Nope, we ditched them because of the lack of action by the French, no clear plans after 5 years, over budget and over priced. Before the signing of the French deal, they were considering nuclear submarines.
@@darhman5299 Do you even know that it is the Australians that asked the French to switch their submarines from nuclear to diesel? Then complained that it was taking too long while Australians are novice about submarine tech and couldn't possibly build one alone if they wanted to. Complaining about the slow pace and over budget of a project to finally sign a new deal for submarines that are not even close to be developed yet and whose prices are unknown seems quite ironic to me. If you add the fact that Australia will most likely not build them at home (as it was planned with the French) and become dependent on the US for their subs, as the US will not transfer their tech as the French agreed to, I call this decision incredibly stupid, to say the least. Pure incompetence. But it's always someone else's fault right?
Well the deal Australia signed with France was 2016...5 years later when AUKUS was announced you still hadn't gotten a sub yet from them. Maybe by the time you get your first US sub, you would have still been waiting on France. French are a bit slow/lax on these projects, so US arm-twisting aside you might be better off. I love Amit vids, but this is the second one he's made on this subject without anything really new here,. The fact the US won't share SSBN tech with India really irritates him.
@@elmanoux Sacre bleu monsieur :D It takes 3 years and 2 months at current rates to build 8 subs in the US. That's 2+ years less time than it took France to complete their Rafale delivery to India. :)~~~~ While the initial price tag is higher for the US subs you can bet the cost over runs will be much much less, and they will be more capable boats. The only reason for the 10 years estimate or I'm assuming the 15 years as you're saying due to delays (i believe that's entire order not just the first one) is because Australia thinks they want to build them all themselves... The Aussies will change their toon on that idea I think and let the US build some of those in the US.
Submarines have most complex technology ever ...even More complex than space crafts ....It's a diesel class submarine so shouldn't be this must costly...But when it comes to nuclear powered submarine it had a stealth power to remain inside water for 30 years (if they are having enough resources)
Another theory posits that after France "won" with the ridiculous proposal to "simply" convert their nuclear sub design to diesel, all progress slowed to a snail's pace, which is not that unusual with defense contractors who think they now have a captive customer with zero options...
Indeed. And Australia elected not to cop that as neither it should have. Meanwhile, and more significantly, our long-term strategic environment had changed, necessitating a new approach.
100% the case is this instance. The French promised Australian input but basically shut them out and after nearly 6 years from 2016 Australia had nothing in production, not even a finalized design. So to me it made sense as China had changed its outlook during this time becoming confrontational with Australia. At the end of the day an Australian alliance with Britain and the US is a natural one and nothing new.
@@Melbournelost66 Or: perhaps China could build diesel electric subs for the RAN taking the now redundant Collins boats in part exchange. There’s gotta be a deal in there someplace for the AU Government if you were to scratch around for a week or so to find one Possibly not though now you come to think about it.
But if it does become the next conflict zone (as it will, with China flexing it's muscles) Australia will need the nuclear subs and India might be greatful Just a thought.
@@tonyfairey7733 China is Australia's largest trading partner, It makes a lot of sense to protect Australian trade route with China from China. Brilliant isn't it?
Actually, "US nuclear technology" was in fact a joint effort between the US, the UK and Canada. All three were contributing members of the Manhattan Project, which was only founded after the UK & Canada had shared their nuclear research with the US to show them it was feasible and they were getting close. This was done after WWII broke out, while the US was still neutral. To keep said research out of the hands of the Germans in case they invaded, and because they felt the infrastructure and pool of recruitable scientists would be improved, all work had been moved from the UK to Canada. The UK and Canada shared their nuclear research with the US before the US shared anything back. To date, the US has shared nuclear tech with a number of NATO members, some of whom still have US nukes ready to launch should NATO decide it necessary, while others have gone in a different direction and agreed to not use or host nuclear weapons. Canada, where many of the earliest breakthroughs in "US nuclear tech" were made, was the first country to ever give up nuclear weapons. Many others have since done the same.
He specifically talked about nuclear propulsion technology. Read US-UK mutual defence treaty of 1958. The US supplied tech to UK for building compact nuclear reactors powerful enough to run a submarine. Ab initio, this wasn't a joint project like the Manhattan project. This tech as well as the Trident submarine launched missile was supplied by the US.
@@JESTER-97 Nice wee litany of half truths and omissions. So by all means, as you seem to be under the impression that the treaty cited and indeed, other relevant associated agreements too, must've merely been acts of pitying generosity by the US, then do please just say so and I'll be delighted to acquaint you with the real history instead.
After the Manhattan Project, the other countries involved recognised the US had hosted and paid for the development of the A-Bomb. The The British team was headed by Australian, Sir Mark Oliphant. The US was allowed to further develop more advanced technologies, without allied competition, owing to America’s sponsorship of the Manhattan Project. With the growing power of the USSR, the US shared its then latest nuclear technologies with the UK in 1958. Owing to concerns about China’s hegemony into the Asia Pacific, Australia has been invited to receive advanced submarine and nuclear technologies. Sharing of R&D and defence technologies will go beyond submarines. Australia will spend ten billion dollars building a service port for existing AUKUS submarines on its East Coast, pending the building of its own.
Nice summary. It was awkward that both the Australian government and the Biden administration (apparently) blind-sided the French on this deal. Both should have done better on this. Both politically and economically, Australia had no choice but to buy 'turnkey' nuclear submarine power plants. The U.S. represents they will last 20+ years, perhaps the sub's entire life. TWO QUESTIONS: 1) Did Australia ask France if their deal could be altered to provide nuclear submarines instead of Diesel? 2) What (if anything) precluded Australia from negotiating for nuclear subs from France?
@@bernadmanny Ahah! Very interesting! I had no idea that French subs require much more frequent refueling. From what little I've seen on the subject, refueling takes a LOT of time, meaning that the sub is then out of commission. It is also a very expensive process to open up the sub, extract and replace components and then weld the sub back together. This increased maintenance might also render them more expensive over time.
100% correct, We would have seen a decade long taxpayer funded project, with out end. And if there is a threat from China they would have benefited from the lengthy french deal and our ambitions to make some thing here. If complex turn key products were made here for several decades it would look different. A submarine project, a nuclear project, a government run project + EU country in it, would end up nowhere. Its not the right time and project to learn on. Perhaps try to add value to rare earth first and sell that to the 'feel good' voters.
@@dominique4700 I will parse you reply, as it contains two unrelated comments 1) I have heard that Australia had at one point wanted the French subs to be nuclear. But I have yet to hear a reason WHY such a switch was made. Can you describe what happened? 2) As per your /no allies, only interests, does that also apply to our involvement in Vietnam after France had their ass handed to them in Dien Bien Phu? We lost 58,000+ troops there and several times that injured. Was it only France's 'interest'?
@Gregory Parrott I just read the bit you wrote about refueling, and it's actually not how it's done. What you are referring to is the refueling of USN and Royal Navy nuclear submarines: the one using HEU (Highly enriched uranium). It has a specific lifetime (around 30 or 35 years) and is indeed welded in the submarines. French (and some other countries) use Low enriched uranium (which can't be used to create nuclear weaponry and thus isn't concerned by the Non-proliferation treaty) and is simply refuelled every 6 to 8 years (depending on the design of the reactor) and does not require to open the sub, even worse cut it (do you have any idea how complicated it is to weld those high pressure resistant structures ?) But this requires the knowledge of nuclear power technology and a civilian industry, which doesn't exist in Australia.
There is a difference between nuke powered subs and nuke armed subs. Pending on the buyer's specifications when the documents where sign on the dotted line.
You're missing a fairly important point: French submarines are all nuclear by design, it was a requirement of Australia to have them converted to diesel, which involved long delays. From the Occam Razor rules, you would say there was heavy corruption from the US. Also, have a look at a report from the Rand Corporation called "War in China", and youy'll get a better picture of what the USA is preparing. Unfortunately, it was supposed to bepreceded by the success of another report named "extending Russia", where Russia would have been put on its knees by the Ukraine war (as described in there), thus it's presupposed there is no alliance between Russia and China in the war between USA and China, started over Taiwan and a couple of other NED-funded "democratic independentist movements" (in other places, they're called terrorist organisations, like in Afghanistan, when they don't suit USA any longer).
Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders is so trash that they have build 9 submarine and 2 transfer of tecnology but still they are not able make submarine and thing is no country is giving nuclear propulsion technology which is main one in building nuclear submarine even russia is not providing it
India will be glad that another country in the neighborhood will become an important and well-armed anti-China component, which should make the string of pearls look much less impressive than the necklace of diamonds... 😏
Indian geopolitical policy is for India, not the US. India will not get embroiled in a US-China dispute. Since India remains a close friend of Russia, and Russia is now (thanks to US anti-Russian hysteria) a close ally of China, expect that Russia will intercede between India and China, and get both sides to compromise somewhat on their issues. India was not consulted, nor invited into the AUKUS, angering India against the US, and making the 'Quad' irrelevant. India is a major trading partner of China, and India will not sacrifice the well-being of its economy, just to get a pat on the head from the US. The latter is just what Australia is getting from the US, as they gain no economic benefit for jumping feet first into US geopolitical shenanigans.
you have to do more research mate the nuclear generator we are getting are a sealed unit that doesn't need refueling, and the French deal was already 5 years behind schedule
जय श्रीराम अमित जी🙏, नमन इतने जरूरी मुद्दे निरंतर उठाने के लिए एवं इतनी सरलता से इतने गंभीर एवं मुश्किल मुद्दों को समझने के लिए। इश्वर आप पर अपनी असीम कृपा बनाए रखे। जय मां भारती🙏
Thank you Amit for your brilliant explanation…it was so riveting…I could not stop till finish…I learned a lot …no other video dares to tackle such detail with such forthrightness. Good on you!@@!….but no one talks about where Japan stands in all this…I swear Japan has been able to recede into obscurity whilst many seem to be comparing and waiting for news on japan present status.
Nobody is having a good time dealing with French defense companies. Take India for example. Rafale deal is dragging for almost a decade now. With only several Rafales delivered so far.
You're talking BS about the Rafale deal. India is satisfied and will most likely order more of them in the future. Don't hide your hatred of the French under false informations. And in case you didn't know, building a submarine takes a bit more time than building a fighter aircraft, especially when the customer asks you to switch the propulsion from nuclear to diesel.
If this logic of security and getting around non-nuclear loopholes are expanded upon, then Solomon Islands is free to buy nuclear subs from China for balancing of external threats and freedom of navigation, etc? Or is double standard once again for one group and not for the another?
You forgot to mention that the contract was originally 50 billion Australian dollars but ballooned to 145 billion Australian dollars. On top of that there were many significant delays any many milestones in construction were missed and had to be pushed back years. The French contractors were considered lazy by their Australian counterparts who would often find them sitting around smoking, and that was if they even bothered showing up that day. The final nail in the coffin for the Australian/French submarine deal was that it was important that the subs be built locally. They were originally were supposed to be 90% made in Australia but Naval Group (the French company contracted) lowered that to 60% and was in the process of lowering that number even further.
@@crpth1 Except the delays, cost overrun, and revision of how much of the vessel would be Australian made are all well documented by the Australian Government. The problems with French contractors was reported on by Australian media.
Интересно, что номинально Австралия получает атомный подводный флот, а фактически даже знать не будет, какую задачу выполняют и где эти атомоходы вообще. Почему-то великодушные партнёры не предлагают Австралии построить хоть парочку симпатичных и полезных атомных станций
So, Morrison smartly and quietly signed a nuclear powered submarine deal with the US and the UK without a public debate. I hope he was not surprised that the Australian people also decided smartly and quietly to kick him out of office without a debate. What goes around comes around i guess......lol.
Dear sir , please make a video on newly introduced Agnipath skim . Will they introduce Agnipath skim in our entry as we have cleared written and selected provisionally in PSL ! Please 🙏
Be realistic. As both a developing country and an increasingly repressive dictatorship domestically, the China CCP regime has only relatively recently begun to exercise its transnational voice, historically speaking. Lacking experience or expertise on the global stage the China CCP's responses tend to be paranoid, histrionic and knee-jerk in foreign affairs. Its representative's use of international focused language tend to vascilate much more between a petulant, wounded tone and a complete lack of craft or diplomatic restraint. (Remember, in China there is no free speech, and Chinese people are increasingly repressed so it's representatives understand communication only as a one-way process which they censor through sophisticated AI systems. All internet media is essentially State-controlled and exists as an intranet not an internet, there. To the dictatorship violent speech, free speech bans and intimidation etc are their media morm and intentionally about control. Australia simply needs to be pragmatic about policies and programs in its own best interests including our foreign alliances and agreements. China under the CCP will always be isolated and paranoid but hard headed and pragmatic in its national affairs. A certain amount of courage of conviction on our part is warranted and a little training of China CCP in regards to the way independence and free speech works in the West is their learning curve destiny. Never forget that for the China CCP speaking in a supercillious manner, in parables and with a total agitprop focus is literally in the DNA of their corrupt survival as an unelected dictatorship.
@@alexanderdanieljika4047 Its only bad when the US "profits", but when it is france selling submarines to australia or russia selling jets to India, its just normal relations between countries.
@@steveburke7675 BRuh, meanwhile Taiwan claiming 11 dash line. Nice double standard. Nobody wants US in this matter. Every nations in SCS want to solve it themselves. Why is it called SCS? Because it is China. Please study the case. And US fleet in SCS has no reason other than to contain China
@@hahahuhu9828 What about Philippines...Vietnam...Malaysia...Indonesia. All against the SEA grab...as is the International Court of Justice. Evidently you do not understand the concept of "Freedom of Navigation" in INTERNATIONAL waters........BRuh.
@@steveburke7675 You don't understand the those countries in the region don't need US intervention. They are going to settle it peacefully. China has reduced the claim to 9 dash line with Vietnam. Meanwhile Taiwan still claim 11 dah line. Yeah double standard. Go and complain Taiwan on its claim You don't expect to settle it instantly. Don't be a kid. Do you think US will allow China air aircraft carrier sail near Guam under pre-text freedom of navigation?
One more important point is that maintaining a credible watch over Indo-Pacific, USA needs more number of operators with Nuclear Submarines so as to contain China. It also propels the American War Industry move further forward at the same. Plenty of Uranium is available with Australia. America can bring down the operational cost of their own Nuclear Arsenal by outsourcing the job to Australia. One shot two birds.
That was a back-handed slap to Macron's face on the advice of US! As if we didn't have enough problem with our friends, we had to insult France anew! With such friends as US and GB, who needs France!
And if China is building military base in Solomons, I’m curious if there are chances these Aussie nuclear submarines may intercept with the Chinese navy ships on their way to Solomon Islands 😅
Please get the facts correct. Australia built diesel/electric submarines Collins Clas...six of them plus we have a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in NSW near Sydney. Nuclear propulsion is new to Australia but the technology is not.
So many "selling points" about so many of these expensive weapons/ships/planes make absolutely no sense to me. Here, for example: Why does a nuclear sub NEED to stay deeply submerged and unfuelled for so long? If it is just cruising, hidden in the depths, what actual secret surveillance can it do there anyway? If we can see them, they can see us. In a naval war exercise some years ago, a "clunky old Australian sub" "killed" a late model US one. So much for super high tech.
I think it is almost correct but I also think that the main reason is that China has been a little les friendly lately. History tells Australia that it can no longer rely on European help. Being a basically western country in Asia Pacific leaves it as an outpost. There are a lot of Chinese in Australia and China could easily make a story that there is discrimination against Chinese and then take over Australia. Isn't that the story between Russia and Ukraine? The USA gives Australia some hope of staying as some kind of democracy.
China only needs a slow down in its own economy and the impact can be felt in Australia in economic terms as it is. Without intending to harm, Chinese would buy out Australian business and over time we end up like the Germans with Gasprom. A piece full looking situation, until we stop playing ball. Before we know it we work for a Chinees subsidy. Very piece full and silently we jus slip away
@@Hangover-ry9bo That's why Australia needs a proper balance in its relations with the blocks, and not joining one right away to preserve its margins regarding deals, security and foreign relations. France is trying the same, to play between the blocks. Australian and French interests are the same in the pacific region, it is a shame that Australian PM choose an alignment unprofitable for its country best interest and population long term security.
@Isang Katotohanan Dear, a conflict with a nuclear power like China would be the end of Australia. Even a conventional one. My position rely on the fact that Australia must keep its distances with any offensive alliance in order to avoid becoming a battleground. That means, no alliance with India nor America. That means, a cooperative agreement with both in order to assure her some allies in the case she would be attacked. Allies with a navy that could be India, Japan, America, England or France. Like Switzerland during ww2 who negotiated a secret defensive pact with France in the case Swiss were to be invaded. Aligning yourself is the best way to rise tensions over the area, which France wants like you to desescalate. But in the end, if you want to go bully the Chinese with your big bowls its up to you, we'll watch you from Caledonia and Vanuatu.
@@yc2673 Australia thinks its a World Power. 25mil people are hardly a World Power. Our politicians need to keep our country out of the clutches of the War Mongers else we will be gone.
But the same USA has declined to offer nuclear submarine to lndia despite the fact that lndia is the most prominent player in the same region. Is that not a hypocrisy.
If countries quarrel...its because of the US. When Australia cancelled their submarine order....it is because the US and UK promise them help to build their own. When France cancelled 2 LHDs ordered by Russia it was also because of the US.
It is surprising that a left of center govt in Australia just decided to compensate that kind of money to France without taking the Australian people in to confidence ie without any discussion in their parliament. After all it is tax payer's money.Had it been India,the govt dare not take people for granted.
Australians already knew that money was going to be paid and the Labor party was going to have to clean up the previous governments mess so they just wanted to whole fiasco to be finished and done with.
@No One Doling out money sharing govt to govt deal in public are two different things as If US president discuss every devision made in pentagon with congress and senate
Have you done any research? They are going to build infrastructure in Australia. And some of them are going to be built in Australia. Submarines are just one part of it. Most importantly they will also get technology on missiles and quantum technology.
Five and a half billion per submarine for a diesel electric model, hell. France pays less than two billion dollars per sub for it's Barracuda nuclear model.
How does China have the largest navy on the world when they only have 2 aircraft carriers vs. the 9 of the USA? Having a bunch of boats that will be blown out of the water in a blink of the eye, doesn’t mean you have the largest navy.
Thank you so much, sir as always🙏 Anyway, could you please make a video on *Public Distribution System* (PDS) and also what are the advantages and shortcomings etc? 🙏
Good data... but very naíve analysis... that was the best choice for Australia... and come with a strong alliance... and I'm sure they will compensate the French with further deals and cooperation... PS: there are no nuclear propulsion... only nuclear power generation... the propulsion devices are mostly the same as in internal-combustion/electric engine submarines...
Thats not the whole truth. The reason why the contract was terminated was that the contracted price had tripped and there was very little construction of the submarine. There was no intention by France to Construct the subs in Australia In other words France was in breach of the contract. From Australia point the contract with France was not in Australia's interested. There was no alternative but to cancel the contract. Australia should not be paying France any additional . money.
Fondly enough..our far away pen pals speak the same lingo as australia..and we share close ideology and beleifs..let alone fought numerous wars together and watched one anothers back..not like the pack nations of asia who speak different gibble gabble..and are dubious to trust..let alone befriend..🇦🇺🇬🇧🇺🇸🇳🇿🇨🇦💪brothers in ARMS..👍
It is dumb on the part of Australia to make an either/or decision to cancel France's deal on diesel submarines, It could have negotiated a modification of the agreement with France! Perhaps bean-counters influenced the decision to cancel the agreement with France!!!
And doing that would have blown the costs out further again, the best decision based on the best product is either the US or UK subs. The US and UK will provide the best support and training and training as well. It was not dumb on Australian part it is just a shame it took this long to get to this point.
