[@mikehenshaw5489]

Thank you. Comprehensive, brilliantly investigated and a fully all round report. Appreciate it.

[@fishernz]

If I was 40 years younger than I am, I would join the RAN tomorrow for a chance to command one of these SSNs.

[@bobsmith3983]

So you want to be a commander of an iron coffin.

[@importantname]

the purchase of the subs and other military equipment is to prove to the USA that we are willing to do a little bit to help them, in the hope that they might help us if we need it.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

You have better idea like kow towing to imperial China

[@Pushing_Pixels]

We already have a mutual defence treaty with them, we don't need to prove anything. This is about Australia adopting a more aggressive posture along with helping to police the region. Nuclear subs are all about long range power projection, they are not about defending Australia itself. Conventional subs can do that just fine.

[@sudarshaniyer2747]

Well by keeping China focused in Taiwan that keeps them away from anywhere near AUS or being in a position to threaten so it does make sense.

[@carisi2k11]

Well that sort of goes all the way back to AE1 and AE2.

[@mitchellvangrieken3900]

30:29 Textbook response, well done. Pat yourself on the back for quoting the motto from a HMA ship too.

[@alfredopampanga9356]

The threat posed by China is not spelled out. What exactly will they do? Land in WA ? Sydney harbour ? Can’t we deter them with something cheaper?

[@sartajaziz5930]

Lol they won't do anything major to cause a military conflict. The media capitalizes on these fears of people to sell stories. China has never been a country that's overly aggressive militarily to the point where they cause conflict. They will however increase their presence in the Pacific and around the south china sea which they have the right to do.

[@Apbt-rv7zw]

Yep, a nuke submarine is a very strong deterrent, unfortunately they are not cheap.

[@alfredopampanga9356]

@@Apbt-rv7zw Deter what? An armed landing by China on the coast of WA? If that’s your concern why not invest in troops , land mines , close air support

[@Apbt-rv7zw]

@@alfredopampanga9356 by then it's too late.

[@Pushing_Pixels]

China is not actually threatening Australia. Their long range missiles and nukes can reach us (no submarine will defend against that), but they don't have the capability to stage an invasion, and they probably never will. This is about us getting involved in foreign wars.

[@holobolo1661]

what nuclear subs 😂 they aren't gonna be around for 20 years by then it will either be too late or not required 😂 castles made of sand if i ever saw it

[@holobolo1661]

yes i only read the title and didn't watch the video

[@hansolowe19]

It always takes ages before military equipment arrives, but I believe it's better to upgrade than not. If we never upgraded we'd still be killing each other with rocks. We'd be riding horses into battle. We are seeing right now the cost of old gear, in Ukraine. Russian conscripts are sometimes using WW1 rifles, rusty AKs. You don't want that.

[@resolecca]

​@@hansolowe19 I think making a law saying that you can only do war where everyone kills each other with rocks sounds alot better than this BS

[@resolecca]

​@@holobolo1661 exactly it's really pointless, except if the point is to enrage China or enrich America

[@mike9347]

The while thing is ridiculous. 365 Billion dollars on hedging a bet that undersea warfare in 30 years will use the same technology, strategies and tactics as what we have today. Absolutely stupid. Dumbest bunch of World Leaders this planet has seen since Chevy Chase, Martin Short and Steve Martin.

[@Reoh0z]

Can confirm, usually focus on subs as an Aussie in HOI4.

[@aussienscale]

Pity Labor did not make the decision on a Collins replacement when they were meant too hey 🙄

[@andrewlim9345]

Watching from New Zealand. Learnt a good deal about the challenges facing the Australian Navy and the submarine industry.

[@TIMMY13cc]

Australia should be developing and producing our own products. That includes defence. Because this is the way it is in these times

[@knowsmebyname]

Boy it is tough for a small Island nation to make frontline defense equipment across the board. Sweden endevours to produce their own defense product and they do a great job but are obviously limited.

[@stitch77100]

Guess what was included with the French-US contract for the Barracuda ? Training for the industry and local production... Luckily, you guys dodged this bullet. XD

[@ivan7453]

Obviously the Chinese are less than happy with Australia's AUKUS deal. This has to be justification in itself to ensure its' success. Keep China firmly under controll untill they wake up and cease their belligerence, pugnacity and aggression.

[@seaspirit5087]

The crew are bit short changed for a lot smaller craft they have more room and better access!

[@GBiv78]

So if buying the subs costs 400Bn, how much does the 11 reactors to make fuel, the waste storage facility, the maintenance infrastructure, technical consulting and extra crew cost? Feels like we're only hearing about half the price

[@Pushing_Pixels]

Yep. The cost of building up the industry and workforce to support this adventure is not counted in the cost.

[@bitetalk1]

The 368B is forecast lifetime cost of infrastructure and maintenance.

[@renemartin5729]

Deter China from what?

[@user-tv5xt4pv1e]

Maybe panda 🐼

[@bobsmith3983]

From trading with Australia.

[@uthriangod8747]

This is just going to be a money pit

[@Karl-Benny]

the trouble that the Collins is now having has nothing to do with it being a Diesel sub its about our ability to maintain anything

[@grahamogorman7831]

How long in tooth will Virginia Class be in 10 more years?

[@gregpaul882]

Yea they should spend 100 billion dollars to build a new untested boat. What could go wrong?

[@Nathan-ry3yu]

They be only a gap filling submarines that has done half its service life when Australia recive the first 3 in 2032. Till New SSNR submarines get built to replace them in 2040s. The Virginia class are very capable and reliable

[@bobsmith3983]

Obsolete. It's a project designed to drain away your wealth. Doesn't matter what the end product is.

[@TheLankdaddy]

Can we just skip to the end where we’re all nuclear dust

[@sarcasmo57]

You can't even wait 6 months?

[@weblightstudio8215]

We will not be nuclear dust. That would be the lucky ones. We will fighting to get government to admit there have been leaks from the reactors while our guts fill with cancer and we rot

[@Derlascar]

Don’t worry Australia! Till you’re ready, we got ya! ✌️🇬🇧🇦🇺🇺🇸 ✌️

[@laurencesymons7621]

yeah put a plug into them to power the grid

[@ICB-vl3ym]

The Virginia boats need twice the crew of Collins. But have many times the operational time on station. We don't have enough submariners now to man the Collins boats, particularly senior officers. In theory we can just buy 5-6 US built Virginias at 4 billion each to cover the next 50 years, and avoid $6 billion refit cost for Collins. And have 2 crews per Virginia boat to maximise at sea capability (as do the US Boomers) - similar manning requirement to the planned 8 boats at much less capital cost. Building 8 nuclear subs as Osborne is a crazy and unaffordable option. 5 US built Virginias each with 2 crews is achieveable, to have 3 available at sea. Astute boats have lower manning requirements, but we have apparently selected Block 5 Virginias. Virginias are an established design with relatively fixed cost. A new UK -designed sub built at Osborne will be a yet another DOD mismanaged disaster.

[@fred3965]

I'm sure they know what they're doing moreso than yourself

[@SuperHowie001]

We have people living in Cars, Tents and Under Bridges because of lack of accommodation. The Australian Taxpayer has cough up nearly 400 Billion Dollars because of acute paranoia of Defence Chiefs. Let’s get priorities in order.

[@chippyjohn1]

It's not paranoia, its corrupt and bought politicians funnelling money into the USA.

[@johnnicholas978]

Salient point...personally I think its insanity....

[@gregwyld2176]

Sounds nice until someone attacks you.

[@SuperHowie001]

@@gregwyld2176 Which Country has carried out the most attacks against other Countries directly or by Proxy over the last 50 years ?????

[@chrismcgowan3520]

Using movements to other countries in 10 years time as an example is looking into a magic ball to predict the future, yes it will be a formidable deterant but only in 10 years

[@daniels.6065]

3 second hands virginia and 5 New sub for only 368 billions,or 46 billions per sub ? What a bargain !

[@bobsmith3983]

Aussie pockets are going to be empty for quite a while while the Yanks will be swimming in Aussie gold.

[@ongdaren2094]

Deter china from what?! From Chinese tourist coming to Australia to spend money? From Chinese students to study thereby also spending money.....

[@jetli740]

cant fault with australia logic 😂😂😂

[@ongdaren2094]

@@jetli740 Australian got a very humourous 'sense of humour' !

[@rsinclair6560]

Brilliant...All my cloths and undies made there. 99% of electrical and electronics made there. 99% of everything we use comes from there. Caterpillar have nanufactuing their. Will they invade wearing our Blunstone boots? They have very significant ownership of varoius mineral and mining companies. They gave a long term lease of the Port of Darwin. They invest just like the British and U.S. have been doing for over 100 years. China is interested in trade and selling their manufactured goods as it brings in revenue as this helps to get their tens of million of people still in poverty out of it.

[@andrewk3507]

Lease the Collins class subs to the Kiwis? This would provide another strike package option as part of the ANZUS alliance.

[@bobsmith3983]

NZ would not invest in that junk.

[@edgarcorrea6242]

Keep up the great job evan show how lax and easy it is to swim by and place a $200,00 dollar mine and kill a sub and the location where they are being refurbished! Grate jobe reveling confidential information tha 5 out of 6 are used for parts!

[@billhiggins-ha4all795]

Thank you for the concise presentation. To help with training, the US may be willing to begin training Australian officers alongside their own now, to start development of the experience needed. They could be assigned to US Virginia Class subs for junior officers (division officers) tours, after nuclear training. This could prepare them for department head tours before the Virginia Class subs are transferred. Depending on when those transfers might occur, the officers could then serve a department head (weapons officer, engineer, or navigator) and gather that expertise on a US sub. The next senior rank is as the Executive officer, who is qualified for command. The Virginia Class has the CO, XO, three department heads, and typically 6 to 10 junior officers. It takes a number of years for the junior officers to qualify for the undersea duties and gather their submarine qualifications. The junior officers and department heads serve 3 year tours with typically a 2 to 3 year shore billet between them. They are then ashore for an added 2 or 3 year time before serving as Executive officer, and then a number of years between that tour and Commanding Officer.

[@zackworrell535]

The Brits wont like the idea of American Naval doctrine being taught to the Aussies, and they have dominion over Australia, just as they do Canada.

[@mrw6156]

@@zackworrell535 Not true - the RAN and the RCN have a Royal Navy ethos more or less - it is not a matter of what the RN likes or dislikes - they are happy to help when asked. RAN personnel will adopt whatever serves them best - they won't adopt a new doctrine without a lot of research. The service ethos, regardless, is unlikely to change. Just look at the Indian Navy - 75 years after independence and there is still a lot of RN ethos visible if you look despite many Indian Govt efforts to change anything remotely "British" e.g. the recent change of the naval ensign in 2022.

[@bikesavvy3654]

With Australia being the only country that has no experience in nuclear I can imagine we will have a few hiccups. What could go wrong. No need to worry about the Chinese

[@samsungtap4183]

The Chinese are clearly terrorfyed. I'll give you a clue, the draught on Chinese submarines...6 metres, the draught on these proposed monsters....12 metres what does that fact tell you. Perhaps your building boats designed for the Atlantic not the shallow waters of SE ASIA in particular the Eastern sea or as you would say the The South China Sea. Just another Aussie lemon !

[@KipKil1igan]

Nice try ccp

[@MrAlexg1101]

We have a civilian run nuclear reactor and an Atomic safety agency in Australia. Its not no experience but its starting from a low base. Because Government in the 80's banned the teaching of nuclear science in Australia we have been sending Australian scientists to the US on Fullbright schollarships which does provide us with a small contingency of qualified personel, however we need to be able to grow our own nuclear scientists, the first step of which would be to remove the moratorium on teaching nuclear science in Australia.

[@georgepantazis141]

We do have experience,We have had nuke reactor in Sydney for years,we help design missles Trident and nuke boobs for UK maralinga.we are one of the few countries to have nukes exploded on there land,so I think we do have experience.

[@harrypothead4575]

​@@KipKil1igan Ah yes, everyone you disagree with or don't like is a Chinese government official.

[@AB-gi3qy]

I may be biased because I'm British but the bit where the bloke is talking about whether the next gen submarine is gonna be potentially worse than the Virginia is complete and utter rubbish, the UK's current Astute class is widely considered one of the most capable and advanced nuclear submarines on the planet and is more than a match and peer to the Virginia in many areas, if land strike is your main priority then the later blocks of Virginia do have a payload advantage.

[@Austrian_blood]

Go Australia 🌏

[@TheOriginalDeckBoy]

Why spend so much on manned submarines when we could have drone subs that can 'lay' a latent torpedo in a defensive position and activate it when needed etc...

[@jamiegray6931]

Because drone subs capable of doing that don't yet exist.

[@imycunt372]

However screw up Collin’s class sub is doesn’t validate the need to have nuclear sub. There are better and cheaper replacements to fulfill Australia’s (coastal) defense requirement. By acquiring nuclear sub, even without nuclear warheads, it’s clear Australia military posture has changed from defense to offense.

[@polarbear7255]

It’s not about coastal defence. It’s keeping trade routes open. Think back to the battle of the Atlantic during WWII. If you can’t keep the sea lanes open you lose. Nuclear is unmatched by diesel subs, so no, there are not cheaper and better solutions. Only cheaper and less capability and not able to keep our sea lanes open against PLAN nuclear boats.

[@Pushing_Pixels]

Yes, this is an offensive move. The whole point of nuclear submarines is their longer range. We don't need nuclear submarines to protect our waters, conventional subs are fine for that. This is about conducting long range missions as part of the effort to contain China, it has nothing to do with actually defending Australia.

[@imycunt372]

@@Pushing_Pixels Australia’s head has gotten bigger than it should be which sadly will lead to unnecessary broken heads and bones.

[@polarbear7255]

@@imycunt372 WTF does ‘bigger than it should’ even mean? It is not offensive: these will deter the PLAN from undertaking blockade style operations on our major trade routes in the event of a major conflict. Collins run on diesel and Australia will run out of that within a week or two of the outbreak of a major conflict, so no they won’t even help you for coastal defence then. Coastal defence is also too late, you must interdict your opponent as far out as possible to trade space for time... if you want capability you gotta pay for it... SSN are without equal.

[@imycunt372]

@@polarbear7255 WTF does blockading Australian’s major trade routes in the event of a major conflict means? Are u aware China is Australia’s major if not biggest trading partner? PLAN blockading her very own livelihood which also depends on undisrupted sea lanes? I will pray hard for such Chinese lunacy cos it means I will get enjoy cheaper Aussie rock robster, abalone, wines and many wonderful Aussie produce. 😂

[@650thunderbird5]

Deter them from what?

[@aakkyap]

LOL To protect our strategic interest (trade routes) from China, who is incidentally our biggest trading partner

[@650thunderbird5]

@@aakkyap IKR!?

[@Eric-kn4yn]

​@@aakkyap this world sure gone crazy

[@jetli740]

@@colinburns8854 invade taiwain? has china make any indication invade? all retoric you hear is from australia and the US. taiwain is part of china it their internal affair, what australia doing is interfere with china internal affair. by go to war with china (IF) what australia gain from it? australia only get is destruction to all it city

[@anonymous.marshall]

All this is in line with an assumption that China isn't thinking on how Australia's current plans and projections...the Chinese are building an asymmetric capability to counter what Aus is planning now!Its already antiquated whilst its still on the drawing board.

[@jasonkelsey3441]

At least Australia is not like Canada with 4 old second hand diesel submarines with no plan whatsoever to replace them ;)

[@cadaeishere8242]

By the time the nuke boats get here the technology to detect them will be 10 year more advanced.

[@babychuma1]

That's a point, but you can upgrade too, electronics, weapons systems, software... The Virgina class is ageing but is still decades ahead of what most navies are capable of.

[@quoccuongtran724]

nuke boats have longer range though, and that might be what the RAN need more considering australia is on the other side of the world

[@howiescott5865]

VA class subs are the most quiet and undetectable. China's technology is 1990's at best and advancing in reverse.

[@sambdb2099]

Collins wasn't designed to fight in Taiwan. Get real.

[@MrStringybark]

Why should we fight in Taiwan?

[@Eric-kn4yn]

​@@MrStringybark good point but would imperial China stop there its big àppetite

[@Eric-kn4yn]

What was collins designed for ?

[@MrStringybark]

@@Eric-kn4yn Defend Australia's coast.

[@Prometheus4096]

Why should Australia invade Taiwan?

[@000pete9]

Nuclear submarines plus nuclear missiles would be the real deals. No one would want to mess with these nuclear subs with "real terth"

[@chrisbremner8992]

The current program of three overlapping programs of extreme complexity is a bridge too far . Putting in another US compatible boat yard integrated into the US system whilst paying for interim increased US capacity and leasing dual flag existing US subs is the only viable option . The UK needs to directly integrate as well. Otherwise it is an impossibility.

[@garretjones5963]

US sailor here but not a submariner. The issue should be can Australia "afford" nuclear submarines. The French non-nuclear deal fell through after ballooning to $80B (per the video). Nuclear with any relation to the US can be assured to double, triple or quadruple as the date of implementation, delivery and deployment becomes reality. That isn't based on any specific fact, only the historic norms of all US defense related projects. Nothing ever comes in at original specified cost projection, nowhere close in fact. Can Australia break that paradigm? I guess time will tell.

[@christianfournier6862]

@Garret_Jones= French Naval Architect here. You are right about the cost escalation syndrome on newbuildings all over the world (the usual joke is that the actual-vs-forecast ratio on budgets is Pi= 3,14). There are three main reasons for the lack of success of the French-Australian contract: -[#.1]- From the start, the Aussies had ruled out nuclear subs, for internal political reasons. The French would probably have accepted to sell nuclear attack subs (copycats of their own) to a trusted ally such as Australia - they almost did with Canada two decades earlier. -[#.2]- The RAN authorities, not having the opportunity (then) to go nuclear, still wanted nuclear-like performances such as traveling from the Australian continent to the Chinese seas without snorkeling once: this made for long and heavy subs with, as main propulsion, a considerable number of advanced-technology batteries. This was not favorable to cost-containment of the project. -[#.3]- Also from the start, the submarine contract has been a political football for Australian politics. Cost overruns have been used as a pretext for the Opposition party to embarrass the Government. I have followed from afar this political fight and have been surprised by its intensity - as if politics, not rugby, was the Australian national pastime. The hapless French design team seconded to Australia had to work in an atmosphere thick with antagonism, defiance, betrayal, even going as far as the stealing of heaps of confidential documents. The AUKUS decision is strategically quite defensible, if one accepts the realistic assessment that Australia has no other choice to defend itself than opting to be a junior partner of the US; This at the price of an independent defence policy. The problem will be twofold: [ a ]- The ambition of a homegrown nuclear sub building industry might be too vast for the Australian budget & industrial capabilities. With the French contract, the Aussies could have built on their Collins experience, but building the nuclear subs represents a step into the unknown. [ b ]- The political dithering over many years has brought a gap between the end of the Collins service life and the arrival of new subs. I can’t see how this gap will be bridged other than by buying from the US their outdated nuclear subs (Los Angeles class) as the new US subs enter service. But the US need all the subs they can get, and will not sell their old subs unless they are really at the very end of their service life! The problem then for the RAN will be not to lose any of these subs through an accident, even though the crews will lack experience and the maintenance needs - due to age - will be particularly demanding. A case study on how a country can paint itself into a corner. __ .

[@jiasunzhang8001]

I am sure the deal will be axed within 10 years. It's just not applicable in so many ways.

[@resolecca]

I hope so

[@Eric-kn4yn]

We havent got 10 or 20 years before imperial China makes a move

[@evanputterill8286]

Luckily the people who actually do things don't think the same way as these journalists, if they did nothing would ever get done.

[@leeholmes9962]

Just to add what 4 corner's ain't gone into is yes it does cost a nuclear submarine but now look at what you save you don't have to keep filling up with diesel add that cost a year you don't put you men in danger by surfacing to recharge your batteries it's a no brainer you will save alot more in the long run ✌🏻🇬🇧👍🏻

[@rayleeaustralia]

Deter China? Who are you kidding

[@jetli740]

yes deter australia top trading partner make huge sense😂😂😂

[@stevencox75]

um its a partnership with usa and brittian so

[@jetli740]

@@stevencox75 but who is australia top trading partner is? dare you 😆😆to answer that?

[@stevencox75]

@@jetli740 whats that got to do with the price of tea in china?

[@jetli740]

@@stevencox75 so you wont answer? who is australia top trading partner?