AUKUS
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 92
Likes: 144
From: Sussex
The very large number of Australian personnel (both military & civilian) that have been sent to Hawaii for SSN training is putting a strain on the housing market in Honolulu. There has been a shortage of rental accommodation for a number of years and this influx has driven up demand and pricing - the locals aren’t happy.
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,245
Likes: 1,657
From: Ferrara
The very large number of Australian personnel (both military & civilian) that have been sent to Hawaii for SSN training is putting a strain on the housing market in Honolulu. There has been a shortage of rental accommodation for a number of years and this influx has driven up demand and pricing - the locals aren’t happy.
that story sounds like either a realtor drumming up business or a politician.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,642
Likes: 7,342
From: Peripatetic
VideoReporter: Will you be discussing AUKUS with the Prime Minister?
Trump: What does that mean?
Reporter: Australia, US defense alliance
(He doesn't even know what AUKUS means)
https://archive.ph/o6rWh
Trump: What does that mean?
Reporter: Australia, US defense alliance
(He doesn't even know what AUKUS means)
https://archive.ph/o6rWh
Joined: Aug 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 9,346
Likes: 2,186
From: Texas
If you read McMaster's book, as I have, you learn that his attention span is hampered by long overseas flights.
That means that whatever his people were briefing him on was only partly assimilated.
So he commits yet another gaffe.
Ops Normal for that gent.
That means that whatever his people were briefing him on was only partly assimilated.
So he commits yet another gaffe.
Ops Normal for that gent.
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,921
Likes: 611
From: surfing, watching for sharks
The very large number of Australian personnel (both military & civilian) that have been sent to Hawaii for SSN training is putting a strain on the housing market in Honolulu. There has been a shortage of rental accommodation for a number of years and this influx has driven up demand and pricing - the locals aren’t happy.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,642
Likes: 7,342
From: Peripatetic
The cautionary note i'd add to this is that the other platforms mentioned - notably B-21 bombers - are also being produced in small numbers and, if the USAF requirement is ramped up to replace, in part or whole, the manned NGAD requirement, the US could also decline to provide any of those either.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...r-to-australia
Surface tension: could the promised Aukus nuclear submarines simply never be handed over to Australia?
The multi-billion dollar deal was heralded as ensuring the security of the Indo-Pacific. But with America an increasingly unreliable ally, doubts are rising above the waves.
Maybe Australia’s boats just never turn up.
To fanfare and flags, the Aukus deal was presented as a sure bet, papering over an uncertainty that such an ambitious deal could ever be delivered. It was assured, three publics across two oceans were told – signed, sealed and to-be-delivered: Australia would buy from its great ally, the US, its own conventionally armed nuclear-powered attack submarines before it began building its own.
But there is an emerging disquiet on the promise of Aukus pillar one: it may be the promised US-built nuclear-powered submarines simply never arrive under Australian sovereign control. Instead, those nuclear submarines, stationed in Australia, could bear US flags, carry US weapons, commanded and crewed by American officers and sailors.
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
Officially at least, Aukus remains on course, centrepiece of a storied security alliance.
Pillar one of the Australia-UK-US agreement involves, first, Australia buying between three and five Virginia-Class nuclear-powered submarines from the US – the first of these in 2032. Then, by the “late 2030s”, according to Australia’s submarine industry strategy, the UK will deliver the first specifically designed and built Aukus submarine. The first Australian-built version will be in the water “in the early 2040s”. Aukus is forecast to cost up to $368bn to the mid-2050s.
But in both Washington and Canberra, there is growing concern over the very first step: America’s capacity to build the boats it has promised Australia, and – even if it had the wherewithal to build the subs – whether it would relinquish them into Australian control.
The gnawing anxiety over Aukus sits within a broader context of a rewritten rulebook for relations between America and its allies. Amid the Sturm und Drang of the first weeks of Trump’s second administration, there is growing concern that the reliable ally is no longer that. With the casual, even brutal, dismissal of Ukraine – an ally for whom the US has provided security guarantees for a generation – the old certainties exist no longer.
“I think America is a much less dependable ally under [president] Trump than it was,” the former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull tells the Guardian this week. “And this is not a criticism of Trump, this is literally a feature, not a bug: he’s saying that he’s less dependable".
"It may be that – regrettably – we do end up with no submarines. And then we have to invest in other ways of defending ourselves. But the big message is that we are going to have to look at defending Australia by ourselves. That’s really the issue. We cannot assume that the Americans will always turn up.”
Trump can hardly be accused of hiding his priorities. If the 47th president has a doctrine beyond self-interest, “America First” has been his shibboleth since before his first term. “Our allies have taken advantage of us more so than our enemies,” he said on the campaign trail. He told his inauguration: “I will, very simply, put America first.”
On 8 February, Australia paid $US500m ($AUD790m) to the US, the first instalment in a total of $US3bn pledged in order to support America’s shipbuilding industry. Aukus was, Australia’s defence minister Richard Marles said, “a powerful symbol of our two countries working together in the Indo-Pacific. It represents a very significant increase of the American footprint on the Australian continent … it represents an increase in Australian capability, through the acquisition of a nuclear‑powered submarine capability … it also represents an increase in Australian defence spending”.
US defence secretary Pete Hegseth – joking that “the cheque did clear” – gave succour to Aukus supporters, saying his country’s mission in the Indo-Pacific was not one “that America can undertake by itself”. “Allies and partners, technology sharing and subs are a huge part of it.”
But, just three days after Australia’s cheque cleared, the Congressional Research Service quietly issued a paper* saying while the nuclear-powered attack submarines (known as SSNs) intended for Australia might be built, the US could decide to never hand them over.
It said the post-pandemic shipbuilding rate in the US was so anaemic that it could not service the needs of the US Navy alone, let alone build submarines for another country’s navy. Under a proposed alternative, “up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs would be built, and instead of three to five of them being sold to Australia, these additional boats would instead be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia along with the five US and UK submarines that are already planned to be operated out of Australia”.
The paper argued that Australia, rather than spending money to buy, build and sail its own nuclear-powered submarines, would instead invest that money in other military capabilities – long-range missiles, drones, or bombers – “so as to create an Australian capacity for performing non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States”.....
* https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32418.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...r-to-australia
Surface tension: could the promised Aukus nuclear submarines simply never be handed over to Australia?
The multi-billion dollar deal was heralded as ensuring the security of the Indo-Pacific. But with America an increasingly unreliable ally, doubts are rising above the waves.
Maybe Australia’s boats just never turn up.
To fanfare and flags, the Aukus deal was presented as a sure bet, papering over an uncertainty that such an ambitious deal could ever be delivered. It was assured, three publics across two oceans were told – signed, sealed and to-be-delivered: Australia would buy from its great ally, the US, its own conventionally armed nuclear-powered attack submarines before it began building its own.
But there is an emerging disquiet on the promise of Aukus pillar one: it may be the promised US-built nuclear-powered submarines simply never arrive under Australian sovereign control. Instead, those nuclear submarines, stationed in Australia, could bear US flags, carry US weapons, commanded and crewed by American officers and sailors.
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
Officially at least, Aukus remains on course, centrepiece of a storied security alliance.
Pillar one of the Australia-UK-US agreement involves, first, Australia buying between three and five Virginia-Class nuclear-powered submarines from the US – the first of these in 2032. Then, by the “late 2030s”, according to Australia’s submarine industry strategy, the UK will deliver the first specifically designed and built Aukus submarine. The first Australian-built version will be in the water “in the early 2040s”. Aukus is forecast to cost up to $368bn to the mid-2050s.
But in both Washington and Canberra, there is growing concern over the very first step: America’s capacity to build the boats it has promised Australia, and – even if it had the wherewithal to build the subs – whether it would relinquish them into Australian control.
The gnawing anxiety over Aukus sits within a broader context of a rewritten rulebook for relations between America and its allies. Amid the Sturm und Drang of the first weeks of Trump’s second administration, there is growing concern that the reliable ally is no longer that. With the casual, even brutal, dismissal of Ukraine – an ally for whom the US has provided security guarantees for a generation – the old certainties exist no longer.
“I think America is a much less dependable ally under [president] Trump than it was,” the former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull tells the Guardian this week. “And this is not a criticism of Trump, this is literally a feature, not a bug: he’s saying that he’s less dependable".
"It may be that – regrettably – we do end up with no submarines. And then we have to invest in other ways of defending ourselves. But the big message is that we are going to have to look at defending Australia by ourselves. That’s really the issue. We cannot assume that the Americans will always turn up.”
Trump can hardly be accused of hiding his priorities. If the 47th president has a doctrine beyond self-interest, “America First” has been his shibboleth since before his first term. “Our allies have taken advantage of us more so than our enemies,” he said on the campaign trail. He told his inauguration: “I will, very simply, put America first.”
On 8 February, Australia paid $US500m ($AUD790m) to the US, the first instalment in a total of $US3bn pledged in order to support America’s shipbuilding industry. Aukus was, Australia’s defence minister Richard Marles said, “a powerful symbol of our two countries working together in the Indo-Pacific. It represents a very significant increase of the American footprint on the Australian continent … it represents an increase in Australian capability, through the acquisition of a nuclear‑powered submarine capability … it also represents an increase in Australian defence spending”.
US defence secretary Pete Hegseth – joking that “the cheque did clear” – gave succour to Aukus supporters, saying his country’s mission in the Indo-Pacific was not one “that America can undertake by itself”. “Allies and partners, technology sharing and subs are a huge part of it.”
But, just three days after Australia’s cheque cleared, the Congressional Research Service quietly issued a paper* saying while the nuclear-powered attack submarines (known as SSNs) intended for Australia might be built, the US could decide to never hand them over.
It said the post-pandemic shipbuilding rate in the US was so anaemic that it could not service the needs of the US Navy alone, let alone build submarines for another country’s navy. Under a proposed alternative, “up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs would be built, and instead of three to five of them being sold to Australia, these additional boats would instead be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia along with the five US and UK submarines that are already planned to be operated out of Australia”.
The paper argued that Australia, rather than spending money to buy, build and sail its own nuclear-powered submarines, would instead invest that money in other military capabilities – long-range missiles, drones, or bombers – “so as to create an Australian capacity for performing non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States”.....
* https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32418.pdf
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,245
Likes: 1,657
From: Ferrara
Well Trump should be long gone by 2032 - and whoever is President then can just transfer a couple of older boats over. Assuming build rates will continue at current rates into the mid 2030's is a bit of a stretch I suspect
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,642
Likes: 7,342
From: Peripatetic
https://theconversation.com/not-yet-...r-worse-252166
Not yet time for a Plan B. Australia must stick with AUKUS – for better or worse
Following the recent imposition of steel and aluminum tariffs, the Australian government is coming to terms with the reality of engaging with a US ally that is increasingly transactional.
The Trump administration’s approach may signal some inclement weather ahead for the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine project. But it’s far from game over.
A flurry of opinion pieces, including one penned by a former chief of the Defense Force, has questioned US capacity to deliver on its commitments under the security pact. AUKUS skeptics are calling for a “Plan B.”
Policymakers should always reassess their foreign policy decisions as new information comes to light. However, at present, there is little conclusive evidence that AUKUS is veering off course.
Worrying about what may or may not happen to AUKUS under Donald Trump is insufficient reason to take a wrecking ball to three years of unprecedented, generational investment in Australia’s most important defense partnership.
The ‘Plan B’ problem
Certainly, AUKUS deserves scrutiny. But clutching for alternatives, including the resurrection of the long-defunct French deal, is counterproductive for several reasons.
First, it disregards the enormous investment and political will the partners have sunk into AUKUS since it was announced in September 2021. No convincing evidence has been produced to show alternative sub deals could be delivered significantly cheaper or faster. Nor would they be politically viable.
Secondly, it would destabilize an initiative that helps tether the United States to the Indo-Pacific. Australia’s defense strategy is predicated on the United States remaining essential to a favorable regional balance of power.
AUKUS has become central to Australia’s deterrence strategy, in a way that alternatives would struggle to replicate after a sudden change in course. Steadfast continuity with AUKUS seems most likely to inspire ongoing commitment to the region from the Trump administration.
Thirdly, calls to abandon AUKUS overlook the broader benefits this cooperation unlocks for Australia in the US alliance. The political momentum generated by AUKUS has created new opportunities for Australian businesses in US supply chains. Australia’s efforts in advanced technologies and guided weapons have also been empowered.
AUKUS is bigger than a single arms agreement. The broad implications of revising, or even dumping, the deal must be understood accordingly.
Trump’s AUKUS
US President Trump’s apparent confusion about AUKUS, and his treatment of European allies, has understandably fomented hand-wringing about the future of the deal.
Still, an undertaking this central to Australia’s long-term defense merits a pragmatic approach, rather than alarm.
There is cause to feel cautiously optimistic about AUKUS under Trump. Key personnel across the administration – including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio – have expressed their support.
Trump has promised renewed focus on growing the US industrial base by establishing a new White House shipbuilding office and a maritime action plan. These could set the United States on a firmer footing to meet the production targets tied to the Australian submarine sales.
US Studies Centre analysis reinforces the willingness of key figures in Congress to reform export controls and acquisition policy to see AUKUS succeed, pending improvements to US industrial capacity.
The effectiveness of recent investment cycles in the US submarine base is still to be determined. But Canberra has agency here. Washington is looking, in part, to Australia for answers to prevailing challenges.
Numerous components for US submarines are currently sourced from a single supplier. Achieving supply chain resilience will depend on seeking out alternate manufacturers, including from Australian industry, for valves, pumps, steel and beyond.
From the Australian government’s recently announced A$800 million (US$508 million) investment in the US industrial base to the 129 Australian shipbuilders undergoing specialized training in Pearl Harbor, AUKUS will benefit the US in ways that have perhaps been understated.
Australia’s AUKUS challenge
At present, there is little evidence to suggest the Trump administration will tear up the pact. Nonetheless, Australia must remain alert to obstacles that may arise in the partnership.
Trump may seek to elicit additional financial contributions from Australia by trying to cut a better deal than his predecessor.
Unanticipated costs could be absorbed by an existing contingency fund. However, greater investment in AUKUS would risk crowding out competing programs in the Australian defense budget.
In addition, any potential breach between the collaborative spirit of AUKUS and the administration’s transactional instincts could create headaches for Australian stakeholders.
Perceptions that AUKUS could be leveraged in strategic competition with China may buoy support for the pact in Congress. But Australian policymakers must communicate a broader strategic rationale for AUKUS that resonates more strongly here at home.
The Australian government will need to adapt its approach to AUKUS cooperation to weather the new political climate. To minimize risks, Australia should continue to strengthen other defense partnerships and embrace greater defense self-reliance, as the “Plan B” commentators suggest.
AUKUS isn’t perfect. But it will endure and continue to be Australia’s best bet.
Not yet time for a Plan B. Australia must stick with AUKUS – for better or worse
Following the recent imposition of steel and aluminum tariffs, the Australian government is coming to terms with the reality of engaging with a US ally that is increasingly transactional.
The Trump administration’s approach may signal some inclement weather ahead for the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine project. But it’s far from game over.
A flurry of opinion pieces, including one penned by a former chief of the Defense Force, has questioned US capacity to deliver on its commitments under the security pact. AUKUS skeptics are calling for a “Plan B.”
Policymakers should always reassess their foreign policy decisions as new information comes to light. However, at present, there is little conclusive evidence that AUKUS is veering off course.
Worrying about what may or may not happen to AUKUS under Donald Trump is insufficient reason to take a wrecking ball to three years of unprecedented, generational investment in Australia’s most important defense partnership.
The ‘Plan B’ problem
Certainly, AUKUS deserves scrutiny. But clutching for alternatives, including the resurrection of the long-defunct French deal, is counterproductive for several reasons.
First, it disregards the enormous investment and political will the partners have sunk into AUKUS since it was announced in September 2021. No convincing evidence has been produced to show alternative sub deals could be delivered significantly cheaper or faster. Nor would they be politically viable.
Secondly, it would destabilize an initiative that helps tether the United States to the Indo-Pacific. Australia’s defense strategy is predicated on the United States remaining essential to a favorable regional balance of power.
AUKUS has become central to Australia’s deterrence strategy, in a way that alternatives would struggle to replicate after a sudden change in course. Steadfast continuity with AUKUS seems most likely to inspire ongoing commitment to the region from the Trump administration.
Thirdly, calls to abandon AUKUS overlook the broader benefits this cooperation unlocks for Australia in the US alliance. The political momentum generated by AUKUS has created new opportunities for Australian businesses in US supply chains. Australia’s efforts in advanced technologies and guided weapons have also been empowered.
AUKUS is bigger than a single arms agreement. The broad implications of revising, or even dumping, the deal must be understood accordingly.
Trump’s AUKUS
US President Trump’s apparent confusion about AUKUS, and his treatment of European allies, has understandably fomented hand-wringing about the future of the deal.
Still, an undertaking this central to Australia’s long-term defense merits a pragmatic approach, rather than alarm.
There is cause to feel cautiously optimistic about AUKUS under Trump. Key personnel across the administration – including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio – have expressed their support.
Trump has promised renewed focus on growing the US industrial base by establishing a new White House shipbuilding office and a maritime action plan. These could set the United States on a firmer footing to meet the production targets tied to the Australian submarine sales.
US Studies Centre analysis reinforces the willingness of key figures in Congress to reform export controls and acquisition policy to see AUKUS succeed, pending improvements to US industrial capacity.
The effectiveness of recent investment cycles in the US submarine base is still to be determined. But Canberra has agency here. Washington is looking, in part, to Australia for answers to prevailing challenges.
Numerous components for US submarines are currently sourced from a single supplier. Achieving supply chain resilience will depend on seeking out alternate manufacturers, including from Australian industry, for valves, pumps, steel and beyond.
From the Australian government’s recently announced A$800 million (US$508 million) investment in the US industrial base to the 129 Australian shipbuilders undergoing specialized training in Pearl Harbor, AUKUS will benefit the US in ways that have perhaps been understated.
Australia’s AUKUS challenge
At present, there is little evidence to suggest the Trump administration will tear up the pact. Nonetheless, Australia must remain alert to obstacles that may arise in the partnership.
Trump may seek to elicit additional financial contributions from Australia by trying to cut a better deal than his predecessor.
Unanticipated costs could be absorbed by an existing contingency fund. However, greater investment in AUKUS would risk crowding out competing programs in the Australian defense budget.
In addition, any potential breach between the collaborative spirit of AUKUS and the administration’s transactional instincts could create headaches for Australian stakeholders.
Perceptions that AUKUS could be leveraged in strategic competition with China may buoy support for the pact in Congress. But Australian policymakers must communicate a broader strategic rationale for AUKUS that resonates more strongly here at home.
The Australian government will need to adapt its approach to AUKUS cooperation to weather the new political climate. To minimize risks, Australia should continue to strengthen other defense partnerships and embrace greater defense self-reliance, as the “Plan B” commentators suggest.
AUKUS isn’t perfect. But it will endure and continue to be Australia’s best bet.
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 638
Likes: 101
From: australia
The French are still promoting their sub, though local political influencers. So there are a lot of option B stories, from X-PM Turnbull down to bloggers. This will continue. There is no Gov support from both parties for this option.
If by chance we don't get the Virginias as a stop gap. We will wait for SSN-AUKUS, early 2040. The Collins fleet is fully retired in 2048, at this stage. Not getting the Virginia may extend a few. The US want to forward deploy subs in Australia.
That will still happen, as it is in the US interests.
My personal opinion is it would be a cost saving to Australia. It would be in Australia's interest, to have only one class of sub.
If by chance we don't get the Virginias as a stop gap. We will wait for SSN-AUKUS, early 2040. The Collins fleet is fully retired in 2048, at this stage. Not getting the Virginia may extend a few. The US want to forward deploy subs in Australia.
That will still happen, as it is in the US interests.
My personal opinion is it would be a cost saving to Australia. It would be in Australia's interest, to have only one class of sub.
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,087
Likes: 4,429
From: 3rd Rock, #29B
The French are still promoting their sub, though local political influencers. So there are a lot of option B stories, from X-PM Turnbull down to bloggers. This will continue. There is no Gov support from both parties for this option.
If by chance we don't get the Virginias as a stop gap. We will wait for SSN-AUKUS, early 2040. The Collins fleet is fully retired in 2048, at this stage. Not getting the Virginia may extend a few. The US want to forward deploy subs in Australia.
That will still happen, as it is in the US interests.
My personal opinion is it would be a cost saving to Australia. It would be in Australia's interest, to have only one class of sub.
If by chance we don't get the Virginias as a stop gap. We will wait for SSN-AUKUS, early 2040. The Collins fleet is fully retired in 2048, at this stage. Not getting the Virginia may extend a few. The US want to forward deploy subs in Australia.
That will still happen, as it is in the US interests.
My personal opinion is it would be a cost saving to Australia. It would be in Australia's interest, to have only one class of sub.
As AUKUS has drifted into the shoals, and appears to maybe now be better known as "RAUKUS", (yes, where the USA is happier with dealing with Russia, is prepared to forward intel of allies to Russia in unauthorised releases), with Canada being out in the cold, it would seem that a revisit to the rather competent sous-marines (only a couple have sunk) that l'hexagone make today, after the Daphne's predilection for demise.
Joined: Aug 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 1,348
Likes: 562
From: Washington.
The sobering question is what else will be long gone after he and his minions have had their way.
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 638
Likes: 101
From: australia
As AUKUS has drifted into the shoals, and appears to maybe now be better known as "RAUKUS", (yes, where the USA is happier with dealing with Russia, is prepared to forward intel of allies to Russia in unauthorised releases), with Canada being out in the cold, it would seem that a revisit to the rather competent sous-marines (only a couple have sunk) that l'hexagone make today, after the Daphne's predilection for demise.
Donald Trump is 'supportive' of AUKUS, his defence secretary says, as Australia makes $798m payment - ABC News
Donald Trump is 'supportive' of AUKUS, his defence secretary says, as Australia makes $798m payment
AUKUS cash flows to Australian firms despite doubts over pact
In a major milestone, the US Navy has issued its first contract – which could run into the tens of millions of dollars – to US conglomerate Honeywell to shepherd Australian companies through stringent quality and security checks to build parts for US-made Virginia-class submarines.
Last edited by golder; 20th March 2025 at 12:40.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 57
From: Anglia
Trump is as trustworthy as Putin but without the skills in deviousness. He ignores ‘Norms’, laws and contracts doing only as he sees fit in any situation. He is the complete and now adult (in size) disruptive child with no moral or social training. According to the Telegraph, he has modelled all of his controlling moves, political, judicial, military and in many other state departments on those of the next tyrant - Viktor Orban - who probably learned his skills from Lukashenko.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 151
From: A better place.
Former Defence Force Chief describes current US admin as "vandals."
https://www.theguardian.com/australi...ef-says-ntwnfb
But doesn't say AUKUS should be ended.
Here's hoping that a multi-decade, highly complex agreement can survive the next four years of miniscule attention span, low IQ decision making coming out of the White House at the moment.
https://www.theguardian.com/australi...ef-says-ntwnfb
But doesn't say AUKUS should be ended.
Here's hoping that a multi-decade, highly complex agreement can survive the next four years of miniscule attention span, low IQ decision making coming out of the White House at the moment.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,642
Likes: 7,342
From: Peripatetic
"All Dreadnought blocks are in for final assembly."
The colossal forward end unit of the new Dreadnought submarine was transported to the Devonshire Dock Hall build facility where it will be integrated with other sections.....
The colossal forward end unit of the new Dreadnought submarine was transported to the Devonshire Dock Hall build facility where it will be integrated with other sections.....
Joined: Oct 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 796
Likes: 168
From: Land of Oz
Former Defence Force Chief describes current US admin as "vandals."
https://www.theguardian.com/australi...ef-says-ntwnfb
https://www.theguardian.com/australi...ef-says-ntwnfb
Ex-PM Trumbull was talking yesterday at the Press Club. Again, he was so hard done-by, shouldn't have AUKUS, should have gone with his French sub plan.
This involved taking a French nuke SSN, down-rating it to a unique orphan conventional SS, FFS. What could possibly go wrong!
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,245
Likes: 1,657
From: Ferrara
"The colossal forward end unit of the new Dreadnought submarine was transported to the Devonshire Dock Hall build facility where it will be integrated with other sections....."
reminds me of the incomplete Morgan sports cars that had to be pushed uphill to the completion department in Malvern - not exactly they way you'd really like to do it
reminds me of the incomplete Morgan sports cars that had to be pushed uphill to the completion department in Malvern - not exactly they way you'd really like to do it
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,642
Likes: 7,342
From: Peripatetic
Being resolved by the expansion of the site which includes a New cross-section manufacturing facility. Once completed sections will be moved by barge internally on the site to Devonshire Hall for assembly.
https://www.abports.co.uk/media/yecd...-sept-24-1.pdf
https://www.abports.co.uk/media/yecd...-sept-24-1.pdf
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 857
From: Here 'n' there!
Just about everything built these days is modular and moved, often between countries! Boeing, Airbus, Typhoon ..... this! Bits built everywhere then assembled somewhere else. They do fit together ...... usually!!!! 
But I do get your drift!
