AUKUS defence pact 'being reviewed' by US government
The US government is reportedly reviewing the AUKUS trilateral defence agreement between Australia, the UK and the US.
The decision to conduct a review has been reported by multiple news outlets including Reuters, which cited US defence officials without giving further details.
The review will reportedly examine whether the pact is in line with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' policy, according to the ABC which also cited a Pentagon source.
AUKUS is a three-nation security alliance between Australia, the UK and the US agreed in 2021 under the prime ministership of ex-Liberal leader Scott Morrison.
It was formed to counter China's strategic moves in the Pacific arena and was underpinned by an agreement between the US and the UK to provide Australia with access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, to eventually replace its aging Collins-class boats.
The deal is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, although the first submarine is not expected to join the Australian fleet for years.
Australia, which in February made the first of six $US500 million (about $800 million) payments to the US for the boats, is expected to initially buy between three and five off-the-shelf Virginia-class boats.
At the time, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said Mr Trump was supportive of the AUKUS deal.
"The president is very aware, supportive of AUKUS," Mr Hegseth said after a meeting with Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles.
"(He) recognises the importance of the defence industrial base."
Mr Marles responded that the pair had discussed how the US and Australia could advance their longstanding diplomatic relationship in terms of national security, including AUKUS.
Australia's military budget is expected to rise to 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product, or output, by 2034.
The US regime has already called for Australia to increase that spending to around 3.5 per cent.
Australia tore up its $90 billion diesel-powered submarine deal with France to sign on to AUKUS and is contracted to buy several off-the-shelf submarines costing about $US4 billion each, before making its own.
The first Australian-made boats are not due to be operational until the 2040s.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Retired US General Jack Keane says lack of American submarines ‘real basis' for Trump administration's AUKUS review
Retired US General Jack Keane has said he believes American concerns over having enough submarines for their own fleet is underpinning the AUKUS defence pact review instigated by the Trump administration. A primary pillar of AUKUS, a trilateral security partnership agreed to in 2021, is to enable Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, as well as other advanced weapons. The newly announced review into the pact is being headed by Under-Secretary of Defence for Policy Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of the submarine deal. Speaking to Sky News Host Andrew Bolt on Thursday, Mr Keane said he believed concerns over the US holding on to enough submarines is the 'real basis' for AUKUS coming under the microscope. 'I mean, we know for a fact, we don't have anywhere near all the submarines that we would like to have and it's the submarines where we have the advantage, the United States and our allies, over China itself,' the former general said. '(China) have decisive advantages in surface ships, in offence and defensive missiles, and also the number of aeroplanes that they have every day in the region. Submarines is something we want more of.' However, Mr Keane said he thought having Australian-operated American submarines in Indo-Pacific waters would be a 'real strategic plus'. The former general was asked whether the American popular opinion could swing away from thinking US submarines being operated under an Australian flag is good idea, but Mr Keane said he did not hold such concerns. 'I think the primary issue is the number of submarines. The United States knows we don't have enough. It takes us too long to build them, and we've got to get it right,' he said. The former general's remarks come as questions continue to be asked about whether the Albanese government has pledged enough of the nation's GDP towards defence, with pressure mounting from Washington for Canberra to boost its military spending. Sky New News Host Sharri Markson revealed on Thursday the Trump administration will use the AUKUS review as way to try and push Australia towards increasing its defence budget. Meanwhile, former prime minister Scott Morrison, who oversaw the formation of AUKUS, has declared he is not concerned about what the US-led review may mean for the future of the security partnership. 'It's totally within their remit… Incoming governments do reviews. Keir Starmer did a review and that resulted in the UK government being even more committed to AUKUS,' Mr Morrison told Sky News. His sentiments were echoed by Defence Minister Richard Marles, who downplayed anxieties while also confirming Australia knew about the review in advance. Former Australian Minister Alexander Downer has likewise said he does not think Australia should be concerned, asserting his belief the US will not scrap the agreement under President Trump's reign. 'I think there is going to be a debate within the American system about selling to Australia Virginia-class submarines,' Mr Downer told Sky News Host Chris Kenny on Thursday. 'Not because of the technology of the submarines, but because the American administration will argue that they haven't got enough submarines and they can't build them fast enough.' Mr Downer also said he thinks the US are concerned about Australia's defence spending in light of the review. "I think they would be concerned about our low level of defence expenditure and the way the Australian defence forces have become increasingly depleted," he said. "But I don't think in the end the Americans are going to cancel the AUKUS programme. You have to remember this is a trilateral programme, not a bilateral programme, and Britain is the, if you like, second player in it, certainly the second most important player in it."
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Defence experts warn Australia's armed forces 'languishing', short on firepower due to 'deeply inadequate' military spending
Australia's defence force is weaker than it was before East Timor, is under armoured and short of firepower according to stinging analysis by two of the nation's leading defence experts. With the Prime Minister heading to the G7 in Canada, defence analyst Peter Jennings and Retired Chief of Army, Peter Leahy have both given their thoughts on the AFD and how it stacks up. A break down by Sky News of regional power players also lays out Australia's fragile capabilities despite numerous governments talking up potency, reliability and acquisitions. 'We are in a very dangerous strategic situation now,' said Peter Jennings, from Strategic Analysis Australia. It's a sentiment shared by Retired Lieutenant General, Peter Leahy. 'In the case of the Australian Army I was the Chief from 2002 to 2008. If I look at the army now it is smaller than what it was then. It's not as capable. It has less armoured protection and recruiting is really quite difficult,' said the former Chief. A former senior naval officer who wished to remain anonymous affirmed the Royal Australian Navy was down on the missile firepower it had 30 years ago – leaving it short of ships and under-gunned. With Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Europe rearming and the Chinese Communist Party intent on achieving hegemony in the region, armouries are growing, and defence budgets are being stretched. This year the United States intends to spend (in Australian dollars) $1.56 trillion on defence. China stated spend is $375-billion although its estimated to more accurately be around $620 billion. It's acquired three aircraft carriers and the world's second largest air force in a little over decade. It's also expanding its nuclear arsenal and is amassing a bespoke fleet to potentially take the democratically governed islands of Taiwan. Japan continues to ramp up its own defence spending, reportedly up nearly ten per-cent year on year to $105-billion. The sum is equal to one-point-eight percent of its GDP. Australia will spend $59 billion. It's roughly two per-cent of GDP with an intention to reach two-point-four per cent by 2034. 'We are facing some difficult times,' said Peter Jennings. 'Up against that level of risk, our defence spending is deeply inadequate… We are just a tiny shade over two per-cent of GDP and you know, that I think was a peace time level spend.' When it comes to combat airpower – fighters, bombers and long-range armed drones, America's force numbers around 3,276. China's air fleet is estimated to be around 2750. It remains highly secretive around the number of long-range drones capable of inflicting damage. Japan's defence force numbers 258. Indonesia's strike force is 116. Australia's modest but capable strike force numbers 108. The Department of Defence was specifically asked how many long-range armed drones Australia has acquired, but in its answer, didn't identify any. It's concerning considering the state of the Royal Australian Navy, which critics believe lags a decade behind in acquisition. Australia operates on a 'three to one' rotation policy meaning its force needs to be divided by three. Consequently, it aims to have two submarines, one destroyer and two frigates available for deployment. Although Australia's two resupply ships are both currently out of action tethering the navy even closer to shore. When it comes to soldiers and marines, China's fighting force numbers more than a million. Indonesia stands around 300,000. Australia's active duty force has shrunken to 28,500. 'The ADF is a professional organisation, sadly I think it's languishing,' said Peter Leahy. 'There's a really solid debate that says we need to spend more money on defence and I agree entirely. But I agree with the Prime Minister and others that it's not just a sum we need to spend, we need to be careful about what we want. How we acquire and how we introduce it into services. 'Everybody is saying it's the most catastrophic circumstances since before the second world war (and) we need to do something …. Action is required.' The former Army Chief dismissed the notion Australians should be scared. 'I don't think there's any reason to be scared …. (but) the public need to be concerned that people are thinking about this.' Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese has publicly sidestepped – if not rebuffed - America's request for Australia to urgently increase the nation's defence spending to three-point-five per cent of GDP, saying 'I think that Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defence. As simple as that.' 'It's very clear that the Americans think our defence spend is deeply inadequate,' said Peter Jennings. '(US Defense Secretary) Pete Hegseth in Singapore said we should lift it from two per- cent to three-and-a-half per cent. That's a massive increase … So, I think the signal, not particularly coded from the United States is we need to do a lot better.' Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently told this reporter, 'We've got to be looking at three per cent. We should be at two-and-a-half per cent as quickly as possible. You know, I'd be saying three-per cent by 2030 … and it's not like we haven't been there before.' Though, it's always easier to talk about where defence spending should be than decide where taxes should increase or what must be cut. In the Second World War Australia's defence spend climbed towards 35 per cent of GDP. It's nothing if not an indication of the financial cost of conflict when diplomacy fails. When it came to opposition, Peter Jennings rebuffed suggestion the outcry amounted to warmongering. 'With the biggest war in Europe since the Second World War, with the Middle East in flame, with China not hiding the fact that it's becoming increasingly aggressive to all of its neighbours, circumnavigating Australia with some of its best military equipment. How could anyone think we are in a benign period and we don't have to worry about these developments,' he said. 'Il's plain for all to see, it's not like you need to have some special security clearance to understand what's going on. We can't afford to be in denial about it,' he said.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Why James Cummings picked Hong Kong over ‘bricks and mortar' of Leilani Lodge
James Cummings said people and his passion for training, not the 'bricks and mortar' of his family's Randwick stables at Leilani Lodge, were key factors in his decision to accept a contract with the Hong Kong Jockey Club from September next year. Cummings' deal to join the famed racing district was announced on Wednesday, ending speculation about the 52-time group 1-winning trainer's future. The 37-year-old, the grandson of Melbourne Cup king Bart Cummings, was due to finish as Godolphin's head trainer on July 31 after the racing powerhouse's decision to move away from a private training model. Returning to the public ranks, Cummings was then set to face a battle with Ciaron Maher and the Gai Waterhouse-Adrian Bott team to take over the 55-box stables of Leilani Lodge. Cummings' father, Anthony, was forced out of the stables in February after having his trainer's licence revoked because of his financial troubles. The Cummings family has occupied the stables since Bart established them in the early 1980s. The Australian Turf club has not announced a new tenant, but Maher, the nation's leading trainer, looks certain to get the nod after Cummings' withdrawal. Cummings said his decision to move to Hong Kong came without knowledge about who was getting Leilani Lodge. 'The ATC were very patient, and I respect the position they were in, and the decision hadn't been made at all. I never got that sense,' Cummings said. 'I wanted to know all the information that was on the table there, and I got to that position.' He said the potential to train out of Leilani Lodge again had been tempting but the need to provide clarity for staff and clients, given his chance in Hong Kong, was more important.
