The U.S. Department of Defense has launched a formal review of the AUKUS security partnership to evaluate its alignment with the Trump administration’s “America First” agenda, according to a statement posted by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
In a tweet published on Wednesday, the DoD Policy account announced that Secretary Pete Hegseth had tasked the department with conducting a “department-wide process” led by the policy directorate. The review will be “an empirical and clear-eyed assessment” of how AUKUS fits into President Trump’s strategic framework, it said.
“Secretary Hegseth has directed the Department of Defense to undertake a review of the AUKUS initiative,” the statement read. “It will be an empirical and clear-eyed assessment of the initiative’s alignment with President Trump’s America First approach.”
The announcement marks the first official signal from the Pentagon that AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, may undergo scrutiny under the current U.S. administration. It follows months of speculation about whether the second Trump administration would continue backing the Indo-Pacific submarine cooperation and broader technology sharing arrangements under AUKUS Pillars I and II.
The statement stressed that the department “looks forward to continuing regular engagements” with domestic and international stakeholders, including the U.S. Congress, the governments of Australia and the UK, and “other key stakeholders.”
The review is expected to conclude in the autumn. According to the department, the final goal is to provide the President and senior leadership with “a fact-based, rigorous assessment of the initiative.”
This development comes just days after the UK and Australia signed the Geelong Treaty, a legally binding bilateral agreement enabling the transfer of nuclear-powered submarine technology under AUKUS Pillar I. While that deal underscores the momentum behind Australia’s SSN-AUKUS programme, the U.S. review introduces uncertainty around Washington’s long-term posture, particularly in the nuclear submarine and advanced capabilities domains.
The Biden administration had previously described AUKUS as “a generational opportunity” to deepen deterrence in the Indo-Pacific. It remains to be seen how the Trump administration’s interpretation of strategic autonomy and defence industrial priorities will shape the future of this trilateral arrangement.
Nothing new here or unexpected.
AUK for the win.
If the US does pull out, perhaps we can take this as an opportunity to bring in some more reliable allies
New Zealand and Japan, to name two. I don’t think this programme is dead without the US. It’s gone too far with the partners for it to fizzle out.
Both Japan and NZ are 100% not going to buy SSN’s it’s against their stated long term principals of no Military Nuclear.
NZ Have only just got out of the Dog House with the US (refused to let USN ships dock unless they were nuclear free), operate no Subs at all and couldn’t afford it either.
Japanese Politics may have changed a bit, but Military Nuclear is still a Red line with them, its Political suicide to even discuss it (even Abe avoided it). For the last 40 years Japan has had their own Advanced Nuclear technology which could rapidly be adapted to build Nuclear Weapons and SSN’s, which is why they are classed as “A Latent Nuclear Military Power” (same as Sweden, Canada, Finland, S Korea, Italy and surprisingly Switzerland).
If Japan wanted SSN’s they are 100% capable of doing so themselves, they choose not too. A study was carried out by FAS a few years ago and they concluded it would take Japan just 6 months to build an Atomic Bomb if they wanted, and an H bomb 2 years later.
Oh and China would obliterate them if they did so !
I agree regarding New Zealand but not for Japan. We’re discussing nuclear powered not nuclear weapons and Japan relies on nuclear energy for a decent share of their electrical production so it’s not an ideological issue for them. The issues are that they’ve recently commissioned new subs and US would need to sign off on any other nation receiving the US reactor design.
There are changes afoot in Japan with a far-right element making some inroads due to a deteriorating economy. This has the potential of changing paradigms established since WW2? There is a possible softening of anti-nuclear sentiment as the memories and WW2 survivors fade. I don’t believe any capable nation can rule out nuclear power in the future as the World warms up and more demands for energy increase. Plus, keeping a lid on nuclear weapon proliferation becomes increasingly difficult to control. Remember, Japan is a member of the Tempest programme along with the UK and Italy, so a broader spectrum of choice is possible on other military projects and possibly nuclear?
America says you have to pay your agreed share of the NATO budget and everyone throws a hissy fit and gets hurty feelings. Carrying Europe and the UK for 80 years got old. That doesn’t make the US “unreliable” it makes then snart for calling your lazy cheapskate arses out. Pay your way and stop free loading. Oh and stop fkn whinging.
Auditioning for a job in the diplomatic corps? I assume you aren’t aware that the UK has always met that 2% agreed NATO target and Australia isn’t a member of NATO.
Maybe USA could do with some help in building some new surface escorts?
When has the UK not met it’s NATO obligations ?
The USA has never carried the UK what are you talking about and this 2% nato commitment is really strange for example the US defence budget is vast but it pays for things that in Europe wouldn’t even be a thing like veterans health care as the majority of Europe has nationalised health care and doesn’t need a separate health system another example is the USA has bases everywhere costing a fortune Germany for example doesn’t I will agree europe needs to spend more but let’s not pretend that the USA is perfect in this , but I will repeat the USA has never ever carried the uk we have always paid our way be that will gold or blood
ENATO will stop freeloading when the US stops printing limitless dollars to pay for it’s position as top dog. If the US is unhappy with that Quid quo pro then maybe the Euro or Yuan is a better medium for trade?
Means potentially more build for the uk then.
That will only happen if the US allows the UK to transfer the reactor technology to any SSNs that are slated to be Aus ones. This is one of the major reasons the Canadians didnt get into the nuclear club back in the 80’s.
I don’t know about this but isn’t the RR nuclear power plants our technology?
Yes, but with considerable US input. Its basically a shared technology, which the US has a large say in who it can go to. This has always been the case since our very first Nuclear SM.
As per of the US UK mutual defence agreement 1958 we agreed not to share nuclear reactor submarine technology with anyone else.
no PWR 3 used on future Dreadnought and SSN-Aukus class is based on US Virginia class S9G reactor
Hi Deep, I don’t actually think the transference of US nuclear tech is such a major risk, the US have de facto already agreed to it and how it’s to be controlled anyway. It’s not just the US tech that has to be controlled but ours as well in order to comply with NPT, so there are cast iron checks and balances in place to Firewall that anyway.
As far as I’m aware it’s not the whole of the AUKUS Treaty under review, it’s just the bit about the provision of 3/5 Virginias to replace the Collins class in pillar 1.
TBH if the US decide not to supply those 3/5 Virginias then it doesn’t have to be the end for Australia getting SSNs, it just makes it a lot more complicated timing wise. But we would need to have a rethink about SSN(A) delivery scheduling and how to fill the “Collins” Gap. As mich as I hate the idea I’d start off by looking at extending the life of the Astutes by @10 years as a gap filler. So unfortunately, carrying out a LOP(R) may well be needed (buy Babcock shares time).
Daft as it sounds but I’m not sure the US not releasing those Virginias is actually a bad thing ! It makes scheduling difficult, it puts pressure on industry to deliver and we may need to extend the A’s to enable it to work. But it lights a fire under the Treasury to commit to fund an extended buy of SSN(A) for the RN, if only to calm Australias nerves.
Hi mate, yes appreciate that it’s a two way decision to allow said technology transfer, was just trying g to keep things simple.
TBH I don’t know what parts or the sum is under review, but what you say about the Virginia’s makes sense. The USN is currently strapped for i not only icreasing build capacity but also repair capacity – believe their backlog in this area is far greater than ours.
There is a huge capability gap if Aus don’t get the US boats, I somewhat agree that we would be required to backfil those missing units. Not really sure we could manage that just yet. It would mean getting back to the Swiftsure era of build schedules ie a new one every 18-24 months. That’s a serious hike in investment which would need to happen over the next few years. Certainly need to be in place before 2030. Astute current OOS date is 2035, so we are pushing the timeliness now! The As aren’t designed for LOP(R), but they managed it on Vanguard,just, albeit it took 7 years. Do we still have those skills/lessons learned? I think the proffered choice would always be to increase the build rate, but as we’ve said, that’s not without it’s own considerable hurdles.
Yes the US naval institute wrote a report last year that essentially the industrial capacity to keep the USN SSN active had suffered a collapse and that 40% of USN SSNs were essentially backlogged and could not be certified to dive.
But not only that the USN was suffering a LA class crisis that would essentially see it drop to 42 boats in 2028 .. if 40% are still in a maintenance queue waiting for dive certification that’s 24 boats for deployments.
It sounds a bit parallel to us producing frigates for Norway as our own frigate numbers dwindle. The argument for us is that Norway will use them as we would anyway, and in the Pacific, the US would have to be happy that the Aussies will use the subs as the USN would. The US are probably less trusting of allies (eg Greenland/Canada) than we are are, and seem to be more protectionist.
Hi Deep
I think the word challenging comes to mind, but I do think a heightened tempo is achievable the sheer amount of money being spent at Barrow, Sheffield, Derby and Davenport suggests that it is on the cards. Biggest issues will be recruiting, training and retaining the enlarged workforce and the small matter of producing more reactor compartments, cores and ancillaries than actual boats to be built in the UK. I think that if HMG do actually authorise 12 RN SSN(A) then we have 2 to build in U.K for RAN and then they build their own so we have to build 14 boats and 16/18 Reactors etc.
I suspect t that to make things easier and ensure NPT compliance it may be simpler to build and ship the relevant hull section with core inside.
As for the LOP(R) for the A’s, being designed for a one shot lifespan is one thing but that doesn’t mean it was designed in a way to make it impossible (that’s just asking for trouble). Your next bit about Vanguard puzzled me regarding the skills still existing to carry out a LOP(R). All 4 Vanguards had a scheduled LOP(R) with the improved H core at about the 15 year mark, which should have carried them through to OOS. Unfortunately Vanguard then had to have an unscheduled 2nd one, which caused chaos and took 7 years. I believe Victorious is presently in for a 2nd LOP(R) and I think that has a lot to do with high usage incurred covering Vanguards absence.
Astute went critical in 2009 (I think), intended core life was 25 years, so carrying out a LOP(R) in 2030 isn’t too far off and would carry on post Victorious.
Exciting times we live in 🥺
I thought they’d already done that.
The U.S. started reviewing the AUKUS pact in June, with plans to wrap it up in 30 days. But as of today, it’s been officially delayed and now isn’t expected to finish until the autumn.
#AmericaFirst
#AmericaFirst, “Day 1!”
#Day90,971! #MAGA!
Hegseth is a man who is completely unqualified to hold the post of SoS Defence. He is known to use commercially available chat programs to discuss highly classified operational military details with family members and journalists who do not have the required security clearance. Recently, he arbitrarily diverted defensive aid to Ukraine whilst in transit, which was immediatly exploited by Putin to increase Russian bombardment of Ukraine civilians, apartment blocks, kindergartens, schools and air raid shelters. He has repeatedly refered to European members of NATO as “freeloaders”. He fails to turn up for meetings. Within the Pentagon, Hegseth is widely regarded as a drunkard, a security risk and a joke. Many doubt whether Hegseth knows what AUKUS is, or where Australia is on the globe.
This review is clearly designed to prepare for an American withdrawal from AUKUS, most probably because it was a Biden initiative.
For a brief minute there, I thought you were on about Jim,
Again.😁🤔👀
“What a refreshing change”.
It’s more likely that Trump’s team will be looking to maximize US profit from the agreement.
I can’t help wonder whether, given the immense cost of the SSN programme ( even larger if future decommissioning costs are included), they are the right choice for either Australia or the UK. The Astutes have had very low availability, not just because of the failure to enhance maintenance facilities for their greater size. If they’re not at sea, their claimed superior sensors are useless. Wouldn’t it make more sense to operate non nuclear boats- far cheaper, easier to maintain, and with either AIP or lithium batteries, much improved underwater performance. Obviously, no conventional sub can match the range and endurance of an SSN. Does either country really need them to?
To contest the high north, to secure the Atlantic.. yes the UK needs SSNs.
To threaten the Russian bastion the UK needs SSNs
To respond to a threat to its south Atlantic interests the UK needs SSNs.
But fundamentally without SSNs you can’t have SSBNs and the CASD goes bye bye.
electric boats and AIP are essentially defensive area denial platforms.. not offensive platforms, you win wars by being offensive, you deter wars by showing you can be offensive and hurt potential enemies.
Curious then that Russia continues to operate both SSNs and SSKs and build new versions of each.
For Australia, with a vast coastline to defend, numbers are needed
For the UK, there are a number of roles and areas in which an SSK would be perfectly adequate. We have spent £10b on the Astutes with several of them non operational for years on end. The AUKUS design is likely to be bigger and even more expensive. There is no chance of a significant increase in numbers being funded. Even after the dry docking issue is resolved, we are likely to have only 3 or 4 boats available at any time. We really need more and that can only be delivered by choosing a much cheaper conventional design with less complex and expensive maintenance needs.
The issue is that the UK cannot really afford SSN programmes and SSK programmes it’s one or other and really what does the UK need an SSK for that either an SSN could not do better or if it’s really low level what an autonomous vessel could not provide.
The Russians have SSKs because..
1) they have the Black Sea..which no SSN would ever be seen dead in
2) the have a profoundly defensive strategy in regards to naval warfare.. in that their doctrine is to turtle up in the Barents and Kara seas and create a bastion.. SSKs are perfect for this.
The UK on the other hand will want to go out and hit the bastions and attack..SSKs have really zero use.
As for Aus.. it has decided on a forward naval strategy and SSKs are of no use for a forward naval strategy in the pacific.
Finally if you pit a SSK against an SSN the SSK will loose pretty much every time, unless it’s able to hide away in enclosed seas and get very lucky in an ambush. The advantages of SSN
1) they are larger and wider, this means they have far greater space for flank sensor arrays with bigger Apertures .. essentially SSNs have significantly greater sensors than SSKs and can see SSKs before SSKs can see them.
2) they have more power for sensors and more power for processing.. so as per one they have far better sensors than SSKs.
3) weapon load, SSks due to size have a very limited weapon load. Your average SSK can carry 18 torpedoes or cruise missiles your average SSN carries about 40-50.
4) time on station is massively different and costs become expensive for SSK operations at range..Say for the sake of argument that for Australia the AO is in the archipelago, 2000 nautical miles from the main base at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.
Most SSK have an endurance of around 45-50 days and transiting at around four knots.. so it takes say 20 days to get to the AO and 20 days back, so it spends 40 days of a 50 day mission in transit and 10 days on station for 20% of its mission time on station. An SSN generally has a 100 days endurance and transiting at 20 knots only takes five days there and five days back, so it is on station for 90 days of a 100 day mission or 90%.. so for an SSK fleet to provide that 90 days on the AO you would need 9 SSKs and crews out at see for 450 days vs 1 SSN and crew at sea for 100 days..
5) exposure to danger..SSKs must snorkel every few days and even AIPs are bound to do this ( management of CO2 is still a thing for AIP boats) if there is a radar around, be that surface, land air or even space based loom down systems.. the SSK is dead. SSNs can stay deep until the crew starves.. this means SSNs are far less likely to be detected.
6) running away, in the tactical sense this is massive, an SSK cannot run from danger if it’s detected it’s dead and SSN can run from detection at high speed..it can escape from danger and detection.
7) running to attack, and SSK is passive, it cannot hunt a target, if the target is moving away an SSK cannot chase it down.. so an SSK needs the target to head towards it and it gets one go only.. an SSN can hunt and attack the target over and over.
8) and a new advantage as we move into the autonomous age.. SSNs have the space to house and launch a lot of autonomous vessels SSKs don’t.
To be honest with the advent of large autonomous vessels it’s not really clear what niche SSKs will hold moving forward other than as a we cannot build SSNs and decent large autonomous underwater vessels.
There is a very good reason china has just moved from 4 SSN/SSBN construction bays to 24 bays supported by a mega factory structure ..moving its production from maybe one every few years to an estimated 6-8 a year and yet has not really advanced its SSK/AIP production.. infact it looks like it’s moving from SSK AIP to shifting to building auxiliary nuclear reactor boats at its SSK yard.
Every time I see Hegseth on TV I think “Would I buy a used car from this man?”
I’m not sure how the USA would plan to win a fight against China without Australia. The US is short on SSN’s but then transferring three to Australia won’t make much of a difference.
New British and Australian governments have conducted AUKUS reviews and supported it, the Trump administration is well with in its rights to do the same, I suspect they will come to the same conclusion.
Worth noting as well the first transfer of an SSN won’t happen until at least five years after Trumps term ends. I really can’t see Trump being bothered enough to stop the transfer of UK reactors and US systems to Australia so SSN AUKUS won’t be effected by the lack of Virginias and any even a negative decision now can be reversed in the next administration.
Why bother making any hard decisions now when the US doesn’t have to until the 2030’s.
This review is primarily being drive by Elbridge Colby who is little more than a Republican staffer serving as under secretary of defence subordinate to the weekend Fox News host.
Trump doesn’t know what AUKUS is much less give a shit about it. Some how I can seem him taking and hard decisions and throwing a lot of cash away to produce a slightly larger SSN force for his predecessor.
People like Elbridge just go around making up policy statements until they collide with something Trump actually cares about.
Don’t disagree with any of that as it’s all logical and makes perfect sense !
Unfortunately nothing about MAGA, America 1st suggests they take any notice of logic or sense 🤔 To them it’s irrelevant compared to what’s more important to them. Quite simply political survival by extending their hold on power beyond 4 years and establishing an Imperial MAGA succession plan is paramount.
Let’s be brutally honest about this, most of what they are doing in the US could well land most of them in jail if they don’t hang onto power.
Shades of Netanyahu !
Shades of Netanyahu indeed. I have been a life long supporter of Israel and the Jewish people and don’t know how anyone could forget the horrors they suffered in WW2, Netanyahu is besmirching the memory of those 6 million victims by allowing the endless suffering experienced by the men, women and children of Gaza to continue in such a visible manner which could easily and quickly be fixed
PS Sorry, I digress. Nothing, good or bad, is sacred under Donald Trump which makes planning for long term ventures such as Aukus, problematic. I have to grudgingly admit he has done some good things but he is too mercurial an individual to plan around.
Maybe the Aussies are starting to regret how they broke up with France on this. There’s “finishing a relationship” and then there’s “walking out of the door and never coming back”. I doubt France will be willing to return to this one and it may very well be that Australia won’t think the same value from just AUK.
Canada is looking at Korean, Japanese, German, Swedish and French SSKs.
Australia can look at tendering something to at least 4 of those countries.
Two things went downhill for the Barracuda purchase. The first was France was pulling the wool over Australia’s eyes in regards to to technology transfer. Hardly anything was passed over in the 5 years since the contract was signed, even though Australia had paid for it! The second is China managed to steal plenty of files on the Barracuda’s design. Which would have highly compromised its operational service. Leaving Australia with a choice, either continue and hope France actually does transfer the technology and that China couldn’t use any of the stolen information against the subs when they came into service? Or cancel the deal and look elsewhere!
not true. which tech transfer are you even referring to? biggest issue was Australia was incapable of setting up its domestic industrial base which led to delays and cost increases. FYI There are 3 operational Suffren/Barracuda class in service in France and 4th is launched.
secondly no plans for the Barracuda subs have been hacked. utter BS by murdoch news. however, there was a leak on the Indian Scorpene class. that leak was on India’s side and was user manuals and not actual ship design.
I’m afraid it is true. Naval Group was hacked by hackers and it has been widely reported.
The breach first came to light after a hacker calling themselves “Neferpitou” put up for sale what they claimed to be approximately 1 TB of Naval Group’s internal data, offering a 13GB free “sample” of its contents.
The announcement was made in a post on an underground hacking forum.
The data was said to include source code related to combat systems used on French nuclear submarines and frigates, weapon system software, simulation environments, network designs, user manuals, and internal communications.
The above was reported in The Telegraph, The FT and cybersecurity industry journals including Bitdefender, The Hack Academy and Infosecurity Magazine.
I don’t think the Aussies would touch Naval Group with a barge pole now.
no it is not true. it is nothing but fake news, and a destabilization campaign. this was debunked publically by both french govt and naval group. there was no hack or breach.
FYI you cant hack info on nuclear, cms etc… via a web browser from some basement in Moscow or wherever. all this data requires the highest level security clearances and is highly secured on intranets which have no links to the outside world. only way to get this info is by physically accessing terminals in the facility. that is some serious spy shit which maybe China could pull off but certainly would not advertise on twitter! They wouldnt be that stupid to compromise their insider for future info.
but i guess we live in the age of stupid where people can’t exercise any critical thinking and will believe any nonesense on social media and journalists are just looking for clickbait and forgo due dilligence or fact checking since no one is held accountable (any journalist that uses social media as a sole source shouod be fired on the spot, but public will move on to the next sensationalist story in the news cycle. the age of infotainment, how wonderful!
oh and FYI Naval Group does not design or build the nuclear reactors. those are built by TecnicAtome, a totally different company.
but keep drinking the kool aid
PS i read the articles on FT and Telegraph, they make no such claims. they only report that such claims have been made, but they do not affirm or confirm any such hacks actually took place, only that there is an investigation into these claims, and that Naval Group has denied such a breach.
lastly priceless claim by Telegraph “These include France’s Barracuda fleet of nuclear missile-armed submarines” bloody journo does nor know that the Barracuda class is a SSN not a SSBN like Triomphant class., pretty basic stuff.
BTW
I quoted the above from Bitdefender, a global leader in the Cybersecurity Industry; not twitter or other social media.
My son is a senior cybersecurity analyst at a large American multinational. His younger brother is currently studying for an MEng Cybersecurity. I myself, before retiring spent 17 years in IT (financial systems, not cyber) after a career change from accountancy(yawn).
Believe me when I say that hacking involves a lot more than opening Chrome or Firefox in a basement in Moscow.
We have seen the Pentagon, Microsoft, LinkedIn, Facebook, NATO, The European Parliament, the US Treasury and multiple US defence contractors amongst many others, all suffering from cyber breaches in the last decade or so. Only this year there was a massive data breach in China. In 2023 US Govt agencies were hacked 11 times, including the DOJ, IRS and DOE; 11 that were reported.
So please tell me what magical superpowers that Naval Group have that make them completely immune from cyber attacks.
If there is nothing to see here, why are Naval Group investigating the claim of a breach when all they have to do is ask you. You’d set the right.
I not so sure, simple fact is the SSK in a deep ocean environment against China won’t survive.
China already has a Geo stationary optical sattelite that provides continuous look down capability over the Indo pacific and using AI that imagery can track any submarine snorkelling in day time. They are also launching radar satellites that can track snorkelling submarines day or night through cloud.
The French deal was slated to cost $100 billion and it was pretty clear the French were just going to build them in France. France has a long history of promising domestic production then miraculously pulling out at the last minute.
$100 billion for an unsurvivable submarine with limited domestic content seems like a shitty deal.
France was also not offering to base a sizeable submarine fleet in Australia like the AUKUS partners are doing.
lol what long history of promising domestic production and then pulling out? what utter baseless nonesense. in fact you couldn’t be further from the truth. India and Brazil both built their Scorpene class subs locally
secondly what domestic content are you referring to? Australia has nothing in terms of domestic content to contribute. the design for the sub and propulsion was by Naval Group and sensors, combat systems and weaponss were US by Lockheed Martin
FYI Shortfin Barracuda were to be built in Australia, which led to much of the cost increase and delays because Australia has no sub building industrial base and that takes many years to actually build, recruit people etc….
the estimated cost had increased to 80 billion (so stop exaggerating with 100billion you sound like a Rupert Murdoch employee), which is a pittance compared to 368 billion they are paying for now with zero local production
on top of Australia getting a smaller fleet and at a later date, it now gets the priviledge to become the dumping ground for US and UK nuclear deal.
AUKUS is the worst possible deal for Austrlia, in fact plenty in Australia have woken up to this reality. We will see in a few years how much cost and delays will increase? (as they inevitably will, as is the case for nearly all major military contracts with long lead times)
the cookie is already starting to crumble, the US now want more money, and also demanding firm guarantees that Australia join the fight if there is a conflict.
Australia was getting 12 subs and now only 8 at best for 4 times the price
Under the Future Submarine Program, Naval Group was responsible for ensuring a significant portion of the submarine construction and related work was conducted in Australia, with a commitment to at least 60% local contract spend. This was not the Australians responsibility to hit this target.
That’s taken both from Naval Group website and Australian government press release.
As for a history of France not following through on local production, no mention of scorpene submarine was mentioned by me.
I was referring to the long running saga that’s is Rafale production in India as well as current shenanigans with FCAS and France wanting 80% production. I can add more examples if you like thanks
As for three Barracuda bing in service thats kind of irrelevant given the short fin Barracudas proposed for Australia were a completely different design with one being nuclear powered and the other being diesel powered.
yes 60% local spent in Australia, 20% for Naval Group and remaining 20% for Lockheed Martin. the 60% local production was a requirement set up by Australia as part of the contract. As i previoulsy stated, the issue is that Australia has 0 sub industrial base and this is where cost overruns and delays were emanating from. and it takes time to set up, build and recruit. you are just confirming what i stated, not sure what is your point.
I mentioned Scorpene because it directly contradicts your narrative “France has a long history of promising domestic production then miraculously pulling out at the last minute.”
that 80% story is nonesense and baseless. No one ever said that, yet trolls and journalist who dont fact check parrot these lies. Eric Trappier CEO of Dassault has totally denied ever saying that and no one else on the french side has ever said that! (find me the direct quote, you wont find it)
FYI the point of contention on FCAS is that there are 2 main pillars -> Dassault was given the lead on the next gen fighter (NGF) , while Airbus DS was given the lead on other FCAS systems (drones and cloud). Yet Airbus insists on having its say on the NGF or that its approval was necessary as if it were the lead on that part of the program, when in fact it is the opposite. Dassault simply wants to manage the part of the project it was designated to do without the interfernce of Airbus, or having to answer to Airbus, or having to give Airbus access to Dassault IP, or Airbus decide which parts Dassault chooses to sub-contract and to whom. The fact is Airbus DS is not fit for purpose and more focused on politics and smear campaigns, when they still havent managed a first flight on the Eurodrone! In fact these incompetent fools just signed a deal with Kratos for loyal wingman and Hurjet to make a training jet for Spain, yet these morons who can’t do relatively simple things want to lead all of FCAS (fighter + drone and cloud systems). Meanwhile Dassault with an excellent track record of making military aircraft wants to get on with it, because right now not much has moved in the last 5 years due to political wrangling and 2040 now seems like an unrealistic delivery date
Shortfin Barracuda is not a completely different design since its based on the french Barracuda/Suffren SSN using conventional propulsion based on Scorpene export subs while also using pump jet from Barracuda/Suffren. It’s not a new clean sheet design, since it is using and incorporating existing tech into an operational hull.
I have wondered for a while whether AUKUS would survive Trump. I think it’s 50/50 at best. If he does pull out, goodness knows what the cost and technological implications would be for the UK and the Aussies, and whether we could, or would want to, cope with them.
What chance of our ‘up to 12 SSN’ then.
That is all spin from HMG anyway to take short term headlines. They don’t exist.
When RR Raynesway are building the reactors for them and orders are placed at Barrow then I will believe them.
As ABC often explains, the building blocks are being put in place at least.
Hi M8 Long lead items for the SSN(A) PWR3 are already on order and being produced, that was a provision in the D2L2 contract in 2023. It’s a bit of an umbrella arrangement where a large contract is publicly announced with the prime contractor(s), but then zilch info re the sub contractors and supply chain. It’s an invisible Spiders Web, you can see the Spider, know it has to be suspended by a Web but it’s invisible.
It keeps the SME’s nice and safe and anonymous and it’s a great way to conceal other customers orders.
There are British bits in many western Submarines, some are small, some large and some fairly complex. Specialised machined forgings, Shaft seals, thrust blocks, valves, pumps and Babcock weapon handling systems etc etc. I even heard that BAe even made the hemispherical (or tori-spherical) end closures for the pressure hulls for the 1st & 2nd Spanish S80+ AIP submarines (and enabled them to build the next ones).
Thanks mate. I still see no more than 7 SSN for the RN after all the grandstanding dies down and HMGs change.
Given the timescales I assume ordering parts for 12 SSN(A) for the RN and more for the RAN is done in a staggered fashion?
Hi M8, It’s an odd situation for our politicians to be in and I will love to watch them jump through hoops to try and get away with cuts but this one is different as there are 2/3 Governments involved. Just remember one thing our Politicians have never worked in the real world, exist in a short term bubble and are now firmly between a Rick and a hard place, they just probably don’t know it yet !
The Rock is they actually have had to commit to a significant number of boats and do actually build them to get AUKUS in the 1st place. It’s all down to “economies of scale” and how that affects the cost per hull, the more you build the cheaper the item becomes. Australia also has a Defence budget and have allocated a huge bit of it to AUKUS (including funding a big chunk of our present investment). That’s all based on them buying / building X numbers of SSN(A) at Y cost per boat. How do you think they will react if HMG then turns round, says thanks for the money, cuts the RN buy to 7/8 and the cost to RAN increases by 50% per boat ?
Yep that’s the Hard Place. The end of confidence in HMG to fulfil treaty obligations and bye bye U.K. defence industry exports.
And hence I have said for quite some time it will either be 12 or 10 (+2 Options).
Morning mate.
Well explained. Yes, makes sense.
America First can be pretty dumb at times. I tend to look on it as a ‘divided we fall’ policy.
It’s pointless speculating about how this review will go, it depends on where the onus is. Is it a straight technical, industrial and Strategic Military review or one based on a Political ideological “America 1st”. “MAGA” one.
If it’s the former then it’s essentially the simple questions that they need answers to are all “Risk” based.
Is it a direct threat to the USN’s ability to engage in a peer conflict with the PLAN ? And if so is that really a major risk, or a minor one ? Quantify it !
Does diverting 3 / 5 SSN’s increase the risk of the USN losing a peer Naval war with PLAN or Not ?
If it’s the latter then it’s way simpler.
Does canceling the provision of 3/5 SSNs to Australia under AUKUS pillar 1 play well to the MAGA faithful and increase the chances of a MAGA successor to Trump in 2028 ? (Divert attention from the Epstein problem).
Do they actually care if “America 1st” ends up as “America Alone” ?
And IMHO that is the one that should scare the 💩 out of ordinary Americans ! There are numerous reasons for that but mainly what sort of lunatic decides to throw its allies ability to support and fight alongside you under a bus.
And I dare say some American will take issue with this, but the US doesn’t actually have a very good History of winning wars without Allies and certainly not peer ones.
A lot of MAGA people actively want it to be ‘America Alone’ too. They don’t rate their so called allies (and who can blame them) so losing them is not an issue.
Old news recycled 🥱
Australia doesn’t have a trade/tariff deal yet, so the US putting AUKUS on the table is more likely part of posturing for that. Security was certainly a part of negotiations with other allies so no reason why that wouldn’t happen with Australia/AUKUS as well. Trump will want a better deal for the US for AUKUS than was obtained by Biden.
Just what changes could be on the table? There is a rumor that the US wants the UK and AU to abandon SSN-AUKUS and switch to building Virginia’s. Now I would find it hard to believe the UK would ever accept that. However, if this is on Trump’s agenda it might explain why AUK have just signed a 50 year treaty committing to SSN-AUKUS.
The US has no desire for the UK to switch to Virginia’s
Doing so would only put more pressure on the limited US supply chain and Virgina will be out of production in the 2040’s anyway.
Tying in Australia as a US Ally with capability makes sense if the US is going to compete with China in the Pacific.
USN has commented that RN Carriers are two useful assets for NATO that didn’t cost them a penny. Having the Aussies similarly pay to operate US nuclear subs is a good deal for the US. It also pays dividends later when their own subs come online.
And if there is one thing Trump can see, it’s the value of a good deal.
Trump has a strategic framework?
Who knew?
Precisely and this is the fatal flaw in the worlds most powerful individual. You really cannot plan much around a President who changes his mind a couple of times a day around major issues with far reaching consequences
I honestly think the big problem is the USN are probably worried they don’t have the SSNs to spare Australia… simply put the delay in building the Virginia class boats is causing what is essentially a catastrophic loss of SSNs for a navy facing a potential indo pacific war.
The USN has a force requirement for 66 SSNs but by 2028 it will have 42..and as the US government are literally only paying for 1SSN a year its going to take them for ever to get back to 66…it’s also suffered a massive loss in repair and refit capacity.. with almost 40% of its SSNs waiting for dry dock work and without dive certification.
China has now build a SSN/SSBN mega factory with 20 bays so it can now simultaneously lay down 24 nuclear submarines..its launched 6 new SSNs in a couple of years and it’s estimated it can now begin to launch 6-8 nuclear boats a year..
That’s on top of its AIP facility that can knock out 2 AIP boats a year..
Especially the USN is facing a future of 2-1 odds and it’s starting to show signs it’s beginning to freak out just a bit.
Speculation is the new Chinese type 95 SSN is going to be a single reactor SSN and possibly not be that fair behind a Virginia class ( essentially up to the standards of a flight 2 LA or Ackula class ( the latest type 92 is shaking out to be the equivalent of an early LA as it’s held back by its 2 reactors.. even if the rest of its quieting is getting better).
It may just be that with that as the background giving up 3 Virginia class SSNs is simply not something the USN could consider.. the margin around wining and losing an indo pacific war is getting to tight to call.
Hi Jonathan, Interesting post, other than FY2025 the USN had got pretty consistent by authorising 2 SSNs pa and doing so again from FY2026. Reason for only one was those orders are just stacking up on the backlog as they are averaging 1.24 pa so just adding orders was just a waste of funding.
The fundamental issue is that like us in the U.K the US effectively took a building break in the late 90’s, starved their yards and supply chain of work / revenue and then expected to just crank it all back up again. Unfortunately the US corporate ethos doesn’t do short term pain for long term gain and some bits atrophied or just vanished. What made it worse was they didn’t invest in renewing their facilities upfront, but just tried to kick start it.
It’s pretty well the same problem U.K. had but as we had only 7 boats to build and a Treasury that wasn’t in a hurry we sort of got away with it.
I actually visited EBC at Groton years ago and it was a bit of a mishmash of old / extended buildings, sheds and new tech wedged in between the old. From what I can see on Google Earth it doesn’t look much different now ! It makes Barrow look positively modern (till you see a hull section going past the terraced houses in a massive bin bag).
They can throw as much money as they want at it but what they really need is the entire site redeveloping or acquire a new greenfield site and start afresh. But in the US it’s Historical 🤣
It would be all a bit funny to be honest if it was not for china and its ability to just suddenly turn on an insane level of industrial capacity. What they have done in creating an SSN SSBN mega factory in Bohai is an example of why so many people just keep failing to understand how scary china is…it can do things that even at the hight of the Cold War the west and Soviet Union would have worried about if the other did it…but for many china is just this backwards second world power that is not on the March to war….for me Bohai is one of the big red flags.
For years china was stuck in a less than ambitious set of spiral production around SSNs launching 6 SSNs in 15 years Type93 and type Type 93A.. but in May 2022 it launched its fist type 93B and by July 2023 it had launched a total of 6 type 93B hulls in 22/23 and the speculation is it’s ordered a total of 12 type 93Bs.. what is interesting is that up until the 2022 launches chineses SSNs were built in a building hall no more ambitious than barrow or one of the US docks ( a covered shed with four bays, a dry dock and an outfitting warf.. this gave the Chinese the ability to sustain a fleet of 12 SSNs and SSBNs).
Suddenly it all changed in 2022.. with the west started hearing of not only the total order size of the type 93B ( 12) but that the PLAN are concurrently building the new Type 95 and it seems the new SSBN… all hidden in the mega factory suddenly put up Bohai… which again is a story of massive increase from that four bay shed it had been using for the entire life of its SSN program.
In 2015 they reclaimed 185 acres of land on the eastern end of Bohai and then proceeded to build by a massive margin the biggest SSN and SSBN factory on the planet.. so as of 2022 the factory consisted of a production line of sheds all connected by massive road and rails networks
Small component shed This structure (205m x 150m) is divided into five sub-sections; the four western ones are of equal dimensions (28m wide each), while the easternmost section is wider (38m) and taller, there is also another connected shed (170m x 54m) its believed all the smaller modules are constructed in this set of halls. Road connectors to the large component hall and main assembly hall.
Large component hall This structure (185m x 170m) is also divided into five sub-sections (Figure 8). Moving from east to west, the first two sub-sections are each 23m in width, the next two 32m in width, and the westernmost is 42m in width. These are apparently for the large modules and are also connected by road to the main assembly hall and reactor halls.
Reactor fuelling halls.. three double walled halls
Final assembly hall This is a large building (288m x 135m ) divided into three sub-sections, each own set of gantry cranes and accommodates four building bays for submarines—total of 12 building bays in the building. There are large doors on the western side of the FAH (two per sub-
section) to receive modules from the SMAS and LMAS. Once the final assembly is completed, the submarine is rolled out to the Submarine Transfer Area (STA) using cradles that travel on twin rails to the.
Painting and tilling shed.. This is a building (194m x 30m) and used for painting and tilling.
SSBN final assembly shed This structure (315m x 130m) is divided into two sub-sections, each 65m wide. Each sub-section has four submarine building bays, resulting in a total of eight at this hall. Given the size of each bay (157.5m x 144m), this the final assembly of SSBNs
They have keep the old 4 bays as well.. for a total of 24 final assembly bays… as of 2024 they had almost completed what looks like yet another SSN main assembly shed the same size as the other
At present it’s looking like they can launch an SSN every 3-4 months and the SSBN bays when they kick out the hulls will be able to deliver one every 6 months.. that’s before the new shed kicks in.. some are estimated that when the new shed is build they will be able to launch up to 8 nuclear boats a year.. there is no way on earth anyone needs to build a facility that can build 8 boats a year for peacefully purposes.
The U.S.N in 2020 though the Chinese SSN fleet would grow by 6 boats to 12 in 2030.before the new factory started serial production. as it is they already have 12 type93, 93A and 93b launched ( if not all commissioned) and another 6 type 93b likely on the way over the next year or so ( they would have filled those 12 bays ) and sections of what is thought to be the type 95 was seen in 2021… if they can keep up 3-4 a year the US will be potentially looking at almost parity of SSN numbers by mid to late 3030s as well as facing 60ish AIP convention boats… serious stuff.