The future of the E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning aircraft is in jeopardy, as U.S. lawmakers and senior officials signal that the Trump administration is hoping to cancel the programme in favour of a space-based surveillance system.
Speaking during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Senator Mazie Hirono raised concerns about the potential cancellation of the E-7 in the upcoming FY2026 budget request.
“This replacement situation has already been delayed, and my understanding is that the Administration may still be considering whether to cancel the E-7 altogether in favor of a space-based system,” she said. “But that is going to take time, and I think that you need to have the replacement for aircraft that are over 50 years old, much sooner than moving to a space-based system.”
The E-7 Wedgetail, based on the Boeing 737 airframe, was selected by the U.S. Air Force to replace the ageing E-3 Sentry fleet. However, long-standing delays, shifting requirements, and broader strategic debates have cast uncertainty over the programme.
Air Force Chief of Staff General David Allvin acknowledged the concern but declined to confirm the administration’s final decision.
“I do believe that we need to maintain that viability, and I do not want to get ahead of where the Administration is on this budget,” he told the committee. “But you are correct, in the ’25 position did have us advancing those two prototypes.”
His comments refer to two initial E-7 aircraft funded in the FY2025 budget, which were intended to begin replacing the E-3 fleet in the late 2020s.
Separately, defence sources familiar with the Pentagon’s planning told media that the Trump administration’s FY2026 budget proposal would “terminate the E-7 request,” effectively ending the programme before full production could begin.
Critics of cancellation warn that relying on a not-yet-fielded space-based alternative would create a dangerous gap in U.S. airborne warning and control capabilities. The ageing E-3 fleet, originally introduced in the 1970s, has seen falling availability rates in recent years.
The potential termination of the U.S. programme also carries implications for allied efforts. The United Kingdom, Australia, and South Korea are among nations fielding the E-7 platform, and the U.S. commitment was viewed as a boost to interoperability and economies of scale.
To address immediate surveillance needs, an official at the hearing confirmed that “we do have in the budget $150 million in FY26 for a joint expeditionary E-2D unit with five dedicated E-2Ds,” alongside “$1.4 billion for additional E-2Ds to fill the near-term gap.” The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, operated by the U.S. Navy, provides airborne early warning and control and is being leveraged to help mitigate capability shortfalls as the fate of the E-7 remains uncertain.
For now, the fate of the E-7 rests with the forthcoming FY2026 budget. If the Wedgetail is indeed dropped, the U.S. will pivot toward a new surveillance capability in orbit, which is still years from maturity.
I’ll be surprised if it falls completely by the wayside given Congress’ penchant for pork.
Regardless of what the yanks do, we need to get our own order back up to the 5.
Proof that Hegseth has no idea and is out of his depth.
So what does this mean for the RAF? If the US don’t end up getting them does that mean they suddenly become a lot more expensive for everyone else due to the reduced build number? Is it worth even getting them at all over an equivalent European or even home built system?
Well we’ve bought them and for the most part built them. Its tge best of its type out tgere atm. We will be able to interoperable with the norgies and aussies so yes they’re here to stay for us at least.
It’ll mean lots of requests from the USAF to the RAF to provide coverage using our E-7s once they realise the E-2 isn’t up to the job. But Hegseth has to make savings somewhere to afford the fit out of the new TACO 1 flying gin palace.
I hear that they are now calling airfarce one by another name, I believe it is now referred too as The Panda Express
I think Airfarce One is pretty descriptive. Not as subtle as the USAF’s new fighter, the F-47 Felon 😆
We have already bought 5 Radar sets for our now 3 Wedgetsils, and although we reduced our original order to 3 aircraft we could not reduce the amount from Northrop Grumman so we have five MESA radars, giving us 2 spare
But NATO is looking to replace its E-3 Sentry with wedgetail, so the irony is that maybe everyone else will have them apart from the US!
No we procured ours before the US even planned to buy them and they are different versions because clearly the Pentagon couldn’t possibly go off the shelf, it had to Fanny around with its own design to double the cost to make sure more of those sweet tax dollars went to Boeing.
Increased costs for any future upgrades as the cost can’t be shared with the US. However the plan to cancel them hasn’t been confirmed yet, so might not happen, has to go through Congress.
Yeah there might be enough pork-barrel political interest in Congress to reverse this.
(I’d hope that logic would make Congress do this but these days ‘logic’, ‘fact’, etc are dirty words in Washington.)
The budget for its development is still there, so at the moment the wedgetail is being developed the USAF just aren’t buying more. It could actually be good for the UK in the short term as 737 airframes are going to be very hard to come by, with all its messes boeing has a 4000 plane order backlog from the airlines that it needs to make up (for the 737 alone) which has made even second hand 737 airframes hard to come by.
Personally whilst I do think that AWACS are going to become more vulnerable (both the US/China and Russia all have missiles that seem designed to take them out and Ukraine has done so successfully) it seems a big gamble to go completely to a spacebased soltuion and even with a space based solution I’m not entirely sure how it will work, to have real time satelite coverage you’re going to need a huge network of satelites covering each other. Plus you still have to have someone doing the fighter coordination (the C, so where are they going to be – are you going to put them on the ground where they can also easily be targeted?).
Personally I think the future will likely be a network of drones carrying radars and fighters all coordinating over a dataink with potentially some spacebased input as well but I don’t see that happening for at least another 10,15,20 years and in the meantime the E-7 would give great coverage and we need something given that we’ve gotten rid of the E3s.
This doesn’t make a difference to the UK, nor does the Boeing backlog which is for the 737-MAX.
The E-7 is based on the 737-NG which Boeing stopped building years ago. So all E-7s are built from former commercial airliners. With over 7,000 built it shouldn’t be difficult picking some up on the second-hand market.
realistically they’re gonna need both platforms
Lets get the Yank two prototypes on the cheap to get out numbers up to the originally-intended 5.
That was my thought too!
and me!
Good one..I wonder if by some miracle the MOD will think of it.
It’s just not a matter of thinking of it, which of course they will. Can they justify the budget using a requirement? You can have the best bargain in the world available, but MOD can’t/won’t touch it without a requirement justifying it first. Unless things change (and we hope they are changing) they may not be able do that speedily enough with large platforms.
The SDR supports buying more E-7s explicitly, “when funding allows”, and that could be enough for a speedy requirement if the price is right.
The problem as always Jon is “when funding allows”. I thought originally, and still do, that the RAF needs five. Whether that is a UK buy; an Anglo Norwegian or a European one doesn’t matter.
So space based surveillance and defence! Let’s say this happens with the golden dome,the US will have a space based system that allegedly will destroy incoming missiles in space,if the dome works and destroys incoming missiles in space that will create a mass of debris hurtling around the planet like a shotgun blast taking out ANY satellite that gets into its path! The US will not only leave itself blind to the next attack but will leave the rest of us deaf,blind and dumb!
I agree with your comments space debris is a huge risk for a space based system.
The chance of debris hitting an aircraft is pretty low as it comes down to earth only once, compared to the chance of it hitting a satellite in an orbit which crosses that of the satellite several times per day.
Having said that what remains of the debris will pretty soon be going in the same general direction as the satellite so a self defence system to move out of the way would be possible if rather energy intensive.
The reason there is a treaty not to have weapons in space is because if you destroy too many sat you effectively wipe out the ability to have any sats in space as small debris in geo stationary orbit isn’t coming down
For the ballistic missile defence system one would hope that they’ve considered this and will do the intercepts at sufficiently low points on the trajectory, below the altitude of even the lowest satellite orbits, such that any debris re-enters the atmosphere and burns up pretty much immediately after the intercept.
Note that current ballistic missiles are on sub-orbital trajectories. They don’t actually go into orbit otherwise they would need to flip and do a de-orbit burn to re-enter the Earths atmosphere to hit their target and that re-entry would involve re-entering from an orbital velocity so they’d never manage it anyway without a substantial heat shield.
When it comes to other aspects of space warfare though, e.g. taking out an enemies surveillance and other satellites that are in orbit, then yes the orbital debris issue becomes a huge concern. In 2021 Russia got a lot of criticism when it blew up one of its old non-functioning satellites in a test of an anti-satellite system and created a lot of orbital debris.
I suppose that shows why I’m not a rocket scientist👍😂
If you have an offensive sat in space then it becomes a target itself. Any enemy has to eliminate it. So it doesn’t really matter where the planned intercepts are, it matters where the sat itself is.
That wont be at initial operating capability until 2035 at the earliest and bring able to replace AEW aircraft well into the 2040s. The pernicious influence of Musk fantasy’s will make decades long gaps in US ability to fight
E2 to replace it
The E2 can’t replace the E7 on a one for one basis. The E7 has twice as many mission operators on board. How do you intend to handle an air battle over 1000s of square miles with hundreds of aircraft with just 5 controlers.
The E7 also has room down the back for a total crew size of up to 21 people. Meaning, if they plan for it, they can keep all consoles in operation if they want to, across an up to 24 hour flight. E2 is also slower & can’t fly as high.
The suggestion of the E2-D has been stated as an Interim Capability requirement,to bridge the Gap between E3 and the new Space/Satellite Tech which is close to being ready but not available now.It is not tp replace the E7 long term.
The E2 is designed to fight tactical battles. The E7 is designed to fight theatre level battles. You can’t use the E2 to do the E7s job
Better yet, graft the E-2 radar on the P-8 frame, which has 5 internal and 6 external hard points, and now you have something that defend itself.
US version is intended to have more complex systems relative to either the UK or Australian version. The Australians are planning to upgrade their versions sometime in the future to, I think, essentially the same system fit out as UK is building …but may have that last bit wrong.
Just read another article on this and it looks as if the issue may have been “gold plating”, and the difficulty in agreeing a price for the two prototypes with Boeing.
As usual why they couldn’t just buy the version everyone else uses…but there again I suppose there’s no extra dollar value for the USA in doing that.
The plan may be to buy E2D, but this is deficient in range, speed and operating height let alone it has no loo for the 5 crew for longer missions.
We need to get the two spare radars up and working on a couple of (pre-loved,?) 737 airframe.
AA
We have two spare radars, and there are numerous 737ng airframes available, which could be refurbished at a reasonable price to give another 20,000 hrs service. Also if they do chop the programme there will be two prototypes available, and suddenly we are up to seven airframes, which is what we had before.
Yeah how did that quick upgrade to the 737 max go?
Not very well! The E7 and the P8 are both based on the previous iteration of the 737, which seems to be rather more reliable.
The idea that you can quickly and cheaply get through air safety certification is what led to the 737 max
On a related subject, I see Japan has given Ukraine basically a direct feed from its Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) with frequent difference updates using its constellation of satellites. Well done Japan.
Q. Does they UK have any SAR capability and any plans for a constellation of SAR satellites? If not why not?
We got rid of our satellite launch capability decades ago in homage to the Americans, otherwise, we may have been better placed here.
Likewise, that sort of thing is given to the UK as part of the UK USA agreement, more commonly known in the media as 5 Eyes.
Look up the MoD ISTARI program for future satellites. Tyche and Oberon are the first I think.
Thanks Daniele. Yep the UK Sovereign launch capability is a sorry tale. Hopefully something will come of a UK Space Command and launch capability. I’d love a UK/AUS link up with this again one day 🙂
I’ll read-up on the MoD ISTARI program, but I suppose my main concern, and why I asked the question, is the lack of an independent UK SAR satellite capability given that Trump/USA are no longer reliable.
I’m guessing that they’ll be looking at dual-use sovereign launch, so Saxa Vord and Cornwall, etc.
Hopefully. But it needs a focussed effort from the UK military to make use of such and any wider infrastructure.
Australia’s Gilmour Space is about to launch its first indigenous designed Eris rocket capable of putting a 300 kg payload into Low Earth Orbit (LEO).
The launch from Bowen in North Queensland was originally delayed because of cyclone Alfred in March and then by a minor fault with the nosecone separation mechanism on the launch pad. Revised launch window pending but should be in next month or two following fix and testing of revised nosecone design.
The block II Eris is planned to put 1000 kg in LEO and a future Eris heavy 4,000 kg.
Eris uses an innovative hybrid rocket engine that uses a proprietary solid hydrocarbon fuel that combines with a liquid/gaseous oxidizer to allow the rocket motor to be throttled (unlike normal solid fuels) and safer to handle than normal combined liquid/gas fueled rockets.
Currently Australia is relying on Space X to put Australian designed satellites and scientific packages into orbit (six different ones launched in January 2025).
As well as launching military surveillance and communications satellites Eris also has potential as the basis of a conventionally armed ballistic missile with an estimated range of over 3000kms ( enough to reach the SCS) from northern Australia.
Ripper!
Good on ’em. 🙂
Oberon. Contract awarded in February to build 2 SAR satellites.
They are claimed to not survivable based on the theroy of the man who owns the largest private satellite launching company. The enthusiastic embrace of Musk’s ideas by the Hesgeth isn’t fact
As part of the ISTARI programme the UK has on order two SAR satellites on order as part of the Oberon system. Contract awarded to Airbus in February.
Placing all your bets on a system that can be shot down in advance from the enemies own country seems stupid
The reason given for the proposed cancellation of the USAF E-7s is that they are not considered survivable, presuming shooting down the 737s at long range would be a turkey shoot for the new generation of long range air-to-air missiles, for the same reason in US a lot of talk of a stealthy tankers, but the cost so far has stopped the go-ahead.
The problem being AEW&C from space with satellites ithough under testings is still in its infancy, its a major problem.
But it’s all futuristic jam tomorrow bs unfortunately and defence needs to be based on what you can do not what some futurist says will possibly be a thing in 10 years.. in the end killing an aircraft from 600-1000km away is still not possible..also they are actually talking about replacing a strategic AEW system with a tactical AEW system.. that needs to be far closer to the threat.
DoD has evidently finally acquired the MoD disease syndrome of “pain (or diet) today in exchange for jam tomorrow.” Thanks! 😱😢☹️
If they want space based radar cover everywhere they need will be need multiple stations like the Dale Brown book ‘Silver Tower’? if they want to have that TangoMan better kiss an makeup with Musk otherwise won’t be able to get into orbit!!!
The USA is about to loose the most important aerial warfare capability developed in the past half century and with it the ability to command the battle space for several decades.
The average US satellite program takes easily ten years and that’s for current technology not sci fi low earth constellations with hundreds of massive radar satellites in them.
This is a ketamine inspired fantasy from everyone’s favourite former DOGE.
It’s imperative that the UK protect America from these idiots with a big increase in E7 numbers going to atleast 7 and encouraging ENATO to add the platform.
America has already been crying out for Australian support via E7 for ten years now, it will be even more desperate in the next decade.
We can probably add four more for £1 billion or so which is peanuts for such a game changing capability.
“This is some BS!”, as quoted by Dr Harry Vanderspeigle!
There’s more to this, perhaps the US’s typical pork barrel politics. In that the E2D is made is such and such state and the statesman/congressman has leverage of defence acquisitions.
The defense panel is not telling the select committee the full story. They are leaving out huge chunks and misrepresenting the truth.
We’ll start with the E7 being obsolete when faced with a peer opponent. Which is sort of true if operating on its own. But AEW/AWACS do not operate on their own (which they failed to mention?). Apart from radar detection, their other main role is fighter control. Where if we keep this in US speak, they act as the quarterback directing aircraft towards the threat. They will also have a combat air patrol, whose main job is to protect the AEW platform.
E7 vs E2D radar performance. The E7’s MESA radar is better than the E2D’s AN/APY-9 radar, based on a number of factors. The first is antenna size. The Hawkeye’s radar is contained in a mechanically rotating dome. The dome’s height is about 3ft in depth, with a diameter of 24ft (7.3m). Whereas the E7’s is 10.8m long by 3.4m (11ft) high. Both radars are active electronically scanned arrays (AESA). A beam is formed by additive or subtractive interference between individual transmissions. Therefore the number of active elements around the first transmitter matter. As an even number in both azimuth and elevation, forms a more circular beam. Whereas having more elements in one plain over the other makes a narrow beam in one plain, whilst wide in the other, think beaver tail. Therefore the E7’s radar will produce a more circular beam.
An AESA radar’s effective transmitter power, is governed in part by the surface area and the number of transmitting elements within that area. In general the more elements the greater the power. However, the Hawkeye’s radar operates in the UHF band (300MHz to 1GHz), whereas the E7’s uses the L band (1 to 2GHz). Due to atmospheric attenuation, a UHF transmission will go further than a L band for the same amount of transmitter power. But because UHF is a longer wavelength than the L band, its beam will be naturally wider. I could also say a more circular AESA array will generate less sidelobes, which are wasted energy. But that’s an essay in itself. But importantly the more narrow and circular the beam, the more energy it contains.
The other factor with transmitters is how they are cooled. To increase the range, you can up the amps put in the power amp. However, that generates a lot of heat. Which requires either passive or active cooling. Liquid cooling is preferred, as on aircraft you can dump the heat into the fuel. Whereas air is free, but has a limit on how much heat it can absorb. The E7s radar is bigger and more powerful, so will require more cooling. How this is done I’m not sure.
Another crucial factor dictated by the antenna array area is receiver sensitivity. The greater the area, the greater the sensitivity. Meaning objects reflecting fainter signal can be detected further away.
The next crucial factor is signal processing. Traditionally both UHF and L band radars didn’t give enough fidelity to give a weapon system accurate target information. As the beam hitting the target is pretty wide, making the return ambiguous. Much like looking at an object through binoculars out of focus. With today’s signal processing you can to a great extent overcome this and bring the object in to sharper focus. However, because of the wavelength the returning signal will also contain a lot of clutter. The longer the wavelength the worse it is. Which again with today’s technology can be mostly filtered out. But on an aircraft in particular the amount of signal processing is dictated by the available space, electrical generation of the aircraft, along with a method to control the generated heat.
The platform’s size will also dictate how many crew it can carry, or in this case fighter controllers. Fighter controllers are the quarterbacks who analyze the threats and respond accordingly. The greater the number, the better the workload is being shared. So for the E7 it has 10 (RAAF version), whilst the E2D carries 3.
Both aircraft have a published active detection range of either around or near to 600km. In essence the E7 should be able to detect targets further due to reasons mentioned above.
I could also state that their statement of going over to space based radar is another form of BS, for similar reasons. Space based radar has been a thing since the 1960’s. It is getting better refined. But suffers from the same problems as endoatmospheric radars. Aldo to consider is that the satellite cannot have its hardware modified once launched, its track is predictable. But as laser based energy weapons are now becoming a thing. It won’t be too long before surveillance satellites are targeted. Where they could be damaged enough to stop them working, without causing a spectacular disassemble and generating yet more orbital junk.
With respect to signal processing: Moore’s Law progress creating ever better SWaP characteristics should allow smaller planes to be able to be used, subject to antenna size. The technology is already 15 years old and potentially the processing hardware could be very, very much smaller. Also the processing algorithms should becoming more efficient over time. I’d hope that the amount of processing wouldn’t still be limited by the physical space in something the size of a 737. However, the Aussies had problems with the radar function when they integrated it into the planes. It worked fine on the ground, but in putting it into the plane, some unexpected dependencies caused issues in certain modes. It’s apparently a non-trivial issue to integrate an antenna onto an AEW plane. Which suggests to me that moving to something other than a 737 may be a riskier undertaking than we would like. Getting hold of useable 737s asap (anywhere, anyhow), should be a priority.
I’ve seen a reference to the aft cabin of E-7 (below the antenna) containing a sophisticated cooling system, so it won’t just be letting the air rush past the MESA antenna. 😊
1. Moore’s law stopped being valid a while back. The best case is that its now every 3 years
2. It takes years to produce signal processing code, even with an RTO with a standard API. Let alone a custom system with no O/S. Then you have to clear the whole thing through air safety certification. Its not like upgrading your desktop, nor can it be to do its job
Sadly in the pacific region the AEW on strategic platforms is vital.. if the U.S. cuts its strategic AEW and air control platform it’s essentially sending a massive message to china… E2 is a tactical platform and cannot replace E3.
When you link this to the US behaviour of essential telling its allies in Europe and the western pacific they need to spend 5% while the US is probably looking at reducing spending and getting no where near even 3.5% ( the US 3.3% includes healthcare for millions of veterans as well as social care for millions of veterans, boarder forces, constabulary forces, coast guards etc).. all the while increasing tension in the west pacific and Europe.
I’m almost getting the feeling that the US is trying to create a geopolitical advantage for itself at the expense of its allies, including potential wars that it then may never even get involved in.. At the very least it’s guaranteeing the dissolution of the western alliance..
‘I must make a system for myself or become a slave to another man’s’ – William Blake (from memory)
Are we perhaps trying to distill strategy from the current administration where in fact non exists. Listening to the ramblings of an octogenarian is much the same as trying to find meaning in the finger paintings of a four years old. 🤔
The thing is Jim it’s not one man, Trump is the king on a throne made by many.
I actually think that US unwritten policy is to weaken or destroy the long standing US / Western hegemony that has kept us all safe for 80 years. It’s a step by step, one massive boot in the preverbal after another.
Completely disrupt the Western Worlds Trade and Finance system, which in turn causes economic uncertainty and fear.
Destroy mutual trust.
Undermine NATO and remove US involvement in Europe.
Eliminate all internal dissent
It’s almost as if someone would gain an advantage by having a US Government that is actively doing everything it can think of to make everyone hate and isolate the US.
That may seem far fetched but can anyone tell me anything that the present administration has done that contradicts what I’m thinking ?
Regardless of what the US strategy is, it is past time for Europe and Canada to actually get our acts together as we need to be able to stand alone without Uncle Sam.
If I say hypothetically wanted to turn the US into some form of post democratic nationalist state (see Italy 1919) then I might suddenly support authoritarian regimes that had previously been my enemy and turn on friendly democracies to discredit them and bring more support to my regime.
Unfortunately if you spend 70 years militarising a culture with a strong history of isolationism and a comparatively low standard of education especially amongst non college educated men you end up with something very similar.
You also end up with a bunch of soldiers that swore an oath to a “constitution” suddenly standing behind a leader shouting Sieg Heil, USA or hail Cesar much like we saw yesterday.
This has affected every single country in the Americas with the exclusion of Canada over the past 150 years.
The USA looks very similar to pre Peronist Argentina, apparently very high GDP but no one seems to have any money with a government that thinks it’s in a condition to ignore foreigners especially when it comes to paying its debts.
Hilarius, you should look at yourself. You don’t even have free speech and lost lots of freedoms in last 2 decades.
I was struck by pictures and videos of masked and armed gangs snatching people off the street; it turned out that these were federal ICE agents but they acted more like the paramilitary terror gangs who kidnapped (and later murdered) political opponents in the Chile of the 1980s. All this something that would have been unthinkable a decade before. Now, it’s already become normalised and few if any of the Governing faction see anything wrong with it.
It is surprisingly how just quickly the USA is taking on the trappings of a Latin American state, with the current MAGA elites unashamedly and nakedly using the power of State to attack and harass their political opponents.
The fact that the USA and the UK both speak the same language lulls us to thinking that the USA and the UK are very similar; but if the USA spoke Spanish and not English, I think most Brits would think it as different and as ‘alien’ as any other country on the American continent (Canada being the obvious exception).
At a time where America should be broadcasting strength and determination, its bizarre antics, childish approach to politics and counter-intuitive defence strategies (all being witnessed by gleeful enemies) lead to one question: what the hell is America doing?
Destroying the West is what they are doing, no idea why !
The “west” is founded on a belief in a set of liberal values which is their fundamental enemy.
Simples when you look at it in the cold hard light.
There are always establishment groups who benefit from chaos. Look to the Yale and Harvard secret societies. 😉
Seems very shortsighted given the technology is not yet in orbit or even close to being taken off the drawing board. Plus I would have thought they would be very vulnerable to anti satellite technology.
Admittedly an awacs plane is also vulnerable but I would have thought it would be easier protected.
Also you are looking at a decades long capability gap. This smack of trumps f55,. No idea of what is uninformed opinion would take.
It’s ok, that guy who was smashed off his tits on K in the Oval Office with his kids that owns the rocket Company said it can all be done in two years for ten percent of the price and the weekend Fox News host who is good at pushups believed him and convinced the guy from the Apprentice with the fake tan that it’s all good.
I know in America they say anyway can be president but perhaps they have taken it too far.
Trump shows the dangers of Presidential style government. He is basically an elected King. It would take months to legally get rid of him under their system. In the mean time he can keep signing executive orders all day long (quicker than the courts can overturn them).
Brilliant!!
OT trump is also carrying out a review of AUKUS, because of his murica first policy and because he is too stupid to understand what AUKUS is
Question: if Trump removes the us from the AUKUS Pact, can the UK and Australia still go ahead and build/procure the submarines that they need
with out the yanks??
I guess so as I think the bit the MAGA cult are trying to avoid is handing over any SSNs to Australia as the interim solution. They think they’ll need all of their boats for their imminent (though completely unnecessary) war with China.
However, if MAGA America does pull out though, I really hope we exclude any American technology from the AUKUS boat (reactor excepting!). We don’t need it and it would just cause more complications long-term.
I thought the PWR3 Reactor is British built but based on a us design??