Here’s some more information about their nuclear plans, could make some money by using them in commercial ships.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/a...esign-revealed

I’m sure the American Admirals were very grateful for the advice from such a knowledgeable military mind.

Humility was not his strong point.

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……

The grass roots of Labor wants AUKUS dead.

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.

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

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.

If the PWR3s are the bottleneck then Albo could always do a ScoMo and ask the Brits to downgrade the AUKUS subs to diesel...

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

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.

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"

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.

And, in an appearance earlier this week testifying before a House of Representatives Committee, Sec. Hegseth received yet another illustration of the thankless nature of the role of Secretary of Defense, specifically with regard to the niceties (or if you don't like dry sarcasm, substitute in "frustrations") of Congressional hearings (as thoroughly articulated by Sec. Robert Gates in his memoir, Duty).

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.

One man's opinion: if the Trump Administration fails to keep AUKUS moving forward, it would be an immense strategic error.

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.

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?

I am still staggered this submarine acquisition appears so open ended unlike past contracts where the terms seemed to be more "contractual". Unclear to me whether cost is even clearly defined (accepting that would include escalation clauses). What is stopping AUKUS sub program sucking up 3.5% of GDP alone... (only half joking)

I think what they wanted would something that would be virtually impossible to do. They wanted COTS "regionally superior" submarine. Virtually impossible to define and if its COTS anyone else can buy it so its not regionally superior. They wanted 10 000nm range at 10 knots with 70 day. Then DCNS offered virtually the same design to india for the 75i submarine program difference was the indian one would AIP. So its no longer regionally superior if india has the same or better. The program was a massive cluster from the start

Ok, if that was a "requirement" as opposed to a desire, it would have been a poor requirement definition. But will either of our future AUKUS classes be "regionally superior" either? Or simply regionally the most expensive?

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).

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...