AUKUS : US, UK and Australia forge military alliance to counter China

[randomradio]

Absolutely. It was my idea from the beginning of the Attack deal turmoil. 6 SSK and 6 SSN. As french I wanted the whole to be french designed.

The French SSN requires refueling in France, so that wasn't workable for the Australians.

I find it quite surprising that many countries and even professional R&D organizations don't consider the viability of long term projects before starting them. Indian forces are so careful about such things. It shows how culture and institutional memories are so important to the success of anything.

 

[Bon Plan]

The French SSN requires refueling in France, so that wasn't workable for the Australians.

I find it quite surprising that many countries and even professional R&D organizations don't consider the viability of long term projects before starting them. Indian forces are so careful about such things. It shows how culture and institutional memories are so important to the success of anything.

Why can't we sent them low enriched uranium and equipment to do it themselves?
If France can why not Australia?

 

[randomradio]

Why can't we sent them low enriched uranium and equipment to do it themselves?
If France can why not Australia?

I don't think French law allows the export of SSNs. Does Macron have the ability to change that? He himself does not want to upset China. Plus Europe has a serious shortage of labor for this sector.

Overall, politically, Europe is not a reliable partner for some of the anti-China countries in the Pacific.

And Australia needs to create refueling capabilities from scratch without possessing a serious foundation for a nuclear industry.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Sovereignty and Security forum Canberra 2025

Round table moderated by M Turnbull, with:

Dennis Richardson AO, served as Secretary of Defence, Secretary of Foreign Affairs
Jennifer Parker, served for 20 years with the Royal Australian Navy, specialising in Principal Warfare Officer
Rear Admiral Peter D Briggs AO OAM served in the Royal Australian Navy for 40 years, specialising as a submarine operator
In a nutshell:

It starts with Briggs whose positions are well known, in favour of a plan B based on 12 Suffren, smaller, less personnel, cheaper, less risky, better suited to needs. Does not believe at all in the delivery of the Virginias and fears the excesses of the British programmes. What's more, it would mean two different supply chains, which would be a mess... On the other hand, he dreams of producing them in Australia...

On the other hand, Parker, an AUKUS supporter, says that we need to work with our American ally to get the Virginias, and that we need to stop changing tack all the time. With the drifts that would have occurred with the Attack class, the risk wouldn't be any higher. She was taken back by Turnbull, who said that contrary to what had been said in the press campaign, there had been no drift with NG.

Questions and answers, at around 48:42 a participant indicated that he had been part of the committee that had chosen NG, and that he did not understand the press campaign against NG, given that things were going rather well with the usual difficulties in this type of affair. On the other hand, he considers that going back to the French is no longer viable because we have pissed off the French so badly that we will not recover that relationship in a generation. NG is successful with Brazil and Holland wouldn't be interested in getting back into this mess.....

around 1:08:20 a former navy man.... unlike Briggs doesn't like the Suffren for the RAN because it was designed to accompany the French SNLE on their patrol zone and therefore with a short transit.... and yes ‘we’ know where the French SNLEs patrol since a French SNLE collided with a British SNLE so we can deduce that the Suffren would not be designed to make long transits which implies that we will need to refuel the nuclear reactor more often, every 7 years instead of 10.....

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Exclusive: AUKUS nuclear submarine sale under scrutiny as Trump tariffs rattle Australia​

By Kirsty Needham

April 10, 2025 8:15 AM UTC · Updated ago

PERTH, April 10 (Reuters) - The sale of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia under the AUKUS treaty faces new doubts as U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs take hold, and amid concern in Washington that providing the subs to Canberra may reduce deterrence to China.

Whether the United States can boost submarine production to meet U.S. Navy targets is key to whether Australia can buy three Virginia-class submarines starting in 2032, Defence Minister Richard Marles said last month, after talks with his U.S. counterpart, Pete Hegseth.

Australia faces a previously unreported 2025 deadline to pay the United States $2 billion to assist with improving its submarine shipyards. The Trump administration has asked for more funding, Marles said in March.

Consternation is growing in Washington that Australia's reluctance to even discuss using the attack submarines against China means that transferring them out of the U.S. fleet to Australia would hurt deterrence efforts in the Indo Pacific, according to experts and documents.

"If you want to deter conflict, in peacetime you need to talk about using it in wartime and we haven’t seen a willingness yet on the part of the Australians, government or officials, to make that kind of threat," said former U.S. Navy strategist Bryan Clark, director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute, who is advising the Australian Defence Force on force design.

In a previously unreported recent multilateral war game simulating a response by U.S. allies to a Chinese blockade of Taiwan, Australian Defence Force commanders did not use nuclear-powered submarines in the South China Sea to attack Chinese targets, instead focusing on protecting Australia's northern approaches with airpower, drones and missiles, said Clark, who ran the exercise.

The distance from China made an airpower and surface fleet approach less risky, and the submarines were instead placed in areas near Australia where enemy ships might transit, Clark said in an online briefing.

These concerns were echoed in a U.S. Congressional Budget Office report in February and testimony on Navy shipbuilding delays in March, in which officials said selling Virginia-class subs out of the fleet to Australia without replacements was risky because Canberra had not made it clear whether its military would join the U.S. in a conflict over Taiwan.

The question has taken on added urgency, as the U.S. Navy in September set a deadline of 2027 for its forces to be prepared for a conflict with China.

China's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

Peter Dean, director of foreign policy and defence at the University of Sydney's United States Studies Centre, said he would expect Australia and the United States to operate submarines in different areas in a regional conflict.

"If it's a Taiwan contingency, the U.S. will be concentrating its forces in the east and South China Sea around Taiwan. Australia may not be directly involved," said Dean, co-author of Australia's Defence Strategic Review, which led the Albanese government to refocus its military in 2023 and prioritise long-range strike missiles.

Australia's priority is to protect its mainland as a forward operating base for U.S. forces, he said.

Clark told Reuters that nuclear workforce shortages and budget constraints in Australia would most likely delay the submarine sale.

"U.S. and UK submarines operating out of Perth with dual crews, and the Australian-operated maintenance facility, would provide a deterrent to aggression and keep Australia's preparations for its own nuclear submarines on track," he said. He has also advised Canberra to focus on uncrewed systems.

The Australian Submarine Agency said acquiring nuclear submarines was a key part of Australia's defence strategy of denial, and "will be equipped for intelligence, surveillance, undersea warfare and strike missions".

A Pentagon spokesperson said the Defense Department was committed to "our phased plan for Australia to acquire conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines at the earliest possible date", including the sale of Virginia submarines. A U.S. National Security Council spokesman said "The U.S. continues to work closely with Australia and the UK to implement AUKUS".

Domestic politics could also weigh on AUKUS, despite strong support from the major Australian parties, as disappointment that defence ties didn't win Australia exemptions from Trump's tariffs has put the programme under unprecedented public scrutiny.

A national election on May 3 could result in a hung parliament that gives independent lawmakers - who are sceptical of Trump and have called for a review of the submarine deal - more power.

AUKUS is projected to span three decades: A rotating force of four U.S.-commanded Virginia submarines and one British submarine hosted at Western Australia's HMAS Stirling starting in 2027, with mixed U.S. and Australian maintenance and crew; the sale of Virginia submarines to Australian command from 2032; and an AUKUS submarine built by Australia and Britain ready in 2040.

Australia needs to buy the Virginias because relying on a U.S.-commanded fleet until 2040 would be "outsourcing our defence to another country to a level that is not acceptable," Dean said.

Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who clinched the AUKUS treaty in 2021, said in an interview that the threat posed by China and the deterrent of Australia operating nuclear-powered submarines in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean drove the agreement.

"China is the threat - of course they are - and that is what needs to be deterred," Morrison said.

"The idea of more U.S. and more British boats being in and around Australia, and on station in Australia, in the theatre, we always knew that would bring the earlier deterrent," he added.

Australia's plan to purchase Virginia submarines was added to AUKUS by Labor in 2023.

Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, elected in 2022, has been less willing to publicly criticise China, even as Australia's air force and navy continue freedom of navigation patrols in the South China Sea. This has become a point of political attack in the election campaign for Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton, who was defence minister in Morrison's government.

"The Chinese made a big effort for us not to proceed with AUKUS precisely because they saw the deterrence effect," said Arthur Sinodonis, Australia's ambassador in Washington as AUKUS was negotiated. "There is a deterrent, whether the stuff is in the U.S. column or the Australian column."

Reporting by Kirsty Needham in Perth; additional reporting by David Brunnstrom and Idrees Ali in Washington. Editing by Gerry Doyle

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

UK defence review says Aukus is on schedule but fears remain over possible capability gap for Australia​

Starmer government’s own major projects agency says plan to power subs is ‘unachievable’

The UK government has declared it will put the first of 12 Aukus-class submarines in the water on schedule in the late 2030s, despite its own major projects agency saying the plan to build the nuclear reactor cores needed to power the submarines is “unachievable”.

The prime minister, Keir Starmer, has released Britain’s Strategic Defence Review, which argues the Aukus submarines are critical for the UK’s defence, and declaring a landmark shift in Britain’s deterrence and defence “moving to war fighting readiness to deter threats”.


The UK’s capacity to design and build the first Aukus submarine on time and on budget is critical for Australia. The first Australian-built Aukus nuclear submarine – based on the UK design – will subsequently be built in Adelaide and is expected to be delivered in the early 2040s.

Any delay or cost overrun in the UK program could leave Australia with a capability gap of no submarines, with the ageing Collins-class submarines already extended potentially decades beyond their scheduled service life, and doubts over the supply of US-built Virginia-class boats.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-aukus-submarine-deal-us-former-defence-chief
The Strategic Defence Review says the first of up to 12 British Aukus conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines will be in the water and operational “in the late 2030s” – the “optimal pathway” timeline previously announced as part of the Aukus agreement.

“With new state-of-the-art submarines patrolling international waters and our own nuclear warhead programme on British shores, we are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad,” the UK defence secretary, John Healey, said.

But the UK government’s own major projects agency has described the UK’s plan to build the nuclear reactor cores needed to power the Aukus submarines as “unachievable”.

In its latest annual report, released in January this year, the Infrastructure and Major Projects Authority (now the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority), gave the nuclear reactor core project its lowest evaluation.

“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable,” the report said.

“There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.”

Under “Pillar One” of the ambitious – and controversial – Aukus agreement, the US will sell between three and five of its Virginia-Class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, the first of these in 2032.

However, legally, the US can only sell the boats if the then commander-in-chief – the US president – certifies that America relinquishing a submarine will not diminish its own undersea capability.

The US navy already has a shortfall of submarines, expected to worsen over coming years, and shipyards in America are running up to three years late in building new Virginia-class submarines, a US navy report found.

A recent US Congressional Budget Office report found America’s submarine industry is building 1.2 Virginia-class boat a year – well below the 2.3 needed for the US to meet its own needs and fulfil its commitment to Australia.

Aukus is forecast to cost Australia up to $368bn to the mid-2050s.

Australia is providing significant subsidies to the industrial bases of both the US and UK. It has already paid $A798m – the first instalment of $A4.7bn pledged – to the US. It will pay A$4.6bn to the UK.

The former South Australian senator Rex Patrick, an ex-submariner and Aukus skeptic, described the UK’s shipbuilding program as a “cluster-fiasco industry” trying to put “unachievable reactors into unachievable submarines”.

“We get announcements from places like Westminster, or Canberra, or Congress, saying ‘this is what we’re doing’. But unfortunately, the politicians who are making those calls simply don’t understand the complexity and difficulties of achieving what it is that they’re setting out.”

The US and UK, Patrick said, were “embracing Aukus at a political level, but unable to achieve it at a working level”. Patrick said it was highly unlikely the US could sell Virginia-class submarines to Australia early next decade.

And the implications for Australia were acute, Patrick said.

“We should have a plan B, but the current plan B is we will have no submarines. That is very disturbing, from the point-of-view of the taxpayer … forking out billions of dollars for a program that is likely not going to deliver, and from a national security perspective, where there’s a massive hole in the defence of Australia.”

Patrick said Aukus was diverting resources from other defence capabilities.

“It might be that we end up with no submarines and no other capabilities. And none of the people who are responsible for this program will be in the parliament when the whole thing runs aground.”
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-aukus-australia-strategic-defensive-approach
Australia’s defence minister, Richard Marles, told reporters at the Shangri-La Dialogue – an inter-governmental security conference – in Singapore at the weekend that Aukus was “on track”.

“We are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it. We are very optimistic about how it is progressing in the here and now.”

Males said Australia was seeing more visits from US nuclear-powered submarines to Australian bases, and was working on increasing the production and sustainment rates of Virginia-class submarines in the US, through financial contributions and having Australians working in US docks.

“We walk forward with a sense of confidence about the way in which Aukus is proceeding,” he said.

 

[_Anonymous_]

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/pentagon-mulls-scrapping-aukus-submarine-deal-with-australia-britain-125061200152_1.html

Great News Pops !! @Optimist

Time to recall le Francais & launch FAUKUS me thinks . Do remember the pronounciation is still FUKUS as the A in FAUKUS is still silent for it is irrelevant.

Anyway back on topic , by involving le Francais you get the SSNs you so covet & le Francais get to split the loot with your Anglo cousins since the latter are in no position to deliver.

 

[Zarion]

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/pentagon-mulls-scrapping-aukus-submarine-deal-with-australia-britain-125061200152_1.html

Great News Pops !! @Optimist

Time to recall le Francais & launch FAUKUS me thinks . Do remember the pronounciation is still FUKUS as the A in FAUKUS is still silent for it is irrelevant.

Anyway back on topic , by involving le Francais you get the SSNs you so covet & le Francais get to split the loot with your Anglo cousins since the latter are in no position to deliver.

Eh, I'll say wait for the "review" to happen and details to come out, else all is speculation.

 

[Herciv]

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/pentagon-mulls-scrapping-aukus-submarine-deal-with-australia-britain-125061200152_1.html

Great News Pops !! @Optimist

Time to recall le Francais & launch FAUKUS me thinks . Do remember the pronounciation is still FUKUS as the A in FAUKUS is still silent for it is irrelevant.

Anyway back on topic , by involving le Francais you get the SSNs you so covet & le Francais get to split the loot with your Anglo cousins since the latter are in no position to deliver.

FAUKUS has a meaning in french pronunciation. Literraly that's mean "false a.s". It's an expression in french that say that a person is unreliable.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Eh, I'll say wait for the "review" to happen and details to come out, else all is speculation.

Most of what we discuss here is speculation. Of course it also depends on who's indulging in it & why.

Stick around & you'd find the reasons as well if you're one of those who doesn't want to die wondering.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Keating says US Aukus review could ‘save Australia from itself’ as Morrison urges against overinterpreting move​

Former PM Malcolm Turnbull and former foreign minister Bob Carr say Australia must seize chance to urgently review its defence needs.

A chorus of Aukus sceptics, including former prime ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, say a US review represents an “opportunity” for Australia to escape a controversial deal that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars and leave Australia ultimately less able to defend itself.

But Scott Morrison – who as prime minister helped engineer the Aukus deal in 2021 – said Australia should not “overinterpret” the significance of the review as he expressed confidence in Donald Trump’s support for the pact.

The US department of defense has announced a 30-day review of the Aukus nuclear-powered submarine deal “ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president’s ‘America first’ agenda,” a Pentagon official said, “and that the defense industrial base is meeting our needs”.

Keating said that the review “might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself … from the most poorly conceived defence procurement program ever adopted by an Australian government”.

He said in a Thursday statement that the Pentagon review was “subjecting the deal to the kind of scrutiny that should have been applied to Aukus in the first instance”, describing the deal as “hurriedly scribbled on the back of an envelope by Scott Morrison, along with the vacuous British blowhard Boris Johnson, and the confused president, Joe Biden – put together on an English beach, a world away from where Australia’s strategic interests primarily lie.”

Keating said the US would lose nothing by walking away from the deal and still “achieve what they have been after all along … turning Australia into a US nuclear-armed fort pointed against China”.

Turnbull, whose pre-existing submarine deal with French giant Naval was dramatically torn up in favour of the Aukus agreement in 2021, said Australia should “wake up” and review the agreement itself.

“The UK is conducting a review of Aukus. The US department of defence is conducting a review of Aukus. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review,” he said on X on earlier Thursday.

“Our parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?”

Former foreign minister Bob Carr said Australia and the US needed to come to a “mutual agreement” that recognised Aukus served neither’s interests, and allowed either side to withdraw without weakening the alliance.

“The Trump administration has picked a notable sceptic of Aukus [Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s under secretary of defense for policy] to conduct the review for one reason: they know they won’t be able to supply the boats to Australia because their own shipbuilding lags so significantly,” Carr told Guardian Australia.

“It is best for us that we don’t linger over this, because America’s got the option of increasing the cost to us and forcing us to accept the basing of a sizeable submarine fleet in our ports, every vessel being a nuclear target should there be war between the US and China.”

Morrison downplayed concerns about the review, saying that while “you take it seriously … I don’t think you overinterpret it”.

“I think it is not uncommon for new administrations to do reviews into programs of this size and scale,” the former Liberal prime minister told ABC’s Afternoon Briefing, noting the review was initiated by the department, not the White House.

Morrison would not divulge details of any private conservations with Trump, with whom he has a relationship, but said he was confident the US president would back the submarine deal.

“I’ve never had concerns about this, and I’ve never had any reason to,” he said.

The former South Australian senator Rex Patrick, an ex-submariner and established Aukus critic, said the US review was a “great opportunity” for Australia to walk away from an increasingly unworkable agreement that would jeopardise Australia’s sovereignty and capacity to defend itself.

“There is no doubt this project is both unaffordable and highly risky, and delivers a solution to Australia a decade after it’s supposedly needed.”

Senator David Shoebridge, Greens defence and foreign affairs spokesperson, said Australia needed to pursue more independent defence and foreign policies “that do not require us to bend our will and shovel wealth to an increasingly erratic and reckless Trump USA”.

He said the Aukus deal made Australia a “junior partner” in American military strategy, rather than an equal ally.

“Donald Trump is erratic, reckless and careless of America’s allies and alliances but he does have one fairly constant trait, he puts US interests first and allies last.

“The USA is reviewing whether to scrap Aukus while Australia has just handed the US an $800m Aukus tribute payment. We’re locked into a $375bn deal that our ‘partner’ might walk away from.”

Shoebridge said he believed the US review would find that America could not spare the submarines to sell to Australia, and argued parliament should launch a full inquiry into the Aukus deal, before the government “wastes more billions on submarines we will never see … [in] a deal that ties us to America’s military aggression against China.”

How does the Aukus deal currently work?​

Under pillar one of the agreement, signed in 2021, the US will sell Australia between three and five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, with the first to be delivered in 2032. These will replace Australia’s ageing Collins class diesel-electric submarines before Australia’s own Aukus nuclear-powered submarines can be built.

By the “late 2030s”, according to Australia’s submarine industry strategy, UK shipbuilders will deliver the first specifically designed and built Aukus submarine to its own Royal Navy.

Australia’s first Aukus submarine – based on the UK design but to be built in South Australia – will be in the water “in the early 2040s”.

Aukus is forecast to cost Australia up to $368bn to the mid-2050s.

Australia is providing significant subsidies to the industrial bases of both the US and UK. It has already paid $A798m – the first instalment of $A4.7bn pledged – to the US. It will pay A$4.6bn to the UK.

But the deal’s feasibility has come under significant pressure regarding both nuclear-capable senior partners.

In the US there are consistent concerns that America’s sclerotic shipbuilding industry is incapable of building enough submarines for its own defences.

Legally, the US can only sell the boats if the commander-in-chief – whoever is then US president – certifies that America relinquishing a submarine will not diminish its own undersea capability.

The US navy already has a shortfall of submarines, expected to worsen over coming years, and shipyards in America are running up to three years late in building new Virginia-class submarines, a 2024 US navy report found.

Trump pick for Pentagon says selling submarines to Australia would be ‘crazy’ if Taiwan tensions flare​

Colby, who is leading the US Aukus review, has repeatedly said he is “very sceptical” about the pact and its benefits for the US.

He told the US Senate armed service committee that the US was not building enough submarines for its own defence, and would not sell submarines to Australia if that might jeopardise American interests.

“We don’t want our servicemen and women to be in a weaker position and more vulnerable… because [the attack submarines] are not in the right place at the right time.”

The UK parliament announced its own inquiry into Aukus in April, which will examine whether “geopolitical shifts since the initial agreement in 2021” have rendered the agreement unworkable.

In January, the UK government’s own major projects agency described the UK’s plan to build the nuclear reactor cores needed to power Australia’s Aukus submarines as “unachievable”.

 

[randomradio]

UK defence review says Aukus is on schedule but fears remain over possible capability gap for Australia​

Starmer government’s own major projects agency says plan to power subs is ‘unachievable’

The UK government has declared it will put the first of 12 Aukus-class submarines in the water on schedule in the late 2030s, despite its own major projects agency saying the plan to build the nuclear reactor cores needed to power the submarines is “unachievable”.

The prime minister, Keir Starmer, has released Britain’s Strategic Defence Review, which argues the Aukus submarines are critical for the UK’s defence, and declaring a landmark shift in Britain’s deterrence and defence “moving to war fighting readiness to deter threats”.


The UK’s capacity to design and build the first Aukus submarine on time and on budget is critical for Australia. The first Australian-built Aukus nuclear submarine – based on the UK design – will subsequently be built in Adelaide and is expected to be delivered in the early 2040s.

Any delay or cost overrun in the UK program could leave Australia with a capability gap of no submarines, with the ageing Collins-class submarines already extended potentially decades beyond their scheduled service life, and doubts over the supply of US-built Virginia-class boats.
Australia should persist with Aukus despite risk of US relationship ‘becoming unstuck’, former defence department secretary says
The Strategic Defence Review says the first of up to 12 British Aukus conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines will be in the water and operational “in the late 2030s” – the “optimal pathway” timeline previously announced as part of the Aukus agreement.

“With new state-of-the-art submarines patrolling international waters and our own nuclear warhead programme on British shores, we are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad,” the UK defence secretary, John Healey, said.

But the UK government’s own major projects agency has described the UK’s plan to build the nuclear reactor cores needed to power the Aukus submarines as “unachievable”.

In its latest annual report, released in January this year, the Infrastructure and Major Projects Authority (now the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority), gave the nuclear reactor core project its lowest evaluation.

“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable,” the report said.

“There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.”

Under “Pillar One” of the ambitious – and controversial – Aukus agreement, the US will sell between three and five of its Virginia-Class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, the first of these in 2032.

However, legally, the US can only sell the boats if the then commander-in-chief – the US president – certifies that America relinquishing a submarine will not diminish its own undersea capability.

The US navy already has a shortfall of submarines, expected to worsen over coming years, and shipyards in America are running up to three years late in building new Virginia-class submarines, a US navy report found.

A recent US Congressional Budget Office report found America’s submarine industry is building 1.2 Virginia-class boat a year – well below the 2.3 needed for the US to meet its own needs and fulfil its commitment to Australia.

Aukus is forecast to cost Australia up to $368bn to the mid-2050s.

Australia is providing significant subsidies to the industrial bases of both the US and UK. It has already paid $A798m – the first instalment of $A4.7bn pledged – to the US. It will pay A$4.6bn to the UK.

The former South Australian senator Rex Patrick, an ex-submariner and Aukus skeptic, described the UK’s shipbuilding program as a “cluster-fiasco industry” trying to put “unachievable reactors into unachievable submarines”.

“We get announcements from places like Westminster, or Canberra, or Congress, saying ‘this is what we’re doing’. But unfortunately, the politicians who are making those calls simply don’t understand the complexity and difficulties of achieving what it is that they’re setting out.”

The US and UK, Patrick said, were “embracing Aukus at a political level, but unable to achieve it at a working level”. Patrick said it was highly unlikely the US could sell Virginia-class submarines to Australia early next decade.

And the implications for Australia were acute, Patrick said.

“We should have a plan B, but the current plan B is we will have no submarines. That is very disturbing, from the point-of-view of the taxpayer … forking out billions of dollars for a program that is likely not going to deliver, and from a national security perspective, where there’s a massive hole in the defence of Australia.”

Patrick said Aukus was diverting resources from other defence capabilities.

“It might be that we end up with no submarines and no other capabilities. And none of the people who are responsible for this program will be in the parliament when the whole thing runs aground.”
An alternative to Aukus: why a strategic defensive approach best suits Australia | Albert Palazzo
Australia’s defence minister, Richard Marles, told reporters at the Shangri-La Dialogue – an inter-governmental security conference – in Singapore at the weekend that Aukus was “on track”.

“We are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it. We are very optimistic about how it is progressing in the here and now.”

Males said Australia was seeing more visits from US nuclear-powered submarines to Australian bases, and was working on increasing the production and sustainment rates of Virginia-class submarines in the US, through financial contributions and having Australians working in US docks.

“We walk forward with a sense of confidence about the way in which Aukus is proceeding,” he said.

The US has no choice but to ramp up SSN production. Russia and China are doing that already.

Anyway, in the report, it says AUKUS is Amber (success is feasible) while the production is Red (unachievable). So the conclusion is quite off-base.

 

[Optimist]

The new current AU gov did a review, The new current UK gov did a review, The new current US gov are doing a review

Let me know when they cancel the programme, until then it's clickbait on normal proceedure

Also it would be in AU sustainment interests to have just one class of submarine, The UK/AU sub
we are actually doing the US a favour, to have sustainment, personel and infrastructures to support the Virginia, So the US can work out of AU

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

US President Donald Trump leaves G7 Summit early, snubbing meeting with Anthony Albanese​

Donald Trump has angrily but vaguely addressed his departure from the G7 summit, where he left Anthony Albanese and other world leaders high and dry.

An irate Donald Trump says his decision to leave the G7 meeting in Canada, and thus snubbing Australia, has “nothing to do” with Middle East peace talks.
His departure from the summit has torpedoed the first face-to-face meeting with Anthony Albanese and other planned conferences with other world leaders.

In a furious response posted on Truth Social a short time ago, Mr Trump aimed at France’s leader, Emmanuel Macron, stating he was “wrong” in how he described the exit.

“Publicity seeking President Emmanuel Macron, of France, mistakenly said that I left the G7 Summit, in Canada, to go back to D.C. to work on a ‘cease fire’ between Israel and Iran,” Mr Trump wrote.

“Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that. Whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong. Stay Tuned!”

His post, however, is somewhat at odds with the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who declared that the US President would depart Calgary on Monday evening, local time, after meeting only the G7 leaders and no other nation’s, including Australia.

“President Trump had a great day at the G7, even signing a major trade deal with the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Keir Starmer,” she wrote on X about the summit being held in Kananaskis, west of Calgary.

“Much was accomplished, but because of what’s going on in the Middle East, President Trump will be leaving tonight after dinner with Heads of State.”

As well as Mr Albanese, Mr Trump will also miss meetings with a number of other world leaders.

Shortly before the announcement, Mr Trump warned 10 million Iranians to evacuate Tehran “immediately” as a second US aircraft carrier made its way to the Middle East and there were reports he had asked his National Security Council to convene.

Extraordinarily, Ms Leavitt’s post came near the end of a press conference in Calgary by Mr Albanese talking up the meeting and his main aims for it, including tariffs and AUKUS.

“I look forward to the meeting, I look forward to it taking place,” the PM said when asked if he was worried he might not get his “full timeslot” with Mr Trump.

It suggests the US had not informed Australia of the early departure.

Mr Albanese had just revealed he had enlisted the help of Aussie golfer and confidant of Mr Trump Greg Norman to help him navigate the planned pow wow.

‘Understandable’: PM’s office

While the White House cited the Middle East crisis as the primary reason for bailing, Mr Trump is not leaving immediately and will stick around long enough for dinner with other leaders and the so-called “family photo”.

Mr Albanese hosed down suggestions Mr Trump’s early departure was a snub.

“Given what is occurring in the Middle East this is understandable,” a spokesman for Mr Albanese told news.com.au.

“As the Prime Minister said a short time ago, we are very concerned about the events in the Middle East and continue to urge all parties to prioritise dialogue and diplomacy.”

It’s understood the meeting will not be rescheduled before Mr Trump departs on Monday.

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said Australia was “confident” about its US relationship despite the lack of a meet up.

“This is essentially the American president needing to deal with what is obviously playing out in the world today,” he said.

“We feel very confident about where the relationship is going with the Trump administration.

“We understand the circumstances of this moment, and I’m sure that in the not too distant future, you’ll see a meeting between the two leaders,” he said.

Albanese will stay at G7, meet major leaders

The Group of Seven consists of democratic advanced economies. Along with this year’s hosts Canada, the G7 is made up of the US, UK, Japan, Italy, France and Germany.

The G7 will continue with Mr Albanese in attendance. Despite Mr Trump’s last minute cancellation, the Labor leader will still hold talks on Tuesday with the leaders of the UK, France, Germany and Japan as well as the EU.

It’s not just Australia which will miss out on Trump face time. He was also set to meet the leaders of Mexico, Korea and India. Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky will be bitterly disappointed he will also not get to meet with Mr Trump.

’Have to be back as soon as I can’

During the family photo, Mr Trump was asked about his unexpected departure.

“I have to be back as soon as I can,” he said.

“You probably see what I see and I have to be back as soon as I can”

Canada’s PM Mark Carney, said he “fully understands why” the US president had to leave.

Mr Trump’s departure will mean he will not have to wrestle for any longer at the G7 on difficult issues such as the world economy under his policies and Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Mr Trump has asked his National Security Council to form and be ready for his arrival back in Washington DC. That’s led to speculation that the US could become directly involved in the Iran-Israel conflict.

However, on Monday evening, US time, the country’s defence secretary Pete Hegseth insisted America’s intentions remained “postured defensively in the region to be strong in pursuit of a peace deal”.

At the G7, French President Emmanuel Macron said that Mr Trump had made an offer for a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

“An offer was made especially to get a ceasefire and to then kickstart broader discussions,” he told reporters.

“We have to see now whether the sides will follow.”


Trump’s form at the G7 summit

It’s not the first time Mr Trump has thrown G7 summit plans into chaos.

In 2016, the forum ended in acrimony with the US President refusing to sign up to the joint communique.

Albo’s plans before cancellation

Before the meeting’s axing, Mr Albanese said he wanted to talk about tariffs and the AUKUS submarine deal.

“A successful meeting is one where I am able to put forward our position,” he said to news.com.au.

“We see tariffs as acts of economic self-harm by the country imposing them” said Mr Albanese, referring to the US.

“I would hope that over a period of time the United States revisits that position”.

AUKUS could be choppy waters with the US announcing a review of the three-way submarine pact with Australia and the UK.

Prior to the meeting with Mr Trump being scrapped – Mr Albanese said he would be stressing the importance of the AUKUS deal for the US to project power against China.

“AUKUS is very much in the interests of all three (nations),” he said.

However, Mr Trump did appear to indicate his support for AUKUS at the G7.

Answering a question on the defence pact on Tuesday, the UK’s Mr Starmer said AUKUS was “really important” to both the US and the UK.

“Yep, we’re proceeding with that,” he said.

“I think the person that is doing a review – we did a review when we came into government, so that makes good sense to me. But it’s a really important deal.”

Mr Trump said: “We’re very long-time partners and allies and friends, and we’ve become friends in a short period of time”.

“He’s slightly more liberal than I am, but for some reason we get along.”

 

[Optimist]

“President Trump has left the G7 Summit, a day before the G7 outreach with eight other countries that includes India begins."​