What a week! Two major events have overturned Australia’s security outlook dramatically for the worse. The first is the US throwing Ukraine under the bus and siding with Russia. What has been done to Ukraine is an absolute disgrace and it can be done to Australia – and don’t think for a moment it couldn’t happen. The attempt to extort 50% of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals for equipment already supplied is outrageous. But our political leaders are completely mute about US conduct, so terrified of uttering a single word that might upset the Trump administration. It is moral cowardice at its worst. We are on our own – and the UK has pulled the plug on AUKUS.
To add to that we have had Chinese warships operating in the Tasman Sea as a blatant show of force. It was inevitable that this would happen at some point. Australian Defence planners need to stop obsessing with the South China Sea and worry about places much closer to home.
To listen to the podcast, click here.
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Group Sales Director Simon Hadfield at simon.hadfield@venturamedia.net
The US voting with Russia and North Korea in the UN is a sign of things to come.
Trump will only support AUKUS as long as we keep sending money.
The minute a delivery has to be made it’s likely to be scrapped.
ANZUS is not worth the paper the agreement is written on with Trump in the White House.
Time to start thinking about a nuclear deterrent of our own
I agree with all of that. I’m not sure we have reached the point of developing a nuclear weapon of our own, but I agree it’s time to start thinking about all of the options – and I do mean all of them.
We’re certainly a way off developing our own nuclear weapons but maybe if we talk nicely to the Israelis?
Oh wait, we’ve burnt our bridges there.
I’m sure Uncle Same would help us out – at only a bit of a markup
We’ve also burned our bridges with the French. Maybe the British will pay us back for Maralinga and Montebello Island nuclear tests. They can certainly use the money – which would be in addition to the $5 billion we are giving British companies for the non-delivery of the AUKUS SUB.
the French invited us back to look at a nuclear option. I blame Boris Johnson. He was approached by our people, and B J approached Biden at the G7
Sir John Gorton wanted us to go nuclear as in weapons. There is an hilarious account of Gorton and a senior US official in a shouting match over it
AUKUS isn’t primarily about nuclear-powered subs; it’s mainly about a comforting return to the Anglosphere.
Some might argue Australia is closer than many think to being able to develop its own nuclear arsenal. It could deliver tactical nukes courtesy of its Tomahawk cruise missile purchase and strategic nukes via small orbital launch vehicles like Gilmour Space’s Eris 1. A 23m long 34 ton rocket that can carry payloads of up to 305kg into low earth orbit with range that delivers dual use missile potential.
Eris 1 shares an almost identical first stage (lower) rocket diameter to the Trident ll submarine launched ballistic missile (2m vs 2.11m).
Then there’s the likelihood that part of Australia’s absurdly one sided AUKUS agreement includes becoming a dumping ground for US – UK weapons grade waste. All these ingredients pose significant potential if Australia could ever muster a government dedicated to authentic deterrents – self reliance.
https://www.gspace.com/launch
the Canadians have a small nuke powerplant called ” slowpoke “. Could be just the thing we need for our own home built subs plus they can be placed in the proposed nuke/electric hybrid tech
No. The Israelis would be the first to be dead against us getting nukes. Israel is a hostile state who spies on us. Thy even threatened NZ some time back. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/28/netanyahu-told-new-zealand-backing-un-vote-would-be-declaration-of-war
Want nothing to do with them
agreed
Speaking of naive, it’s fascinating how many Australian ‘experts’ frequently debate whether the US would risk a nuclear exchange with China over Taiwan’s population of 23 million, yet remain convinced America wouldn’t hesitate to sacrifice downtown LA in defence of 26 million Australians.
Exactly.
Every breath Trump takes, vindicates Hugh White’s decades of strategic analysis and conclusions. Australia’s isolation makes it ideal for use of tactical nuclear weapons on areas like Pine Gap, HMAS Stirling, RAAF base Tindal etc, therefore the only legitimate source of ‘deterrent’ for any nuclear armed adversary of Australia must be development of Australia’s own strategic nuclear capacity.
The laughter resulting from Australia’s current shopping list of tokenistic conventional air, land & sea platforms must necessitate urinary incontinence aids at PLAN HQ on a daily basis.
Just imagine if Hugh White, rather than Stephen Smith, had co-authored the DSR in 2023 with Angus Houston. I suspect that Hugh White wouldn’t have accepted the role as he has too much integrity.
Just reading the section in the 2024 Integrated Investment Program relating to Collins and Undersea Capability is truly terrifying. Between the two capabilities, government intends to allocate up to $12.2 billion. This sentence alone should keep government awake at night: “Australia’s transition to conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines will be UNDERPINNED by the ongoing availability of the Collins class fleet.” Think about it – a two-decade-long $368 billion program’s success is contingent on the successful LOTE of an orphaned class of submarine (with historically low availability) that is already 30 years old. Perhaps they will be useful as sacrificial anodes to protect the magnificent new $8 billion worth of facilities at HMAS Stirling.
It’s a house of cards that looks like it could collapse at any moment.
Hugh White is a pain. As far as I know H W hates nuclear subs and would not be pleased with any under any circumstances. My apologies to him if I’m wrong In Trump’s favour is he is doing what all national leaders should do, put his country first
We should learn from this. Get CANZUK going and have our pollies look after us and forget the USA in defense contracts. Obtain the new Gen British nuke sub in CANZUK with no USA involved
failing that return to France for nuke boats
I wonder what Eldridge Colby (nominated US Under Secretary for Defence) meant when stated, before a Senate nomination committee, that: “…if we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great. But if we can’t, [supplying Australia] becomes a very difficult problem because we don’t want our servicemen and women to be in a weaker position and more vulnerable and, God forbid, worse because they are not in the right place in the right time.”
A battle plan based around ‘impactful projection’ in a joint forces operation assumes US strategic intent and capability that is looking shakier by the minute. White’s recommendation that Australia revert to an A2/D2 battle plan that was scalable according to Australia’s budget, personnel, and procurement constraints seems more reasonable by the day.
To decode what Eldridge meant: Australia will not receive Virginia class SSNs – either used or new – ever.
especially given the reason for such a defence, the chip factory, will now be replicated in the USA
Very sound observations regarding the value of AUKUS to the UK in light of its need to now (presumably) focus on building a joint expeditionary force capability that integrates with France, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and the Nordics.
I think there is a way for Australia to graciously wriggle out of pillar 1 of AUKUS. It goes something like this:
1. State that the LOTE on the Collins class is now ‘too risky’ given the information gathered in the early stages of the project.
2. Abandon the LOTE on Collins and pocket $6 billion. This produces a capability gap to at least 2035.
3. Sign an agreement with Japan to provide for joint crewing/training on two of the new Taigei variants with an agreement to home port one boat on a rotational basis at Fleet Base – West.
4. Sign a purchase agreement for the expedited delivery of 2 boats from the current production line in Japan and contract to build/assemble four more in Osborne.
5. Reschedule development payments to the UK (in perpetuity) for the new AUKUS boat.
6. Write off the payments to the US as an ‘option to purchase’ rather than a ‘commitment to purchase.’
More capability. Lower risk. Sooner and immeasurably cheaper.
Agree. I think it’s also worth speaking with the ROK about KSS-3 Batch 2 submarines, which have already been offered to Australia.
those who are against conventional subs have not thought it through. We could station them in Asia with local permission, so that cures transit problem. Supply not an issue. We are at Butterworth with RAAF and infantry
Poms are at Singapore and Brunei
‘How many variants does KSS-III have? The Germans have about 3 variants of the type 212. Subs like these would be great while waiting for UK/French nuke boats. The we could have a mixed fleet. Excellent
Somebody PLEASE slide Mike W into defence procurement asap ! The possibility of expedited RAN access to Taigei or surplus Lithium Soryus (operational Taigei prototypes) being generated by collaboration on Mogami, struck me as a no brainer from the start of Sea 3000. Then there’s Japan, UK & Italy’s 6th gen fighter program…
Just insist on a watertight written contract for the delivery of three Virginias from the US with all the usual conditions and penalties you would expect in a normal contract. None of this “At the discretion of the President” BS. When the US refuse to sign then we immediately withdraw.
Manned SSNs will probably be obsolete by the mid 2030s anyway so no great loss in my opinion. You could buy a lot of conventional submarines and AUVs for $366 billion.
Love it! What about the Indian SSN’s? Would they be for sale?
I don’t have much confidence that India will be able to develop their SSNs faster than the AUKUS SUB. It wouldn’t hurt to ask.
Indian nuke boats are Russian. We may as well go to Russia and get Yasen class. That would cheese a few people off. Probably get an honest deal. Oh the irony
Not really. India has leased 3 Russian SSNs and has developed their own SSBNs.
ok. Well, perhaps we could develop our own?. What is interesting is the development of hybrid nuke/electric sibs
Marles has gone on record as stating that the LOTE is “doable”.
Given his past record in terms of making a judgement on anything that’s probably the kiss of death
He wouldn’t have a clue. No one will know the full extent of the work until they cut the hull and start removing equipment.
I have been a proponent of an Independent Defence and Foreign policy for years. I wanted more European weapons as a way of diversifying our weapons procurement and making us less susceptible to security coercion, but between weak Governments willing to bet our security on powerful friends and a Defence establishment convinced all things American are better this has come to nought. A truly independent national Defence and Foreign policy, makes us a stronger ally and deters potential adversaries but also provides a sense of confidence and self governance we desperately need. Peace, through Diplomacy and readiness costs both money and moral courage, Time to stand up Australia.
Agree. At least a decade too late, but it must now be apparent to everyone except the most deluded that we simply have to do more for ourselves and diversify sources of supply.
It’s time the Australian Governments stopped thinking that their mates in the U.S. will deliver on AUKUS, they’re years behind on their own requirements for Virginias and the UK can’t even keep up with their Astute Program, so how are they going to supply Nuclear Boats for the R.A.N. ? . Honestly, neither Liberal or Labour Governments can honestly say they have a plan to secure Australia’s Security other than to rely on the U.S.. Both the Navy and the ABF are seriously under resourced for the task. Instead of all the Bureaucratic red tape and Consultation with retired Admirals and Commodores , make a Decision on what the Services need and tell them that’s what they’re getting. If ditching the Hunter is to expensive, wind it back to 3 Hulls in the Uparmed version and use them to supplement and eventually replace the Hobarts. Aquire 6 or 7 Mogamis as the Tier One replacement for the Hunters and 6 or 7 Mekos as our tier two with 10 to 12 Covettes to carry the ASW role as well as to support the tier two vessels. Transfer the Arafura and Cape Class to the ABF. Forget about jobs for WA and SA ,open up the East Coast Ship building for the smaller vessels and get Hulls in the water. It needs to be made abundantly clear to the powers that be that Australia is an Island and the only way an enemy can defeat us, invade us or threaten us is by denying us access to the Sea and our Supply Lines.It probably won’t deter the PLAN from posturing but it will make them think twice.
Firstly, congratulations to my fellow Mikes for their common sense.
Secondly, it should be added that the US vote at the UN General Assembly on February 24, where the US lined up with Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Israel to vote against a Ukrainian resolution that identified Russia as an aggressor and called for recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, shows that Ukraine has not only been thrown under a bus, but under a T-14 Armata tank just in case it survived the bus.
So yes, it is time to stand up to the Yanks and stop the grovelling.
The prospect of the US demanding “compensation” for our own “security guarantees” is now a grim reality.
Will the Brisbane Line be revived and parts to the north of it ceded to the US?
The reality is that something like that is already underway through the US Force Posture Agreement.
Trump’s demands for compensation from Ukraine are indeed a “gangster protection racket disguised as foreign policy”.
Will we also need to pay the US for its “protection”?
The reality is that we are already committed through AUKUS to pay $30 million a day for the next 30 years – or $368 billion and counting – for a handful of submarines which they and we will pretend are “ours”, but which will be part of the US Navy on an interoperable and interchangeable basis.
It is time to end the grovelling to the US by loyalists to its Empire in Australia.
We should have a defendable independent and peaceful Australia.
Trump trying to extort Ukraine is totally disgusting. Attitude of our government – meh.
If Trump and Vance’s behaviour when meeting with Zelensky in the Oval Office is not sufficient warning to the people in Canberra that the US is not any sort of a reliable ally then there’s no hope for them at all.
We need a Plan B NOW.
Our leaders are so in thrall of Trump and scared of the collapse of AUKUS that they will not say anything that risks offending the US, no matter how mild. The best that Albanese could manage was “we stand with Ukraine.” Yeah, stand with them to the extent of destroying 46 Taipan helicopters worth a billion dollars rather than see Kiev make effective use of them.
When Trump is done with Ukraine and NATO he will turn his attention to Australia.
How will an Australian government react if Trump demands 50% of out lithium reserves or some other outrageous demand in return AUKUS subs?
Exactly. I assume this spineless bunch will collapse instantly and up the offer to 75%.
The one question that seemingly nobody has, or wants to , ask does Australia actually need Nuclear Boats. From all the documentation that I’ve been able to find , the only things that Nuclear Boats have over Conventional Boats is Speed and Range. Both these attributes are noteworthy but do come with significant drawbacks, larger Crews, huge costs in infrastructure and the Boats themselves. If the R.A.N.s area of operation is the South China Sea they make sense but if not they don’t.
As the Chinese navy is graphically demonstrating, Australia does not need to project power – it needs to focus on our more immediate region. The best counter to a hostile SSN or surface fleet is an ultra-quiet diesel-electric SSK with Air Independent Propulsion. AIP systems give underwater endurance of at least 20 days, but of course that capability has always been totally ignored by the RAN.