ORAC, don't you read and do simple fact checks? the story has several holes in it.

such as ?

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Def...S.-funding-cut

Australia sure it will get nuclear subs despite U.S. funding cut

"Messmer warned that a second Trump presidency is a “big risk” to the future of the entire AUKUS deal, as the U.S. has to loan Australia several submarines as a part of the deal while new ones are being built."

Nothing is right in this paragraph. It's bipartisan, corporates want it. Trump will do as he's told to at the end of the day. Worst case, he is out in 2028, still got time for early 2030's delivery. They aren't loaning subs. We are buying 2 secondhand with 20 years left on them. The new build is 1 with an option for 2 more.

Also the main sub isn't the US, but UK/AU
Australia moves to prop up Aukus with $4.6bn pledge to help clear Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor bottlenecks in UK | Aukus | The GuardianThe Australian government will seek to prop up the Aukus pact by sending A$4.6bn (£2.4bn) to the UK to clear bottlenecks at the Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor production line.

The funding – revealed on the eve of high-level talks between the Australian and UK governments on Friday – is in addition to billions of dollars that will be sent to the US to smooth over production delays there.

The Australian government will also announce on Friday that the government-owned shipbuilder ASC and the British defence firm BAE Systems will jointly build the nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy.

What funding cut? If they go one sub. They are spending the other money on sustainment. Wait and see what congress does. Remember, it's a circus. They are getting 15 billion taxpayer funds to rebuild their yards. To increase production above 2 a year.

They’ve cut $10B and one sub from the 2025 budget request.

Being spun as reducing the pressure on present production to allow increased cash and manpower to improve the manufacturing base to support a later increase to 2 subs a year.

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine....budget-request

Fact remains that, at the point the planned handover of subs to Australia is due to take place the fleet will be 46 out of a planned/required 66.

Not saying it won’t take place - but it’s politics and could come under pressure in Congress. Sale is on the proviso that:

Not less than 270 days prior to the transfer of a vessel authorized under subsection (a), the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership a certification that—

(A)(i) the transfer of such vessels will not impact United States undersea operational requirements….

(B) the United States has the industrial capacity to meet and maintain the submarine production requirements needed to meet both the need for Virginia class and Columbia class submarines…



https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-...act+2024%22%7D

Yeah not really a funding cut, what has happened previously including 2022 and 2023 is the navy cuts the sub purchase. Congress after much hand wringing give them an additional budget to get the submarine, the target number is actually 3, 2 virginia per year and 1 Columbia every 18 months + catching up delayed maintainence

You have the wrong end of the stick. No one has ever accused the US of being altruistic. The US wants to forward deploy to Australia. They need nuke sub infrastructure and manpower. It is better for the US, to have Australia with a few of their nuke subs. The main sub is going to be the UK/AU. It's actually a disadvantage to Australia to run 2 types of attack subs. There will be more articles with FUD headlines than I could count over the next 10 years. Congress will also play their games. At the end of the day the primes are going to make money and let's face it. That's all that matters.

It's the way the game is played. The only reason they won't order a sub. Is because there is still one on the yard. They aren't going to close part of the yard and lay off the manpower for a year. Only to start again. That would cost more than the sub. Unless the build years for the 2025 sub is when they want to do major upgrades to both yards? That is also a possibility. There will be a disruption. Over say a 5 year plan. They lose the time to build one sub. That is later made up by the increased production.

British Aerospace to build the submarines, Rolls Royce the power plant.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...kus-submarines

Since British Aerospace has grown massively and now encompasses a lot of non aerospace work, they prefer to be known as BAE Systems - similar to how BOC Gases wants everyone to forget that they were originally British Oxygen Company.

Apart from that bit of trivia, it would be good to know the technicalities of how the Australian taxpayer money is appropriated & accounted for. Some reports are that the RR facility that assembles the nuclear reactors will be jointly owned by the British & Australian governments so that is a tangible asset but with a limited customer base, I can’t see the market growing.

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/au...e-they-allies/

Australia and Britain deepen defence cooperation, but are they allies?

Australia and Britain have concluded a new treaty-level Defence and Security Cooperation Agreement (DSCA). To what extent does this move the dial of their close defence relationship towards a formal alliance? This question matters because the informal, customary nature of the Australia-UK relationship may no longer be appropriate for the strategic tests that lie ahead.

The answer is that they’ve moved significantly closer to becoming de facto allies, with commitments that approach, though do not quite reach, the level of Australia’s alliance with the US, ANZUS. Also, Anglo-Australian military cooperation is intensifying…..

The UK is more strategically aligned with Australia now than at any time since the early 1960s or even earlier. Their shared path might never take the form of a de jure alliance, but, as last week’s developments demonstrate, they are well on track to becoming de facto allies.

I don't think we need a de-jure alliance with Australia

AFAIK OZ and the UK do have a common defence treaty. In that the treaty that underlay SEATO, the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, is (IIRC) still in force for those countries that didn't formally withdraw or cease to exist (Pakistan and South Vietnam). Its affects in relation to the PRC depend on whether the signatories consider the CCP is actually Communist:E.

The USA has a particular interpretation of IV.1

The treaty area's northern limit is just south of Taiwan & Hong Kong so way south of Japan.

They pulled out the model of SSN-AUKUS again.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJhTj_DX...name=4096x4096

Same model that was at indopac 2023

https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content...-DSEI-2023.jpg

Look on the bright side - they didn't spend a million on a new model....................

French Naval Group just sold two Barracudas to the Indonesian Navy.
After the Dutch contract (four submarines two weeks ago) the Aukus contract is well forgotten.
And those customers will get their ships in time.... as did India, Brasil, Chile and Malaysia in their time.
So long, boys.

Naval Group vend deux sous-marins du type Scorpène à l’Indonésie | Mer et Marine

No they didn't Scorpene are not barracuda. Even the report got it right, but somehow you didn't

I can tell you they are the same - only the name differs. And I have been sufficiently below the surface with them to be in a position to confirm it.
So too bad for you guys, once again.
Call me back when you get your british (or american, or whatever) subs.

lol now I know you are liar, scorpene and barracudas are different subs scorpene are about 2000 tons displacement attack was about 4500 tons displacement

take your butthurt to somewhere that cares

You must feel very happy that all these submarines that Naval Group are selling will be built in a massive building in Cherbourg, France, that has been paid for by Australian taxpayers.