I'll let people watch the two minutes than [then] compare...
Watch the full 12-minutes if you want context in addition to comic relief.
The legislator understood it was a stupid thing the Australians were doing in 2017...
Stupidity often results from a black & white, closed loop, rigid, narrow
reaction (I would hesitate to call it thinking) in the attempt to score some sort of point in a political game. There were—and are—advantages and disadvantages (beyond the obvious cost, complexity, maintenance, nuclear waste, etc. considerations) which were weighed in making the decision several years ago to continue to use diesel electric submarines—which were reconsidered over time
and with changes in elected government. Reconsidering decisions over time and reaching different conclusions is something that people whose thinking and attitudes are not set in concrete actually do on occasion.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/why-australia-wants-nuclear-submarinesnuclear-powered submarines can go faster, and stay underwater for longer. But they are often bigger in size, which makes them less nimble in shallow coastal waters.
So, there are strategic advantages and disadvantages.
Nuclear-powered submarines would allow the Australian Navy to patrol more of the Indo-Pacific region for longer, which could be particularly handy at a time of competing territorial claims for strategic waters.
But diesel or electric-powered submarines excel in coastal waters like those to the north and north-west of Australia. According to the former director of the Australian Submarine Corporation, Hans J Ohff, they are better suited to deployments in estuaries. According to many analysts, they are better suited to defending coastlines or ports if invaded.
These [nuclear] submarines will not be able to dock in New Zealand, which has a long-standing ban on nuclear-powered vessels. They may also not be able to visit some Pacific Islands that have taken similar measures. This could reduce naval cooperation with these nations.
There were also numerous reports in the Australian press, long before today's announcement, of problems and delays with the French company contracted for the diesel electric version.
buying WWII electric type subs...
Really? Has your car changed any since the 1940s? How about diesel powered armored tanks, any changes there? Do you think somehow conventionally powered subs haven't been modernized over the past several decades? Stop trying to throw out reactions as fast as you can and try thinking.
to go against the Chinese...
Really? Do you think Australia, with its current grand total of six submarines, expects to take on China alone?
China already has nuclear-powered submarines, and this switch of strategy would see Australia match – or come close to – its capabilities.
China has six Shang-class nuclear-powered attack submarines. Each one is 110 metres long and capable of carrying cruise missiles and torpedoes.
But it also has 50 diesel/electric attack submarines, making its submarine fleet significantly larger than Australia's.
The admiral was defending old technology. The legislator was asking why he wasn't going with modern technology.
No. The decision to go with diesel subs had already been made by others. He wasn't
defending the idea one way or another in their back and forth. He was correcting her ridiculous assumptions about propulsion systems and power plants—and the stupid idea that either would limit a new sub to 20-minutes submerged. You hear what you want to hear—rather than what was actually said.
