The AUKUS Review announced June 11, 2025 is likely to produce an ambiguous finding leaning on Australia to increase its non-refundable AUKUS payments (currently A$5 Billion) to the US. The 30 day Review is being led by AUKUS Virginia sceptic US Defense Under Secretary for Policy Elbridge Colby.
The overall America First objective of the Review
is to force Australia to pay more to America's military-industrial-political
complex. A secondary objective is to force an agreement (overt or secret) out
of Australia to make available any AUKUS Virginias for US objectives, like defending
Taiwan.
America is pressuring Australia to raise our
Defense Budget up from 2% to 3.5% GDP to pay more for AUKUS, more for other US
built weapons, and more for Australian weapons built under expensive US licenses.
After all this the US Navy has a long-term unfixable Virginia-class submarine shortage - meaning Australia is highly unlikely to ever receive Virginias.
See Submarine Matters' March 10, 2025 article with references to Colby’s opposition to Virginias for Australia under AUKUS.
The Trump Administration's review of Biden's AUKUS initiative also features in a useful Australian SkyNews article of June 12, 2025.
Also interesting is the broader alliance damage commentary here and below by the UK's Mallen Baker, uploaded June 13, 2025.
6 comments:
Hey Pete,
Trump is in a big rush to implement his grand Make America Great Again plan, and he does not care an iota about who he steps on, even foreign leaders who don’t bow to him (and we all know how firmly his tongue is stuck up Putin’s arse).
As you predicted, AUKUS is now being reviewed (Trump will want to change it to USUKA) but none of us believed Australia would get Virginias in the first place, no matter the $5 billion that Australia has already invested.
Best likely outcome is 30 year old Block 1 boats ‘loaned’ to the RAN for the last 5 years of their service life.
Trump is also cancelling the E-7 Wedgetail program for an unknown space based system. This will mean that there will be no AWACs in USAF service.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/u-s-to-cancel-e-7-wedgetail-in-favour-of-space-systems/
Hi Shawn at 6/12/2025 5:34 PM
Unfortunately I concur.
From the day AUKUS was announced in 2021 US Virginia production has fallen far short of USN needs and US SSN overhaul and repair rates have been too slow to meet availability targets.
Australia's A$5 Billion donation to the US is unfortunately just part of massive Australian costs. We are spending something like A$2 Billion a year upgrading Fleet Base West for US and UK SSNs and upgrading SSN overhaul and production facilities at Osborne, South Australia.
Trump "cancelling the E-7 Wedgetail program for an unknown space based system" sounds like he and Hegseth have discovered satellite technology (no substitute for E-7s and high altitude RQ-4 Global Hawks).
Unfortunately weaponizing satellites to shoot down missiles was projected too expensive and ineffective for Reagan's "Star Wars" program. Some nuclear tipped missiles would always get through. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#Controversy_and_criticism
Also Russia is developing 2+ Megaton yield nuclear armed UUVs which satellites can't touch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System . China could easily develop its own.
On that cheery note.
Pete
I reckon some level of AUKUS technology/intelligence sharing has already taken place, likely over the nuclear tea-kettle, and Australia will need to pivot more towards the UK for SSNs.
The RN already has issues manning and maintaining 5 Astute SSNs, nevermind 7 boats, but this could benefit the RAN
Perhaps by 2030 two Astutes could be based at Garden Island for Indo-Pacific patrols and manned with mostly RAN crews, with drydocking at ASC for normal non-nuclear MRO.
Status-6 is the ultimate doomsday weapon/toy for dictators, which is why the North Koreans have shown they have a version.
Defensenews has mentioned that the use of space-based Moving Target Indication is still a research project, so there's zero indication of when such a system will be implemented.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/06/10/hegseth-questions-air-force-plan-to-buy-e-7-touts-space-based-recon/
Hi Shawn at 6/12/2025 9:24 PM
Yes US reactor secrets have been passed to Australia under a secretive Treaty signed by Australia on November 22, 2021 https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/01/parliamentary-committee-gave-only-5.html . Also RAN nuclear engineers have been training on US submarine reactors for years.
Biden's Virginia offer was in part to sell some SSNs to Australia while UK SSN-AUKUSes will be unavailable to Australia until the 2040s.
Only 2 Astutes are operational at any one time - heavily committed to UK RN tasks in the Atlantic-Arctic oceans and Middle East. The latter tasking may permit visits to Fleet Base West 2 x 7 days per year. Ongoing technical faults have recently seen all Astutes in UK dockyards simultaneously. Astute availability is even a greater problem than Virginia availability.
Probably the US has its own Status-6 equivalent (a nuclear propelled Orca UUV?) being developed very quietly.
Thanks for https://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/06/10/hegseth-questions-air-force-plan-to-buy-e-7-touts-space-based-recon/
Just as the US rejected the successful Airbus aerial refueler aircraft (in favour of the still unsuccessful Boing) rightwing activist Hegseth appears suspicious of the successful E-7, partly given heavy development by US vassal state Australia.
Cheers Pete
Re the E7. US couldn’t help itself but to gold plate its version of the E7. It should have gone with the UK version & worried about upgrades later. UK version is basically RAAF & already planned upgrades.
Virginia was always problematic. The AUKUS submarine itself is now immune. UK needed US permission to export nuclear IP to Australia for AUKUS, as its own reactors had US IP imbedded in it. From my point of view, permission has already been given. While US cooperation would be advantageous, an AUK submarine is possible now without the US part. Trump may disagree, but Biden agreed. Deal done. (Something Turnbull reminded Trump 1 of - are you telling me the word of the US president means nothing?).
If Virginia’s don’t appear, the plan B should be a class of 3 x SAAB/DAMEN/ASC submarines (ASC was involved with SAAB in the recent Dutch competition). Unfortunately for the Dutch, they went with Naval Group. I am certain a decision they will regret.
Australia may need to consider taking the lead on a AUK build, as UK is still building Dreadnaught for quite some time yet. A stretch - sure, but non out there options are not going to cut it while ever “Executive Order” Trump or his successor is in charge).
Hi Anonymous at 6/16/2025 10:51 PM
Your E7 aircraft comments are interesting. Maybe part of it is the US objecting to paying Australia for some Australian developed IP.
All Plan B's like a Saab submarine face the Build-In-Australia curse - a 15+ year build at 3 times the price of foreign built. This means Build-In-Australia SSK delivery would be well into the 2040s.
Australia, having never built a nuclear sub "taking the lead"? The likely 10,000 tonne SSN-AUKUS design would be too large to manoeuvre in northern Australia waters.
Pete
Post a Comment