The country with the largest number of Subway restaurants per million people worldwide in 2014 was Canada. I don’t know if this is relevant, since we’re talking about submarines.
@@ibairementeriathey’re great subs, but certainly not the most advanced in the world… they use diesel engines and the program has been plagued with issues
The DPRK submarines are utterly outdated and would be all but useless in anything other than shallow water coastal defense, they also make great use of “midget submarines” which again is utterly useless in an all out war with any modern navy such as the South Korean Navy. They only have two newer submarines that was home built in 2014, only these would be capable of offensive capabilities. Their readiness level is also extremely questionable.
And the comparison between the ROK and Japan kinda implied they're allies, even if their interests generally align and they are both strong US allies... And Greece and Türkiye are both in NATO... (Which is NOT why they have a rough parity in subs!)
It's funny to see that Spain, which used to have the biggest navy, hence the Spanish Armada, only has one lonely submarine. Only one, Spain? How far ye hath fallen! Spain needs to step up its game.
Just remember two things. 1/3 of all navy vessels are in dock for maintenance at any one time. 1/3 are transiting to or from a station, so only 1/3 are patrolling at any one time. The second thing is…the oceans are really big.
Nuke subs spend a lot less time transiting unless they're getting retasked all the time. And the Russian navy is probably well over 1/3 time in dock these days, lol.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="831">13:51</a> Minor correction. The replacements for the US ballistic subs (Ohio Class) are going to begin entering service in 2031 (Columbia class). The first sub will be SSBN-826 USS District of Columbia. The SSN(X) program replacing current US Attack subs (Virginia Class) are projected to enter service in 2042 with builds starting in 2034. Thanks for the informative video.
I'd like to see a similar video comparing air strength and tank strength. 1. It's very interesting to see how each NATO nation has its own special application- like how Greece has a massive tank force and how France has expeditionary capability 2. Its also fascinating to see how Air forces are advancing. Who is using the most modern gen 5 aircraft? How many bombers does each nation have?
As a romanian, I can say that we have a submarine too. It wasn't used for the past years, currently undergoin repairs, but I think it still counts as one submarine.
Correct, the Delfinul, a kilo-class sub, has a captain and crew, but will never be seaworthy again unless it gets a new set of batteries. Maybe why it didn't make this list?
Very odd that you mention both France and the UK having nuclear powered subs and then you move on and say "this is where you'll see nuclear weaponised subs". Both the French and the UK have nuclear weaponised subs.
And just to add to your point, the difference is that one submarine today has far more destructive power than all of Germany's WW2 submarines combined. I think that's the truly crazy part.
Singapore is a small country, but they are heavily militarised due to China. Their reasoning is that they want to make it so impossible for another nation to sustain warefare with them that they don't even bother seeking them out as a target. They want to make any would be aggressor regret ever attacking them.
Yeah, Singapore only lies at the Malaka straight, the busiest straight on earth with 100.00 container ships passing by annually. Versus 18.000 in Suez canal of Egypt and 12.000 of Panama canal. So yeah. Singapore has like a humongous GDP and just for 5+ million people. So yes. If Singapore wanted it could build a Submarine in front of every McDonalds as a joke on land.
@@SooDamGood well it comes up in history, and plenty of schools teach politics. But maybe you’re a poor American who only got 5 star athletic facilities and active shooter drills
Actually it would be pretty bad since this video is not objective at all even though it presents itself as objective. Storytelling and editing are quite manipulative…
Yeah 1 min in and already the numbers are wrong, the NL's has 4 not 3 and stating electro-diesel subs are inferior to nuclear powered subs is reductive to say the least; several times have Dutch, Swedish, Australian and German electro-diesel subs sunk many US vessels, ships, frigattes, destroyers, cruisers and yes even aircraft carriers. All in friendly naval exercises of course, but still. So no, this channel get's it's facts wrong almost every time and the narrator is all but objective...
It's worth noting that diesel-electric subs aren't entirely inferior; there are good reasons to run them aside from economy or lack of technology. The biggest advantage is that they can be effectively 100% silent if they are stationary, whereas a nuclear boat will always make _some_ amount of noise because it has to run pumps to cool the reactor. The latest U.S. and Russian nuclear boats _may_ be quiet enough to render this distinction almost academic, but it's still there. There's also some minimum practical size and weight for a naval reactor, which dictates a minimum displacement for nuclear boats. The larger the hull, the less effectively it can operate in shallower waters and the larger target it makes for active sonar. Of course, a diesel-electric boat's underwater endurance is such that your adversaries will generally know where they are within a certain radius; everyone knows where the boat is when it's surfaced. You can think of diesel-electric submarines somewhat like a mobile minefield. Air-independent propulsion (AIP) closes that gap significantly; these boats are potentially just as quiet as standard diesel boats, but have enough underwater endurance to make them difficult to track. During multiple NATO exercises, the Swedish 'Gotland' class has famously been able to penetrate U.S. carrier groups multiple times, undetected. This is somewhat terrifying since these boats, though technologically advanced, are quite cheap-on the order of $100M, or a bit less than an F-35.
I was gonna type all of this in a less organised and constructive manner. So thanks for your proficiency in writing haha. Seems like Johny has some basic surface level (hehe) knowledge, without even diving (hehe) into mild specifics..
China will be trying to steal all the technology it can from the US for its subs. The Russian Navy, including it's submarines are famous for lack of maintenance but still a threat, including their own crews.
That thing is pretty badass. It can produce its own power. I was watching a video on how it produces power but it was well above my understanding. It seemed like witchcraft.
I think at the moment it is still to much in development to have real impact on the main stage. But if all predictions are true than it might be a game changer, espec in narrow places like around China. Tough titiies for China 🙂
I find it odd not to mention France's submarines equipped with the latest M51 ICBM, aswell as their industry capabilities since they were tasked to build the Australian subs at first.
They were to be French designed but built in Australia. The whole program was a disaster, but it wasn't just Frances's fault, the design should never have been chosen in the first place. The initial preference was the Japanese Soyru class to be built in Japan but that ran into diplomatic and industrial issues. The AUKUS subs will be much too late. We should have just built a follow-on update to our existing design.
It is weird how France is not mentioned a lot and way way more because they the world leaders in Nuclear development. But for some reason nobody is interested.
@@soulsphere9242 it wasn't France's fault at all lmao, the design requirements was literally "hey can you make a diesel electric sub that has all the advantages of nuclear" which the French somehow managed to get close. They literally offered to transfer us the technology to build nuclear subs and reactors to fuel them but we refused.
@@DW_25 You shouldn't accept requirements that you cannot deliver on. Not enough had been worked out by either side before the program was committed to. That said I will accept that the root of the issue was the bad decision by Australia to choose this path. We should not have embarked on building what essentially was a clean-sheet design. The decision should have been made sometime in 2007-2012 to build the so-called Son-of-Collins.
@@soulsphere9242 they delivered on most of the requirements and it didn't help that scope creep meant the requirements kept on changing. We should've accepted the offer by the French for nuclear submarines+nuclear reactors and the associated technological transfer. That would make us truly independent instead of reliant on the US and UK on a project that is extremely delayed. The first sub isn't even projected to be delivered to Australia until the 2030s.
I looked it up real quick, and it seems to be down to looking like a submarine, but also maybe (maybe) because one of the first shops selling them was right next to a submarine base in Connecticut during WWII - though apparently the term was used in Delaware before that
I think its important to point out that there is gigantic differences in submarines and their efficiency. For submarines (especially attack submarines) stealth is the absolut most important thing and with modern advancements in sonar technology its even more important. You could send a hundred north korean submarines to try and attack an US carrier and they would probably fail because they are loud af and easy to spot compared to new ones. On the other hand you have the most modern submarines which are so stealthy and hard to spot that there have been Nato exercises where a german submarine was able to sneak up right next to a US carrier without anyone noticing. Thats the scary stuff
I wonder if we need to develop a scanning long range metal detector? With a powerful enough and narrow magnetic field that can spin like a radar to create an image of large metal objects within the vicinity. Sonar seems to be fading in usefulness.
@@chuckkottke Magnetic Anomaly Detectors were actually commonly used for sub hunting in the past. Many sub-hunting aircraft had them in a long tail boom.
@@soulsphere9242 MADs are not terribly effective in submarine warfare. Sonobuoys are okay, but just like aircraft fitted with MADs, they can only patrol a small space compared to the operating area of a sub. Plus, submarines can dive deep and avoid both given the local subsurface acoustic profile.
@@haydarkavak7582Good to Europe, Asia, Africa, the rest of the world. We provide so much foreign aid that we over shadow the next ten countries combined.
China's diesel submarines are not "older", majority are Yuan class build in the 2010s and use air independence propulsion(similarly to latest European or japanese diesels) which makes them have longer endurance then older diesels. They are extremely quiet and hard to track and play a crucial role in access denial
Yep, i guess you missed Brazil, we currently have a fleet of seven submarines: Four Tupi-class submarines: Modified German Type 209 submarines. One Tikuna-class submarine: An improved version of the Tupi class. Two Riachuelo-class submarines: The first two of a planned series of four conventional submarines being built as part of the Submarine Development Program (PROSUB). It's important to note that Brazil is also developing its first nuclear-powered submarine as part of the PROSUB project.
Great video 👍 A couple of things to add up a little: - The modern attack-submarines like the Los Angeles class can easily shoot nukes, too. All it needs is a modified warhead from the Tomahawk cruise missle - The same applies for the Russian, Cinese, UK, French submarines with their (Russian) Kalibr cruise missle etc. - The Poseidon nuclear torpedo is just propaganda. Just do the basic physics on that and you will realise that an nuke can`t move enough water for an Tsunami. The deeper it detonates, the more pressure it needs to overcome. So calm down, don`t get caught by your fears of it 😉
a nuke can't move enough water for a tsunami? u gotta be kidding lol even the bikini tests with far less powerful nukes indicate the opposite and we're talking 100 mt here 🤷🏻♂️
*Saying that non-nuclear submarines are noisy and need to surface is outdated* . Spain has fully modern submarines with an AIP system that runs on bioethanol and batteries without need for oxygen. It's a silent system with a 3-week apnea (this system is desired by countries such as Canada, Australia and India). Edit: S80+ class of submarines, in case anyone doubts my words
Yay. "Up to" three weeks without surfacing. Nuke boats regularly remain submerged for ninety days. As stated in the video, the only reason they have to surface is when food starts to run low.
@@bobg5362 a nuclear reactor is loud though and its a unique sound. Sensors would pick that up. A diesel sub just needs to surface like a mile away from a cargo ship and night and nobody would know its there. They would just blend in. I bet that is how they move around for the most part. Just follow ships till they get close to their target and then they can do what they need to do for a couple of weeks.
Yes, the HSwMS Gotland was leased by the US government to test the ASW capabilities of a carrier strike group. The Gotland successfully evaded the US subs and sonars and took some photos of the hull of the USS Ronald Reagan, a aircraft carrier, which counted as sinking it. This was between 2005-2006. The German Uboot U24 did the "sink" the carrier USS Enterprise in 2001. But it has to be noted, that you can't easily sink an aircraft carrier and both cases where by friendly forces, so the US Navy has probably improved their ASW capabilities.
I doubt these numbers are too accurate but I love the amount of dedication of searching and sources found to make this video. Also a bizarre thing, it was abnormally easy to get a job having to do with the new submarines the us is building for “2042” as they are such massive projects
If my post below IS TLDR- Here's the gist of it: This vid is inaccurate, inconsistent, lacks nuance, and may do more harm than good towards understanding how subs work, the various doctrines behind their use, various nation's capabilities, and why such is so critically important. Nice graphic though!
I always don't trust videos on complicated topics that can be covered in such a short amount of time. War games would last a few hours if they used such lazy metrics of comparison between countries.
Or that Australia literally demanded France to deliver non-nuclear subs when they were more than happy to build Australia brand new nuclear-powered subs. So presenting the AUKUS deal as "the US trying to arm their Pacific allies against China" is absolutely hilarious. It's just Australia proving once again that they only exist as the US lapdog and will literally torpedo (pun intended) their own submarine plans just to please Uncle Sam. To be fair I only clicked this video out of morbid curiosity, and Johnny Harris never disappoints (in that he always does). He really is a dumb person's idea of a smart journalist.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="843">14:03</a> Alongside other questions that I asked, it would be interesting to know logistics of getting the submarines. For example Iran, I doubt they produce the submarines. So they need to buy them, but submarines them selves can't come that long was. Also Iran needs to somehow transport submarine over the land to Caspian Sea, how they do this? Or the submarine comes in part and assembled on the spot? How the submarine can be transported to another shore quickly in the case of attack on another shore? Same goes to Israel, how they transfer submarines between their 2 sea accesses, do they send them under the Suez canal or over the land? Also Russia, I assume the main submarine fleet is next to Pacific Ocean which is miles away from probably the place subs get produced.
The total number is irrelevant if the submarine is outdated or inferior, newer ones can’t be detected as easily and will eliminate most of the older/louder subs in combat.
also experience china may have numbers but no experience of naval battles. in actual war India Japan can actually defeat china bcz of their naval battle experiences.
@@riderchallenge4250 Indeed, but the quality of experience has certainly become very diminished in recent years. The whole new suite of tech found on the naval arsenals today are untested as no major naval conflict has happened in decades. With submarine warfare essentially last playing out in WWII. In that regard, everyone is on a similar playing field.
@@sayple109 you need experience your subs and ships are not gonna do their work without humans. USA can control oceans due to their experience of naval battles all the time.
@@riderchallenge4250 I didn't deny the value of experience, just qualified it to the modern context. Where USA obviously leads in experience, their infrastructure, investment, and dominating lead in technical innovations are among the many reasons it remains the only naval superpower of today. Regardless, a naval battle today is going to look very different from one decades ago, it is yet to see how much of an advantage experience is. But hopefully, this won't be tested for the sake of amateur military observers like us. Cheers
When I was a kid I hot air ballooned with the Navy Commander that test launched the first Polaris missile. Pretty sure it was the stock footage used in the video. He had a framed picture of the missile launch in his home office, amongst others. Really cool guy.
Incredible breakdown, Johnny! 🌊 Submarines are such a crucial part of naval power. Your detailed analysis and visuals made this complex topic so engaging. Can't wait to see more of your deep dives into global military capabilities!
@@TheWebstaff Bro we don't need space base rods we already have countries with capabilities to built and already built delivery systems that capable of targetin anywhere in the glob. If we talk about putting space based rods from gods, then they are also the same countries that capable of do that to the certain degrees.
You forgot to mention that the very modern German submarines have also AIP. And you could have explained that AIP usually or actually always means that pure oxygen is carried in pressure vessels and converted into electricity with a fuel in a very quiet process (for the Sweden with a Stirling engine that runs on diesel and for the Germans with a hydrogen fuel cell). So it's independent from air not oxygen, that's what the A in AIP stands for. But besides this minute technical details it was once again a wonderful video, which I enjoyed watching.
@@superpintotube Swedish submarines also have AIP. In 2004, America borrowed one of them to practice against that type of submarine, but the Swedish submarine always managed to fool the shirt of the Americans and managed to sink both submarines and aircraft carriers (simulated attacks, of course). So these are definitely to be reckoned with. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aoMj1TjNTFw.html
hypothetically speaking you even dont need any other nuclear weapon except the ones within the submarines. They are by far the most dangerous ones which are almost impossible to track.
It's always better to have different options. Hell even with all that fancy submarine launched ICBMs the US as has aircraft dropped atom bombs stationed in Germany.
@@jojosworlds1208 Yup, the triad is needed in case some of them fail. Subs are the quickest and best, then ICBM's, and then of course air dropped as a last resort, but those will probably never be used as they are easiest to take down. Russia also has nukes on rails and those mobile ones riding on trucks in Siberia.
@@ryankline1164They are, but they will take quite some time to arrive at their target, at which point the target in question will be on full alert and likely have fighter coverage of any important assets. It is much easier to shoot down a bomber than ballistic and cruise missiles.
@@julius43461 China also has the great subterannean wall (or is it subterranean great wall?) whereby they've built a large underground network along their east coast to hide ICBM launchers and they routinely reposition them. Similar to Russia's mobile launchers but observers have to guess where in the country they are since the only visible parts of the great subterranean wall are the various entry and exit points.
Johnny- Rockets are a propulsion method/unguided weapon, missiles are guided and use either a rocket engine or a jet engine. The definitions of all these military terms can get a bit tough to keep track of, but it's very important to keep them straight. I've heard journalists refer to the M2 Bradley as a tank, when it very, very much isn't. A bradley doesn't stand a chance against basically any tank ever made, it's made to stop up to .50 cal weapons, shrapnel, maybe small mortar rounds, and it has a 25mm autocannon. The M1 Abrahams CAN stand up to a lot of tank guns, anti-tank missiles, etc
@@GiveBackAll A tank is a tracked vehicle with heavy armor and a single-firing, large caliber gun, made for direct fire engagements against other armored vehicles or in defense of infantry. The Bradley is tracked and is meant for direct fire engagements, but it has an automatic firing small caliber cannon, and it cannot be relied on to take out anything with any real level of armor. Its primary purpose is also to carry infantry into combat, whereas a tank is meant to just come in and blow you things that need a big gun.
@@Julianna.Domina I was never in armor, but I have fired both the Bradley and the M1 and I have studied military history. The original definition of a tank was something that was impervious to small arms fire. Tanks have never been able to withstand artillery, and the primary purpose of a tank is to be superior to unarmored infantry or vehicles. For taking out tanks the US Military relies mostly on artillery and missiles, not just tanks. So I don't know where you are getting your definition from.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="72">1:12</a> Ngl Im South African and I didn't really know we had subs lol. Hell I'll be surprised if we even have tanks🤣🤣
I’m an ex SAN submariner. We have them, and they have a different role to what nuclear submarines are. This is info you can get off Google.. they just didn’t Google enough I guess. But diesel electric are quiet and meant for patrols and insertion of special forces, small, slow, quiet. Nuclear is big, fast, and loud.. meant to be firing platforms for ICBMs, like a mobile island, and they usually have a number of diesel electric subs around them that no one knows about.
Questions: - why does actually take so long to build them? - are their special materials that would at a certain point disappear or wont be available in the world anymore and could cause a problem producing submarines? - in which depth are they mostly run? - where did the most accidents / wars happend with submarines along history? Cool topic!
Still the US. You would think they will fall behind in technology, specially militarywise? Then you are underestimating the real Godzilla of the ocean who keeps evolving.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="841">14:01</a> @johnnyharris : Please cover the future of submarines. How it will evolve in the next 10, 50, 100 and 200 years, esp with the advent of AI and robotics.
Se nota que sabes español, elegiste muy buena voz para el doblaje. Muchísimo mejor que la de otros en RU-vid. Es muy disfrutable y de altísima calidad. Gracias!
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="91">1:31</a> what about German submarines? They have fuel cells that don't need oxygen and they are a lot more quiet then nuclear powered subs because of the water pumps for the cooling water for the nuclear reactors
I know im late in typing this, and the source is "trust me" but i can say with confidence that the United Kingdom has at least 16 submarines, not 10. 12 of the 16 are nuclear powered, and nuclear armed. This comment will be lost down below anyways.
Is your source a locality to Faslane? There are six or seven visible on Google Maps, including the five in port and one or two semi-submerged in the firth.
Hey, One thing you might've forgotten to say about diesel electric submarines is that Since they use residual fuel for lighting, they actually are quieter than the average nuclear submarine. It's a weird thing but it's true that diesel subs are quieter and slower than nuclear ones. Except the seawolf class of subs.
Exactly... the problem with nuclear subs is that reactors are pretty loud and its a unique sound which is easy to detect. The diesel electric subs are louder when the diesel engine is running but when they are on any missions they are quiet since its just electric at that point. They could just cruise along at night around large cargo ships to charge up and nobody would know they are there. Its pretty easy to blend in.
YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT ALGERIA: Algeria has a total of 8 submarines: 2X Kilo-class (Project 877) 4X Improved Kilo-class (Project 636) and 2 more Kilo-class submarines
i highly doubt Russia has a sub with a 100 megaton torpedo, considering the biggest ever detonated was 50 and the size of that bomb was insane. other than that really great and fun video.
Tsar bomba was 26 feet in length and 6.9 feet in diameter and had a weight of 27 tons. FYI the torpedo they are talking about is 65 feet long and 6,5 feet wide, unknown weight but lets imagine it is times three of Tsar bombas and is like 90 tons. Compared to modern sized submarines and their capabilities of carrying several THOUSANDS tons worth of weight thats not even that big of a deal. I also dont understand the comparison of the amount of megatons of the biggest explosion test in 1960s done by plane and todays weapons that are meant to be exploded and carried underwater. Even rockets USSR made in 1970s were able to carry 20 megatons worth of explosives by AIR on their own. I suggest for you to do some research on your own - you will be amazed by todays technology and power some countries have.
@@trey3905 Please elaborate on that, since I cannot see how would you come to such a conclusion after reading my comment. In my understanding and according to my previous comment: all data indicates that with some logic and calculations we can come to a conclusion that it is not only possible but highly likely that such weapon exists and can be transported and used without issue underwater. Also Tsar bomba was initially set to be at 100 megatons but soviets were worried that it would be too powerful and decided to cap it at 50 megatons (and it still turned out to be way more powerful than expected). So if production of 50mt and a 100mt bomb in 1960s wasnt an issue why would it be nowadays?
@@sharknot9011 it's well documented how insanely huge and heavy that bomb was, they had to remove parts of the plane. now this was decades ago so obv technology is better but still a 100megaton torpedo is too big and doesn't exist. edited to say that also it's stupid and unnecessary. it's exactly something Russia would make up because they think it sounds scary and cool but you can do plenty of bad with the much smaller nukes that actually do exist.
@Johnny Harris <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="419">6:59</a> Map of India is not complete. Kindly put the complete map. Jammu and Kashmir is part of India.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="423">7:03</a> please use the correct map of #india ..for more details refer to Indian govt official website or UN
Sweden is the only country who has sank a US aircraft carrier with our subs (with Stirling engines) in a military practice with US (obviously not with live ammunition). You should have talked more about Swedens very special submarines with Stirling engines, they are independent of oxygen despite not being nuclear powered!
USS Wasp and USS Yorktown have left the chat. Don’t get so caught up in national chest thumping that you ignore facts. The only two countries that have sunk US carriers are Japan and the US.
Sweden isn't the only county to have Air Independant Propulsion subs, even though they were the first. They are also not really fully independent of oxygen as they carry liquid oxygen onboard and can only travel at very slow speeds if their batteries are drained. A nuclear submarine can steam for months at 30 knots.
@@soulsphere9242 All these submarines are built in Sweden. They are much more silent than nuclear submarines. No nuclear submarine has sunk an US aircraft carrier in a military practice.
Fun fact, once Australia acquires a nuclear powered submarine, they will become the only county that does not have nuclear weapons to also operate nuclear submarines. This is especially interesting because submarine reactors are powered by essentially weapons-grade Uranium to make up for their small size. So once Australia has that submarine, they could at any time remove it's fuel to build a small number of Uranium gun-type bombs in a matter of weeks if they wanted to.
I dont know the science or logistics or their capacity to do so in secret. But if this is truly doable and in secret this is actually bad news to Australia. Because this makes Australia a de facto nuclear state and therefore a target for preemptive nuclear strike in a widespread nuclear exchange. So they’re essentially a nuclear deterrent first strike target without a deterrent of its own.
There is a Wikipedia article about nuclear capable countries. Meaning countries that can make nuclear weapons if wanted to. They only don't because of the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons agreement, which is signed by most countries.
Ya man used to spread the smell of masala everywhere 👏. Soon scam call centers will sprout all over the world from the masala. And then the deodorant market will boom~`!!!🤯🤯🤯
