Aukus

[Berkut]

Reading the article, I don't think it's "Australia fucked up procurement" or "the US screwed Australia". To me it reads as a clear statement of the complex - but expected - problem space that Australia has to navigate. Decisions have to be made (with price tages in terms of $ and time), and trade-offs considered... but there doesn't seem to be anything shocking there.

Although to be clear if Australia didn't fuck up defence procurement it would be the first country ever to have avoided that and we should all learn from it

I don't think they did - I think the risk in their region changed. It's possible that in the 2000s and early 2010s Australia (who were not alone in this) underestimated/miscalculated the risk around China.

I think this is very, very true.

A decade or so ago, there were a lot of people saying "OMG CHINA IS GOING TO BE A SERIOUS PROBLEM MILITARLY!"

But that doesn't tell us much - if they were going to choose a militaristic stance as they grew, people would say that, and if they were going to choose a less militaristic stance, people would still say that.

Well, now we know the answer. They are in fact choosing a very militaristic stance. 

Given that is true, it makes good sense for Australia to not just get more capable deterrence in the form of long ranged nuclear subs, but it also makes even more sense for them to involve themselves more tightly with the power that is actually going to be the check to that Chinese militaristic stance (or ally themselves more tightly with China).

AUKUS goes well beyond submarines. Indeed, the subs might be the lesser consideration in that new alliance structure.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Probably the fairest assessment of Australia's overall sub situation is that it is firmly Australia's fault. Their deal with France was problematic in large part because they wanted one thing, were only willing to agree/pay to another thing, and in the implementation were wanting something else entirely. A very simple deal with France would have simply bought x number of French subs.

The additional reality is Australia did not ultimately decide to back out of the French deal and sign AUKUS over the mechanics or even the price of the submarines. An American submarine deal tightly binds Australian and American interests. This is largely in line with historical Australian policy in regard to its own security--dating to WW2 when quite literally the American Navy was widely understood to be essential in keeping Australia from being invaded by Japan.

If anything, the 2016 deal was a bit of a divergence from the norm for Australia, and one probably built on wishful thinking. In moving towards France, Australia was largely saying they didn't have to be too worried about confronting China, and instead could focus on a more relaxed posture, and exit itself from some of the bellicose associations of closer ties to the Americans. In the last few years though it became obvious to many that Australia has genuine security concerns and may very well have to deal with China on more forceful terms. It is simply too small a country to do that without very powerful friends, and France simply doesn't even come close to measuring up to the United States when it comes to containing and confronting China. In fact, French strategy in the Pacific does not even attempt that--it attempts to forge a sort of "third way." Australia simply woke up to the reality that a third way in the Pacific makes sense for a regional European power like France, based many thousands of miles away, but probably does not make sense for a small country in the actual Chinese backyard.

[Berkut]

There has been reports that Indonesia is trying to call the deal into question, on the grounds that Australia getting (or building) nuclear subs would be a violation of the UN Non-proliferation treaty. They claim the program could be converted to building nuclear weapons.

That seems, to me, rather farcical. The effort to convert nuclear power plants into nuclear weapons is non-trivial, and if Australia wanted to build nukes, the lack of nuclear subs is rather obviously not what is stopping them.

So what is the real issue here? Is Indonesia just aligning itself with China?

[garbon]

There has been reports that Indonesia is trying to call the deal into question, on the grounds that Australia getting (or building) nuclear subs would be a violation of the UN Non-proliferation treaty. They claim the program could be converted to building nuclear weapons.

That seems, to me, rather farcical. The effort to convert nuclear power plants into nuclear weapons is non-trivial, and if Australia wanted to build nukes, the lack of nuclear subs is rather obviously not what is stopping them.

So what is the real issue here? Is Indonesia just aligning itself with China?

I see Indonesia is participating in joint military drills with the US so it can't simply be China alignment (bar I guess balancing?).

[OttoVonBismarck]

Nah, Indonesia has had relatively close defense relationships with the United States since the 1960s, for a non-aligned country. They understand just like the Philippines that there are limits to how close they can afford to get to China. My guess is that it's actually a ploy to get attention and maybe some more defense love from the U.S. themselves.

[grumbler]

I was surprised Zoupa was so naive as to give much credence to a story that used as its source a minor Australian politician.

I mean....really? You think it is newsworthy that there exists some politician in Australia who is grumbling about a defense procurement project?

a)  It's Zoupa.  Facts are not his forte.

b) It's a minor Australian politician complaining that something that was never planned is not going to happen.

[Jacob]

Nah, Indonesia has had relatively close defense relationships with the United States since the 1960s, for a non-aligned country. They understand just like the Philippines that there are limits to how close they can afford to get to China. My guess is that it's actually a ploy to get attention and maybe some more defense love from the U.S. themselves.

My understanding is that Indonesia and Australia are sometimes at odds over local preeminence - I think East Timor was a particular flashpoint, but I'm pretty sure there are others as well. My guess it's less about maneuvring for US concessions and more about taking an opportunity to piss in Australia's cereals.

[Sheilbh]

My understanding is that Indonesia and Australia are sometimes at odds over local preeminence - I think East Timor was a particular flashpoint, but I'm pretty sure there are others as well. My guess it's less about maneuvring for US concessions and more about taking an opportunity to piss in Australia's cereals.

Yeah - I think they're basically a little frenemy-ish. On the big stuff they might be broadly aligned but they're competitive and there are some big local disagreements.

[Zoupa]

I was surprised Zoupa was so naive as to give much credence to a story that used as its source a minor Australian politician.

I mean....really? You think it is newsworthy that there exists some politician in Australia who is grumbling about a defense procurement project?

a)  It's Zoupa.  Facts are not his forte.

b) It's a minor Australian politician complaining that something that was never planned is not going to happen.

It's not my fault Australia chose poorly. 

[Zoupa]

My understanding is that Indonesia and Australia are sometimes at odds over local preeminence - I think East Timor was a particular flashpoint, but I'm pretty sure there are others as well. My guess it's less about maneuvring for US concessions and more about taking an opportunity to piss in Australia's cereals.

Yeah - I think they're basically a little frenemy-ish. On the big stuff they might be broadly aligned but they're competitive and there are some big local disagreements.

France's submarines would have been diesel. Another missed opportunity for regional harmony. 

[grumbler]

It's not my fault Australia chose poorly. 

I love watching weasels dance, so please continue. 

[Zoupa]

I notice the usual suspects jump right to the ad homs and the name calling. 

[Sheilbh]

So the decision is to be announced next week. It looks like Australia and the UK will jointly develop a "hybrid"vessel based on the UK's next-generation submarine design (to replace Astute) - from what I've read Australia's very keen on ensuring they have "vertical launch payload system". Meanwhile they'll be buying 3 Virginia subs from the US to have something this decade and for at least the next 15-20 years. It seems there are still issues with US bureaucracy but like this is likely to mean some very deeply meshed navies (and industrial bases).

Separately Sunak is in France and it seems like France and the UK have put AUKUS behind them. As well as flagging that both countries see the security of the Indo-Pacific as "indivisible from that of Europe" they're going to discuss "how to combine our strengths in the area to ensure permanent presence of likeminded European partners." In particular "establishing the backbone to a permanent European maritime presence in the Indo-Pacific through the sequencing of more persistent European carrier strike group presence - coordinating the deployment of France's Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, and the UK's Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales carriers." Which I think sounds very sensible. Obviously lots on Ukraine as well - but it reminds me of that line mongers posted that Russia is the weather, China is the climate.

It's kind of amazing - maybe a little bit alarming - that again we're seeing the shape of a confrontation between China as a big continental power doing continental things like belt and road, strengthening ties with Russia etc v the US as oceanic power and allies who are willing/able/want to contribute in that space.

Also really interesting detail on the issue with diesel and the future - they need to "snort" to recharge batteries over long distances (which for Australia, is just between Australian ports). That's now more of a risk because of the ability to use AI to spot from satellite images which means their stealth is compromised against a power like China or the US.

[Jacob]

Interesting developments for sure.

I remember a while back there was a bit of thing about former Western fighter pilots taking paycheques teaching the Chinese armed forces how to fight Western airforces. Did anything come on that?

[grumbler]

Interesting developments for sure.

I remember a while back there was a bit of thing about former Western fighter pilots taking paycheques teaching the Chinese armed forces how to fight Western airforces. Did anything come on that?

The latest seems to be recruiting US and French pilots to help train the Peoples' Liberation Army Navy Air Force in carrier operations.