AUKUS as far as the Australians are concerned, all looks to be going to plan. Defence Minister Richard Miles seemed almost overly positive during a recent interview on Australian TV. The $368 billion AUD project looks to be on target. Yet that seems overly optimistic.
The new US administration is clearly going to be looking to Australia to stand up and take part in the process of containing China, something it has a highly variable track record of doing. So much is Australia dependent on China buying its resources, it finds itself compromised in ways that are often counter to its military needs and that of its allies.
AUKUS however is a tripartite deal, and the United Kingdom is not entirely the new administrations favorite politically speaking, accusing the British Labour Party of aiding the Democrats – which privately, some members did. But it’s hardly a big picture item. However in the world of the new president such perceived slights are not easily forgotten.
The real problems however are inside the United States itself. The failure of the submarine program to keep up with its production levels, the struggling industrial base, despite injections of capital still hasn’t caught up. Part of that is the time it takes to employ, get through the security checks, then train and retain people to a standard that’s reliable and long term.
The US submarine program is still well behind and so much so that the the US Congress is not happy. Despite Australia paying $1 billion US to invest into the US shipyards to push things along, Congress is so concerned that the three Virginia Class submarines Australia is due to take delivery of in the mid 2030’s could well be pushed back. The US feels its delivery schedule to maintain its fleet is simply too low and too slow, and it comes first, before Australia sees even one submarine.
AUKUS is unlikely I think, to become a target of the new administration’s ire. If anything it supports the anti-China agenda and the new approach of what will become a kind of containment policy. However it’s likely to be difficult for the administration to speed up the process of production without seriously tackling the industrial process. Much of that will be around people and even a new shipyard. Something has to be done to get things back on track.
If not, the Australians, who are the victims of their own general bickering and indecision over submarine replacement, could be left without what they expected and when they expected it, and that would be very bad for dealing with the threats ahead.
The British and Australians have agreed pretty much what the long term solution is, a British designed and built initial submarine with Australia building its own by the 2040’s, in conjunction with the British who will use the same submarine.
AUKUS seems almost certain to survive because the basic principle of its intentions is to provide an increased military capability for the Australians as American allies, in a world where tensions with China seem set to rise dramatically. The question is can America get its depressingly lethargic industrial base in order quickly enough to achieve what needs to be done in time to make it work?
The Analyst
MilitaryAnalyst.bsky.social
The Military Analyst 
New Zealand will have to choose between it’s Nuclear free policy, or support from it’s closest allies
LikeLike
It’s unlikely that New Zealand will choose nuclear. It has no domestic need. It could not afford a meaningful nuclear capability. Australia is only planning a relatively small fleet, to operate within three oceans, and protect its sea lanes and undersea infrastructure therein.
The only potential nuclear question for Kiwis is: will they allow access to NZ port facilities for nuclear powered vessels if and when push comes to shove? Or, will they remain high minded and “pure”. Maybe the question will never arise, because Australia will need more than one nuclear port facility, and the question all but implies that Australia would be occupied for NZ to consider it, in which case the answer is obvious. It’s an unlikely scenario. Australia’s risk is sea embargo, undersea infrastructure, occupied neighbours used as missile bases…etc. It’s a very large and mostly inhospitable land mass that would be exceedingly difficult to invade and occupy – provided Australia invests more in its defence along with all its allies.
New Zealand is just as vulnerable to Chinese meddling in the Pacific region as Australia is – whether it’s shipping lanes or undersea infrastructure.
Yet NZ spends a bit more than 1% on defence. It’s going to have to seriously lift its game, and its position on nuclear capability is the least of that challenge. NZ has floated playing a 2nd tier role in AUKUS, so the Kiwis must see that the world is not going to sit around holding hands and singing Kumbahyah in the foreseeable future. NZ should play a part – and no doubt it can. Other like minded allies will likely have overlapping interests with AUKUS – e.g. Japan and maybe South Korea.
LikeLiked by 1 person