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

Amarante said:
that's it. that's what i wrote.
For my part, i'm voting for HMAS Stirling becoming a facility for US and UK subs.
www.afr.com

Australia to become major hub for US submarines

Hundreds of Australian companies are likely to be bought into the supply chain to help service US submarines, if they meet exacting standards.
www.afr.com www.afr.com
Click to expand...
Paywall .

Servicing N powered submarines is way different from construction of these items.
 
Optimist said:
If the rumours are right. We will joint crew existing US and UK subs, based in Australia. It will be a new UK-AU-US model. A joint supply chain.
No Astute or Virginia, but a new design
Click to expand...

That's concerning long term production with delivery aimed at the mid-40s. We were talking about the stopgap measures that can take a few years (LA class) to a decade (Astute class), so Australia gets SSNs ASAP.
 
randomradio said:
That's concerning long term production with delivery aimed at the mid-40s. We were talking about the stopgap measures that can take a few years (LA class) to a decade (Astute class), so Australia gets SSNs ASAP.
Click to expand...
I really don't know, what they are going to do. The security has been very tight. There are only snippets from the 3 leaders. The original plan was to have french sub 2037- 2040. these programs always slip. So it mightn't be much later.

This is interesting.
 
Optimist said:
I really don't know, what they are going to do. The security has been very tight. There are only snippets from the 3 leaders. The original plan was to have french sub 2037- 2040. these programs always slip. So it mightn't be much later.

This is interesting.
Click to expand...

Gotta wait for the final deal.

The US has denied India's addition to AUKUS. We won't be interested anyways, 'cause we consider ourselves our own side.
 
randomradio said:
Gotta wait for the final deal.

The US has denied India's addition to AUKUS. We won't be interested anyways, 'cause we consider ourselves our own side.
Click to expand...
That shows Sunak's inexperience. You would have thought that it had tentative approval, before he said anything.

​

 
Optimist said:
That shows Sunak's inexperience. You would have thought that it had tentative approval, before he said anything.

​

Click to expand...

It's his attempt to test the waters. The UK would like India entering the alliance so the US isn't the one calling all the shots. It's pretty much the same reason why Russia brought India into the SCO, against China. Within AUKUS, both Australia and UK will get strung along by the US on a whim.

It's this thing I talk about when I say the US is the only sovereign country in the world. The next closest countries are Russia, China and India. All others are just ping-pong balls that get bounced around by the main powers. France aspires to be sovereign, but they don't have the clout. Post 366 is an example of that. The UK and Saudis are also in the same boat.

Sunak has a lot of integrity, it's a very rare quality in politicians, hence his attempt to fight back in his own way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ironhide
Optimist said:
I really don't know, what they are going to do. The security has been very tight. There are only snippets from the 3 leaders. The original plan was to have french sub 2037- 2040. these programs always slip. So it mightn't be much later.

This is interesting.
Click to expand...
UK could always invite France to join AUCKUS, then we'd have FAUKUS. I quite like the acronym. It has a rather nice ring to it. Any resemblance to obscenities is totally unintentional.

Canada, France Should Join AUKUS Style Tech Agreement with U.S., Senator Says - USNI News

As far as India's participation goes, Abe in his just released posthumous memoirs wrote that Modi consented to become part of the Quad only because Japan was present & took the lead in invited India. Had it been a case of only US & Australia, Modi'd refuse to join. Says a lot of how trustworthy you guys are considered out here . Tell me what Modi'd say to Sunak now?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1625096307106013184
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Bali78, Ironhide and Herciv
Perhaps China, Russia and India will form one called 'CRI.' They're good at that.
 
“(…) To sum up AUKUS and the submarine part of AUKUS, it’s just been a story of one barrier after another that were completely predictable. If they had talked to anybody over in submarine land in the United States, they could have said, ‘Well, here’s the paths that are available to you, they’re all going to have problems — big problems, like big enough problems where it might preclude you from actually doing this”
Bryan Clark, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute

​
(nationaldefense is US National Defense Industrial Association’ s magazine)
These 2 papers, dated february2023, explain the difficulties that US shipyards (whose production lines are exclusively dedicated to the Virginia and Columbia) or UK shipyards (busy building the Dreadnought class reactors, the successor to the Vanguard) will have in building submarines for Australia.

Why AUKUS Is Unlikely to Deliver Nuclear Subs Anytime Soon

Why AUKUS Is Unlikely to Deliver Nuclear Subs Anytime Soon
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

SPECIAL REPORT: Sub Deal Poses Questions About Shipyard Capacity

SPECIAL REPORT: Sub Deal Poses Questions About Shipyard Capacity
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

“(…) the only viable option might be a compromise: forward deploying U.S. submarines in Australia and dual crewing the boats. That would let us train Royal Australian Navy crews while adding allied undersea capability (…) For example, the United States could relocate submarine tenders currently based in Guam to western Australia and then deploy attack submarines there. That could begin a process of building crew capabilities and a maintenance infrastructure in Australia. “So, it’s like the first baby steps to establish a nuclear submarine capability in Australia by putting U.S. submarines there, and then the British could do the same (…)”
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Herciv
(breakingdefense, mar.03)

Eye on AUKUS, Aussie defense minister pushes US on ITAR – gently​

Australian Defense Minister Marles said "we really do need to be trying to build a seamless industrial base between the United States" and Australia.​
​
AVALON AIR SHOW — As a sign of growing pressure to ease US arms export restrictions ahead of the looming AUKUS sub announcement, the Australian defense minister this week pointed to the elephant in the room: export restrictions known as ITAR.​
​
The challenge ITAR may pose to AUKUS is hardly a new issue. But it is rare for any Australian defense official to push, even gently, at the US over the issue, meaning Marles’ admittedly gentle finger-pointing was notable.​
​
Minister Richard Marles mentioned the issue to reporters here in a brief press appearance in relation to the advanced technology efforts of AUKUS, such as quantum, hypersonic and cyber. They are known collectively as “Pillar Two” of the agreement, which is best known for its plans to deliver a nuclear submarine to the Lucky Country. In particular, Australia hopes as part of its “sovereignty” push to build up munitions and parts stockpiles to manufacture more ordnance here. That’s what Marles focused on in his brief remarks.​
​
“We are working with the US under the GWEO (Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance) enterprise to see more explosive ordnance manufactured in Australia. This is certainly a desire of the Australian government and it’s a desire of the American government as well, because being able to have that capability in Australia builds the net industrial base of both countries,” he said.​
​
“But what’s really clear is that if we are going to maximize the ambition or realize the ambition of Pillar Two of AUKUS we really do need to be trying to build a seamless industrial base between the United States, indeed the UK, and Canada which has a more seamless industrial base with America.”​
​
Australia legally has been part of the US defense industrial base for years, but Australian officials have said publicly that the integration of the two countries’ bases has a long way to go. The US and Canada have functioned for many decades as a single industrial base.​
​
Marles said he thought there was “a very significant commitment at the highest policy level to achieve that outcome,” but indicated that, so far at least, that commitment has yet to result in real world movement.​
​
Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., vice chair of the AUKUS Caucus in the Congress, has called for significant changes to the ITAR regime to help Australia both with the sharing of submarine technologies and more broadly.​
​
Courtney said Congress may need to pass “a simple circuit breaker that just says none of these laws shall apply to Australia, notwithstanding any existing language.” But as he and others have said, ITAR is part of a broad web of legal and policy restrictions so the White House, Pentagon, State Department and Intelligence Community all need to act.​
​
The US Embassy in Canberra did not respond to a request for comment. /end​
 
Amarante said:
Australia legally has been part of the US defense industrial base for years,
Click to expand...
In 2007, the Australian and the United States Governments signed the Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning Defense Trade Cooperation (the Treaty). The Treaty is intended to improve the efficiency of eligible two-way transfers between Australia and the US by facilitating the export of controlled goods within an Approved Community without the need for an export licence. The Treaty came into force on 16 May 2013.

ITAR is just a nuke headline and a box that needs ticking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom