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?
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.
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 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).
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.