AUKUS
Joined: Jan 2008
Aviation Qualifications: SLF
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 1,070
From: Australia
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,637
Likes: 7,338
From: Peripatetic
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon...a-and-britain/
Pentagon to review AUKUS submarine deal with Australia and Britain
The Pentagon is reviewing the AUKUS agreement on sharing nuclear-powered submarine technology with Australia and the United Kingdom — a decision immediately condemned by congressional Democrats and one that may cause angst among U.S. allies.
“The Department is reviewing AUKUS as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous Administration is aligned with the President’s America First agenda,” a Pentagon spokesperson wrote in a statement Wednesday.
The spokesperson did not say who was involved in the effort, when it would conclude or why it was initiated — except to say that the Pentagon was concerned about the readiness of its forces and the U.S. defense industry.
“This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria,” the statement continued…….
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth traveled to Singapore just over a week ago, where he met with his Australian counterpart, Richard Marles, multiple times. In a major speech on the Trump administration’s Asia policy, Hegseth didn’t mention AUKUS, something Marles dismissed in an interview with Defense News later.
“We’ve spoken extensively about AUKUS — both of our countries, including Secretary Hegseth himself. We don’t feel a need to keep reiterating it on every single occasion,” Marles said, arguing the program was “on track.”
In his March confirmation hearing, Pentagon head of policy Elbridge Colby expressed some hesitancy about AUKUS — in particular, America’s difficulty increasing its own production of nuclear-powered submarines, which would conceivably make it harder to sell extra boats to Australia……..
A spokesperson for the British embassy, meanwhile, responded to the news with reassurance. “It is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership, just as the U.K. did last year.”
Senate Democrats criticized the White House for casting doubt on the future of the AUKUS agreement.
“If this administration is serious about countering the threat from China — like it has said as recently as this morning — then it will work expeditiously with our partners in Australia and the U.K. to strengthen this agreement and ensure we are taking steps to further boost our submarine industrial base,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a statement. “Anything less would play directly into China’s hand.”
Fellow Senate Armed Services Committee member Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., said the news that Trump may abandon AUKUS “will be met with cheers in Beijing” and further weaken America’s standing in the world.
“At a moment when we face mounting threats from [China] and Russia, we should be encouraging our partners to raise their defense spending and partnering with them on the latest technologies — not doing the opposite,” she said……
Pentagon to review AUKUS submarine deal with Australia and Britain
The Pentagon is reviewing the AUKUS agreement on sharing nuclear-powered submarine technology with Australia and the United Kingdom — a decision immediately condemned by congressional Democrats and one that may cause angst among U.S. allies.
“The Department is reviewing AUKUS as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous Administration is aligned with the President’s America First agenda,” a Pentagon spokesperson wrote in a statement Wednesday.
The spokesperson did not say who was involved in the effort, when it would conclude or why it was initiated — except to say that the Pentagon was concerned about the readiness of its forces and the U.S. defense industry.
“This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria,” the statement continued…….
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth traveled to Singapore just over a week ago, where he met with his Australian counterpart, Richard Marles, multiple times. In a major speech on the Trump administration’s Asia policy, Hegseth didn’t mention AUKUS, something Marles dismissed in an interview with Defense News later.
“We’ve spoken extensively about AUKUS — both of our countries, including Secretary Hegseth himself. We don’t feel a need to keep reiterating it on every single occasion,” Marles said, arguing the program was “on track.”
In his March confirmation hearing, Pentagon head of policy Elbridge Colby expressed some hesitancy about AUKUS — in particular, America’s difficulty increasing its own production of nuclear-powered submarines, which would conceivably make it harder to sell extra boats to Australia……..
A spokesperson for the British embassy, meanwhile, responded to the news with reassurance. “It is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership, just as the U.K. did last year.”
Senate Democrats criticized the White House for casting doubt on the future of the AUKUS agreement.
“If this administration is serious about countering the threat from China — like it has said as recently as this morning — then it will work expeditiously with our partners in Australia and the U.K. to strengthen this agreement and ensure we are taking steps to further boost our submarine industrial base,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a statement. “Anything less would play directly into China’s hand.”
Fellow Senate Armed Services Committee member Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., said the news that Trump may abandon AUKUS “will be met with cheers in Beijing” and further weaken America’s standing in the world.
“At a moment when we face mounting threats from [China] and Russia, we should be encouraging our partners to raise their defense spending and partnering with them on the latest technologies — not doing the opposite,” she said……
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 638
Likes: 101
From: australia
You may be thinking of the Greens? I would also allow for the Trump effect, about anything US
https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/chart...ed-submarines/
While AUKUS continues to enjoy bipartisan political support in Australia, more Australians who lean towards the Liberal–National Coalition (81%) than those who lean towards the Labor Party (69%) are in favour of acquiring nuclear-powered submarines — a 12-point gap, narrowing from 21 points last year.
https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/chart...ed-submarines/
While AUKUS continues to enjoy bipartisan political support in Australia, more Australians who lean towards the Liberal–National Coalition (81%) than those who lean towards the Labor Party (69%) are in favour of acquiring nuclear-powered submarines — a 12-point gap, narrowing from 21 points last year.
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
RIP AUKUS the man leading the review eldrich Colby has been anti AUKUS pillar 1 since Biden announced it, If I was the RAN I would be making phone calls to South Korea and Japan and seeing what my options are
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
I think that it’s more likely that the Australian Government would approach the British first to see how much the AUKUS SSN project could be accelerated with the aim of transitioning straight from Collins class to AUKUS SSN’s without any Virginia’s. There would still be some US components but this would avoid diverting any submarines from the USN.
The fact that the Brits have already announced their intention to accelerate the program does help us but, the biggest bottleneck may be RR’s ability to produce the PWR3’s at the required rate.
The fact that the Brits have already announced their intention to accelerate the program does help us but, the biggest bottleneck may be RR’s ability to produce the PWR3’s at the required rate.
Joined: Jan 2008
Aviation Qualifications: SLF
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 1,070
From: Australia
I think that it’s more likely that the Australian Government would approach the British first to see how much the AUKUS SSN project could be accelerated with the aim of transitioning straight from Collins class to AUKUS SSN’s without any Virginia’s. There would still be some US components but this would avoid diverting any submarines from the USN.
The fact that the Brits have already announced their intention to accelerate the program does help us but, the biggest bottleneck may be RR’s ability to produce the PWR3’s at the required rate.
The fact that the Brits have already announced their intention to accelerate the program does help us but, the biggest bottleneck may be RR’s ability to produce the PWR3’s at the required rate.
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
Stop telling lies, we never asked the french for a nuclear submarine. We asked for a DE submarine, the french proposed a DE version of the a barracuda. It wasn't the first time, during the collins aquistion the french offered a DE version of Rubris SSN. But the SSN was such a dog it dismissed immediatly. We asked for a DE sub and french proposed the barracuda because it was the only design they had with the displacement required for all the BS requirements we wanted. The others proposals were half the displacement
**EDIT** It was malcolm turnballs govt that did the a selection of the a Barracuda. In his memoirs he denied ever talking to french about a nuclear submarine, He never asked and they never offered, he did hope that after a successful aquisition the door to a nuclear option would be opened, I also note he doesn't mention DCNS who have a few times mentioned nuclear subs but they are a corporation and would say what required to get business
Last edited by rattman; 12th June 2025 at 12:14.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 506
Likes: 93
From: UK
An issue for the US defence industry (if not for the US administration, which appears not to care) is that many countries now see the US as an unreliable ally. If the US were to tear up the AUKUS treaty, it would provide final, uncontrovertible proof that those countries are correct in that view.
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
Even if they choose to abide by the AUKUS agreement, the rumors of withdrawing is going to cause some big damage to defence aquisition. Me personally think they are going to use AUKUS as a hammer to get 3.5% GDP spending. When we refuse they are going to say "See australia isn't serious and its their own fault"
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,245
Likes: 1,657
From: Ferrara
Colby is a single individual - it all depends on how long he survives in office and how he finds the President on the day the report is delivered. As already reported the senators of the "submarine" states are already organising.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,390
Likes: 678
From: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Sec. Hegseth dealt with an overtly confrontational line of questions from the Ranking Member, who represents a Congressional District in Connecticut. The Representative was reading from pretty detailed facts, qualitative as well as budgetary, about construction and readiness of boats. At times the Representative appeared and sounded, well, livid. So not only in the Senate are there elected representatives, staff members in their legislative offices, and Committee professional staff members who "do their homework" and have rather intense disdain for anyone who does not and instead relies on vanity, self-centeredness and conceit. Sec. Hegseth (for the avoidance of any doubt) did appear to be well-prepared; whether the same can be said or applied to the Trump Administration's handling of AUKUS remains to be seen, time will tell.
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
With the British announcing that the SSN AUKUS program will be advanced and increased to at least 12 submarines for the RN and, the Trump administration’s review of the AUKUS agreement, it would make a suitable time to refine the “Preferred Pathway”. If the US were to assist the UK in accelerating the SSN AUKUS program, it could result in earlier availability for Australia. This could result in less Virginia’s required for RAN service thus enabling the USN to retain them which appears to be the biggest concern that the Trump administration has.
It would still require all three nations to work hard to make the project come together in the tight timeframe but, it could be a less messy “Preferred Pathway” than the original.
It would still require all three nations to work hard to make the project come together in the tight timeframe but, it could be a less messy “Preferred Pathway” than the original.
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 883
Likes: 225
From: Australia
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
So if RAN had BS (Bull S##t ?) requirements for Attack class, then how would you characterise the RAN requirements for the AUKUS SSN, if there are even such requirements anymore (as opposed to a political decision)? Furthermore, were the RAN requirements already BS for the Collins class back in the day?
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 883
Likes: 225
From: Australia
A large range at a moderate speed and an extended endurance alone don't equate to being regionally superior, regardless of whether conventional or nuclear powered. There has to be more to it than that (I hope).
Last edited by helispotter; 14th June 2025 at 12:15.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 506
Likes: 93
From: UK
I think I'm right in saying that a nuclear powered submarine can maintain high speeds (typically around 30kt) for pretty much indefinite periods. And they only need to surface when they run out of provisions for the crew. Given Australia's geography, that's not an insignificant consideration.
AIP submarines move much more slowly when using AIP compared to diesel or nuclear submarines. I believe (but as ever, happy to be corrected) that's typically around 5-6 kt if the sub wants to remain submerged at maximum endurance, which is too slow for long-distance transits or traveling with surface ships. Because current AIP technology doesn’t produce enough power for higher speeds, most AIP submarines also come with back-up diesel engines.
Hence nuclear being the best (as well as the most expensive) option for Australia, given the distances involved in getting the boats where they might want them, and the speed at which they can get there - coupled with the fact that they can do all that quietly and without surfacing for months at a time. If that's a club that you want (or need) to be in, then you have to pay the entry fee...
AIP submarines move much more slowly when using AIP compared to diesel or nuclear submarines. I believe (but as ever, happy to be corrected) that's typically around 5-6 kt if the sub wants to remain submerged at maximum endurance, which is too slow for long-distance transits or traveling with surface ships. Because current AIP technology doesn’t produce enough power for higher speeds, most AIP submarines also come with back-up diesel engines.
Hence nuclear being the best (as well as the most expensive) option for Australia, given the distances involved in getting the boats where they might want them, and the speed at which they can get there - coupled with the fact that they can do all that quietly and without surfacing for months at a time. If that's a club that you want (or need) to be in, then you have to pay the entry fee...
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
People going oh nuclear subs are more expensive. Dont think people grasp the extreme scale the attack class budget had blown out. So australia uses whole life cost accounting on its defence budgets
The original attack class was claimed to be about 60 billion for 12 subs over their service life time. Our equiv of GAO reviewed this and actually found government documents stating that it would over 100 billion and probably closer to 120 billion life time cost
AUKUS is projected to cost 360 billion over its lifetime, is the virginia (ignoring the SSN AUKUS) 3 times better sub than the proposed attack class. Others may disagree but I think absolutely yes is the answer
The original attack class was claimed to be about 60 billion for 12 subs over their service life time. Our equiv of GAO reviewed this and actually found government documents stating that it would over 100 billion and probably closer to 120 billion life time cost
AUKUS is projected to cost 360 billion over its lifetime, is the virginia (ignoring the SSN AUKUS) 3 times better sub than the proposed attack class. Others may disagree but I think absolutely yes is the answer