AUKUS
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.politico.eu/article/auku...-defense-pact/
Pacific defense pact before election turmoil
Japan and Canada could join AUKUS before the end of 2024.
LONDON — The U.K., U.S. and Australia are rushing to expand their trilateral AUKUS defense partnership to further allied nations before potentially tumultuous elections in all three countries over the next 14 months.
One senior diplomat involved in the talks told POLITICO that Japan and Canada are in line to join the so-called pillar 2 section of the AUKUS agreement, which will see participants sign up to extensive military technology collaboration, by the end of 2024 or early 2025.
It comes amid fears in Washington, London and Canberra that Donald Trump could wind back or scrap the AUKUS deal if he wins the November presidential election.
The AUKUS security agreement was first announced in September 2021. Its first part, pillar 1 involves the U.S. and U.K. helping Australia build nuclear-powered submarines.
Pillar 2 of the agreement allows the three nations to agree on deals to develop advanced military technology in areas such as artificial intelligence, hypersonic missiles and quantum technologies.
It was always envisioned that pillar 2 could be expanded to further U.S. allies, with Japan, Canada, New Zealand and South Korea among those expressing interest in joining.
A second diplomat involved in the talks said U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration was now “pushing really hard to get some things on AUKUS pillar 2 done now, before the U.S. election” in November, which may see Trump retake the White House.
A White House official told POLITICO that "the president and his partners have been clear that as our work progresses on pillar 2 we would look for opportunities to engage other allies and close partners."
While he has yet to speak in public about the AUKUS deal, Trump has doubled-down on his America First rhetoric during the campaign and may adopt a more isolationist foreign policy position.
The U.K. is due to hold its own general election before the end of this year, while Australia is set to go to the polls by May 2025.
The first diplomat quoted in this piece said the return of “American isolationism is a risk to the Indo-Pacific” and that there will be a moment, if Trump wins, where Western leaders will phone each other up and ask: “What the **** are we going to do now?”
That means, they suggested, rushing to sign new partners up to AUKUS now while the White House is still occupied by an administration that favors the pact.
“If pillar 2 fails then AUKUS fails, because we could have just had a submarine deal — albeit a very big submarine deal,” they said.……
U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron and U.K. Defense Secretary Grant Shapps travel to Australia this week to hold meetings with their Australian counterparts.
The pair will also meet with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who is expected to provide a public update on the core submarine project amid fears in Canberra that America's decision to scale down submarine production could put the AUKUS deal in jeopardy.
Messmer warned that a second Trump presidency is a “big risk” to the future of the entire AUKUS deal, as the U.S. has to loan Australia several submarines as a part of the deal while new ones are being built.
“If Trump is unwilling to deliver because they don’t want to spare the subs or don’t want to anger China that could definitely jeopardise the Aukus agreement,” she said.
“That prospect is frightening officials in Australia now.”…..
Pacific defense pact before election turmoil
Japan and Canada could join AUKUS before the end of 2024.
LONDON — The U.K., U.S. and Australia are rushing to expand their trilateral AUKUS defense partnership to further allied nations before potentially tumultuous elections in all three countries over the next 14 months.
One senior diplomat involved in the talks told POLITICO that Japan and Canada are in line to join the so-called pillar 2 section of the AUKUS agreement, which will see participants sign up to extensive military technology collaboration, by the end of 2024 or early 2025.
It comes amid fears in Washington, London and Canberra that Donald Trump could wind back or scrap the AUKUS deal if he wins the November presidential election.
The AUKUS security agreement was first announced in September 2021. Its first part, pillar 1 involves the U.S. and U.K. helping Australia build nuclear-powered submarines.
Pillar 2 of the agreement allows the three nations to agree on deals to develop advanced military technology in areas such as artificial intelligence, hypersonic missiles and quantum technologies.
It was always envisioned that pillar 2 could be expanded to further U.S. allies, with Japan, Canada, New Zealand and South Korea among those expressing interest in joining.
A second diplomat involved in the talks said U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration was now “pushing really hard to get some things on AUKUS pillar 2 done now, before the U.S. election” in November, which may see Trump retake the White House.
A White House official told POLITICO that "the president and his partners have been clear that as our work progresses on pillar 2 we would look for opportunities to engage other allies and close partners."
While he has yet to speak in public about the AUKUS deal, Trump has doubled-down on his America First rhetoric during the campaign and may adopt a more isolationist foreign policy position.
The U.K. is due to hold its own general election before the end of this year, while Australia is set to go to the polls by May 2025.
The first diplomat quoted in this piece said the return of “American isolationism is a risk to the Indo-Pacific” and that there will be a moment, if Trump wins, where Western leaders will phone each other up and ask: “What the **** are we going to do now?”
That means, they suggested, rushing to sign new partners up to AUKUS now while the White House is still occupied by an administration that favors the pact.
“If pillar 2 fails then AUKUS fails, because we could have just had a submarine deal — albeit a very big submarine deal,” they said.……
U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron and U.K. Defense Secretary Grant Shapps travel to Australia this week to hold meetings with their Australian counterparts.
The pair will also meet with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who is expected to provide a public update on the core submarine project amid fears in Canberra that America's decision to scale down submarine production could put the AUKUS deal in jeopardy.
Messmer warned that a second Trump presidency is a “big risk” to the future of the entire AUKUS deal, as the U.S. has to loan Australia several submarines as a part of the deal while new ones are being built.
“If Trump is unwilling to deliver because they don’t want to spare the subs or don’t want to anger China that could definitely jeopardise the Aukus agreement,” she said.
“That prospect is frightening officials in Australia now.”…..
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Def...S.-funding-cut
Australia sure it will get nuclear subs despite U.S. funding cut
Australia sure it will get nuclear subs despite U.S. funding cut
"Messmer warned that a second Trump presidency is a “big risk” to the future of the entire AUKUS deal, as the U.S. has to loan Australia several submarines as a part of the deal while new ones are being built."
Nothing is right in this paragraph. It's bipartisan, corporates want it. Trump will do as he's told to at the end of the day. Worst case, he is out in 2028, still got time for early 2030's delivery. They aren't loaning subs. We are buying 2 secondhand with 20 years left on them. The new build is 1 with an option for 2 more.
Also the main sub isn't the US, but UK/AU
Australia moves to prop up Aukus with $4.6bn pledge to help clear Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor bottlenecks in UK | Aukus | The GuardianThe Australian government will seek to prop up the Aukus pact by sending A$4.6bn (£2.4bn) to the UK to clear bottlenecks at the Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor production line.
The funding – revealed on the eve of high-level talks between the Australian and UK governments on Friday – is in addition to billions of dollars that will be sent to the US to smooth over production delays there.
The Australian government will also announce on Friday that the government-owned shipbuilder ASC and the British defence firm BAE Systems will jointly build the nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy.
Nothing is right in this paragraph. It's bipartisan, corporates want it. Trump will do as he's told to at the end of the day. Worst case, he is out in 2028, still got time for early 2030's delivery. They aren't loaning subs. We are buying 2 secondhand with 20 years left on them. The new build is 1 with an option for 2 more.
Also the main sub isn't the US, but UK/AU
Australia moves to prop up Aukus with $4.6bn pledge to help clear Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor bottlenecks in UK | Aukus | The GuardianThe Australian government will seek to prop up the Aukus pact by sending A$4.6bn (£2.4bn) to the UK to clear bottlenecks at the Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor production line.
The funding – revealed on the eve of high-level talks between the Australian and UK governments on Friday – is in addition to billions of dollars that will be sent to the US to smooth over production delays there.
The Australian government will also announce on Friday that the government-owned shipbuilder ASC and the British defence firm BAE Systems will jointly build the nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy.
Last edited by golder; 21st Mar 2024 at 13:21.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Def...S.-funding-cut
Australia sure it will get nuclear subs despite U.S. funding cut
Australia sure it will get nuclear subs despite U.S. funding cut
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
What funding cut?
Being spun as reducing the pressure on present production to allow increased cash and manpower to improve the manufacturing base to support a later increase to 2 subs a year.
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine....budget-request
Fact remains that, at the point the planned handover of subs to Australia is due to take place the fleet will be 46 out of a planned/required 66.
Not saying it won’t take place - but it’s politics and could come under pressure in Congress. Sale is on the proviso that:
Not less than 270 days prior to the transfer of a vessel authorized under subsection (a), the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership a certification that—
(A)(i) the transfer of such vessels will not impact United States undersea operational requirements….
(B) the United States has the industrial capacity to meet and maintain the submarine production requirements needed to meet both the need for Virginia class and Columbia class submarines…
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-...act+2024%22%7D
Last edited by ORAC; 21st Mar 2024 at 14:44.
Yeah not really a funding cut, what has happened previously including 2022 and 2023 is the navy cuts the sub purchase. Congress after much hand wringing give them an additional budget to get the submarine, the target number is actually 3, 2 virginia per year and 1 Columbia every 18 months + catching up delayed maintainence
Yeah not really a funding cut, what has happened previously including 2022 and 2023 is the navy cuts the sub purchase. Congress after much hand wringing give them an additional budget to get the submarine, the target number is actually 3, 2 virginia per year and 1 Columbia every 18 months + catching up delayed maintainence
Last edited by golder; 21st Mar 2024 at 22:02.
Since British Aerospace has grown massively and now encompasses a lot of non aerospace work, they prefer to be known as BAE Systems - similar to how BOC Gases wants everyone to forget that they were originally British Oxygen Company.
Apart from that bit of trivia, it would be good to know the technicalities of how the Australian taxpayer money is appropriated & accounted for. Some reports are that the RR facility that assembles the nuclear reactors will be jointly owned by the British & Australian governments so that is a tangible asset but with a limited customer base, I can’t see the market growing.
Apart from that bit of trivia, it would be good to know the technicalities of how the Australian taxpayer money is appropriated & accounted for. Some reports are that the RR facility that assembles the nuclear reactors will be jointly owned by the British & Australian governments so that is a tangible asset but with a limited customer base, I can’t see the market growing.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/au...e-they-allies/
Australia and Britain deepen defence cooperation, but are they allies?
Australia and Britain have concluded a new treaty-level Defence and Security Cooperation Agreement (DSCA). To what extent does this move the dial of their close defence relationship towards a formal alliance? This question matters because the informal, customary nature of the Australia-UK relationship may no longer be appropriate for the strategic tests that lie ahead.
The answer is that they’ve moved significantly closer to becoming de facto allies, with commitments that approach, though do not quite reach, the level of Australia’s alliance with the US, ANZUS. Also, Anglo-Australian military cooperation is intensifying…..
The UK is more strategically aligned with Australia now than at any time since the early 1960s or even earlier. Their shared path might never take the form of a de jure alliance, but, as last week’s developments demonstrate, they are well on track to becoming de facto allies.
Australia and Britain deepen defence cooperation, but are they allies?
Australia and Britain have concluded a new treaty-level Defence and Security Cooperation Agreement (DSCA). To what extent does this move the dial of their close defence relationship towards a formal alliance? This question matters because the informal, customary nature of the Australia-UK relationship may no longer be appropriate for the strategic tests that lie ahead.
The answer is that they’ve moved significantly closer to becoming de facto allies, with commitments that approach, though do not quite reach, the level of Australia’s alliance with the US, ANZUS. Also, Anglo-Australian military cooperation is intensifying…..
The UK is more strategically aligned with Australia now than at any time since the early 1960s or even earlier. Their shared path might never take the form of a de jure alliance, but, as last week’s developments demonstrate, they are well on track to becoming de facto allies.
I don't think we need a de-jure alliance with Australia
AFAIK OZ and the UK do have a common defence treaty. In that the treaty that underlay SEATO, the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, is (IIRC) still in force for those countries that didn't formally withdraw or cease to exist (Pakistan and South Vietnam). Its affects in relation to the PRC depend on whether the signatories consider the CCP is actually Communist
.
The USA has a particular interpretation of IV.1
The treaty area's northern limit is just south of Taiwan & Hong Kong so way south of Japan.
.
Article IV
1. Each Party recognizes that aggression by means of armed attack treaty area against any of the Parties or against any State or territory which Parties by unanimous agreement may hereafter designate, would endanger own peace and safety, and agrees that it will in that event act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. Measures taken this paragraph shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of United Nations.
2. If, in the opinion of any of the Parties, the inviolability or the integrity the territory or the sovereignty or political independence of any Party in treaty area or of any other State or territory to which the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article from time to time apply is threatened in any way other than armed attack or is affected or threatened by any fact or situation which endanger the peace of the area, the Parties shall consult immediately in order agree on the measures which should be taken for the common defense.
1. Each Party recognizes that aggression by means of armed attack treaty area against any of the Parties or against any State or territory which Parties by unanimous agreement may hereafter designate, would endanger own peace and safety, and agrees that it will in that event act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. Measures taken this paragraph shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of United Nations.
2. If, in the opinion of any of the Parties, the inviolability or the integrity the territory or the sovereignty or political independence of any Party in treaty area or of any other State or territory to which the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article from time to time apply is threatened in any way other than armed attack or is affected or threatened by any fact or situation which endanger the peace of the area, the Parties shall consult immediately in order agree on the measures which should be taken for the common defense.
Article XI
(...)
UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The United States of America in executing the present Treaty does so with the understanding that its recognition of the effect of aggression and armed attack and its agreement with reference thereto in Article IV, paragraph 1, apply only to communist aggression but affirms that in the event of other aggression or armed attack it will consult under the provisions of Article IV, paragraph 2.
(...)
UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The United States of America in executing the present Treaty does so with the understanding that its recognition of the effect of aggression and armed attack and its agreement with reference thereto in Article IV, paragraph 1, apply only to communist aggression but affirms that in the event of other aggression or armed attack it will consult under the provisions of Article IV, paragraph 2.
Article VIII
As used in this Treaty, the "treaty area" is the general area of Southeast Asia, including also the entire territories of the Asian Parties, and the general area of the Southwest Pacific not including the Pacific area north of 21 degrees 30 minutes north latitude. The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, amend this Article to include within the treaty area the territory of any State acceding to this Treaty in accordance with Article VII or otherwise to change the treaty area.
As used in this Treaty, the "treaty area" is the general area of Southeast Asia, including also the entire territories of the Asian Parties, and the general area of the Southwest Pacific not including the Pacific area north of 21 degrees 30 minutes north latitude. The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, amend this Article to include within the treaty area the territory of any State acceding to this Treaty in accordance with Article VII or otherwise to change the treaty area.
They pulled out the model of SSN-AUKUS again.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJhTj_DX...name=4096x4096
Same model that was at indopac 2023
https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content...-DSEI-2023.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJhTj_DX...name=4096x4096
Same model that was at indopac 2023
https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content...-DSEI-2023.jpg
Look on the bright side - they didn't spend a million on a new model....................
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Noumea
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
French Naval Group just sold two Barracudas to the Indonesian Navy.
After the Dutch contract (four submarines two weeks ago) the Aukus contract is well forgotten.
And those customers will get their ships in time.... as did India, Brasil, Chile and Malaysia in their time.
So long, boys.
Naval Group vend deux sous-marins du type Scorpène à l’Indonésie | Mer et Marine
After the Dutch contract (four submarines two weeks ago) the Aukus contract is well forgotten.
And those customers will get their ships in time.... as did India, Brasil, Chile and Malaysia in their time.
So long, boys.
Naval Group vend deux sous-marins du type Scorpène à l’Indonésie | Mer et Marine
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Noumea
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So too bad for you guys, once again.
Call me back when you get your british (or american, or whatever) subs.
lol now I know you are liar, scorpene and barracudas are different subs scorpene are about 2000 tons displacement attack was about 4500 tons displacement
take your butthurt to somewhere that cares