Latest news with #SamRoggeveen
The Guardian
14-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Aukus will cost Australia $368bn. What if there was a better, cheaper defence strategy?
As Australia's nuclear submarine-led defence strategy threatens to fray, strategists say it's time to evaluate whether the military and economic case of the tripartite deal still stacks up. The defence tie-up with the US and UK, called Aukus, is estimated to cost up to $368bn over 30 years, although the deal could become even more costly should Donald Trump renegotiate terms to meet his 'America first' agenda. The current deal, struck in 2021, includes the purchase of three American-made nuclear-powered submarines, the construction of five Australian-made ones, as well as sustaining the vessels and associated infrastructure. Such a price tag naturally comes with an opportunity cost paid by other parts of the defence force and leaves less money to address societal priorities, such as investing in regional diplomacy and accelerating the renewable energy transition. This choice is often described as one between 'guns and butter', referring to the trade-off between spending on defence and social programs. Luke Gosling, Labor's special envoy for defence and veterans' affairs, last year described Aukus as 'Australia's very own moonshot' – neatly capturing both the risks and the potential benefits. Sam Roggeveen, director of the Lowy Institute's international security program, says there are cheaper ways to replicate submarine capabilities, which are ultimately designed to sink ships and destroy other submarines. These include investing in airborne capabilities, more missiles, maritime patrol aircraft and naval mines, he says. 'If you imagine a world without Aukus, it does suddenly free up a massive portion of the defence budget,' says Roggeveen. 'That would relieve a lot of pressure, and would actually be a good thing for Australia.' Roggeveen coined the term 'echidna strategy' to argue for an alternative, and cheaper, defence policy for Australia that does not include nuclear-powered submarines. Like the quill-covered mammal, the strategy is designed to build defensive capabilities that make an attack unpalatable for an adversary. The strategy is meant to radiate strength but not aggression. 'The uncertainty that Aukus introduces is that we are buying submarines that actually have the capabilities to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles on to an enemy land mass,' says Roggeveen. 'That is an offensive capability that's ultimately destabilising. We should be focusing on defensive capabilities only.' Those advocating for a more defensive approach, including Albert Palazzo from the University of New South Wales, point out that it is more costly to capture ground than it is to hold it. The argument has been bolstered by Ukraine's ability to stall the advance of a larger adversary, aided by its use of relatively cheap underwater and airborne drones. On the question of alternative uses for the submarine money, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments recently asked teams in Washington and Canberra to consider how Australia might rebalance its defence force structure over the next decade. In the experiment, four out of the six teams – including all three Australian teams – opted to cancel the nuclear submarine deal, citing concerns about British industrial capacity, complexities of the program and the delivery timetable. Total defence funding is forecast to nearly double in dollar terms over the next decade, from $56bn in this financial year to $100.4bn in 2033-34. The increase in defence spending as a share of the economy is less pronounced, but still marked: from 2% now to 2.4% over the same period. Saul Eslake, an independent economist, says higher defence spending is coming at a time of substantially higher demands on the public purse across a range of areas, from aged care, to disability services and childcare. Eslake says government spending is now 1.5 to 2 percentage points higher than the average through the decades leading up to the pandemic, the equivalent of $55-70bn a year in today's dollars. At some point, Australians will need to grapple with how to pay for this extra spending, or to find areas where programs can be cut. 'The consensus across the political divide, and whether the public wants it or not, is that there will be more spending on defence,' Eslake says. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email While expert opinion divides over whether nuclear-powered submarines are the best strategic option for Australia's long-term defence strategy, there's a separate question over whether the submarines will be delivered. There is a substantial risk associated with a project that spans three countries over three decades and involves huge sums of money. The Aukus costing recognises some of this: of the $368bn estimated cost over 30 years, $123bn is classed as 'contingency'. In other words, an extra 50% has been added to the cost estimate to try to account for the risk of cost blowouts, which is more than 10 times the usual contingency on big projects. Australia may find it needs to draw on that contingency sooner than expected should terms be renegotiated with Trump in the US's favour. As part of the agreement, Australia has already committed billions of dollars to help build up the manufacturing capacity of the US and UK. The financial cost of the nuclear-powered submarine program is so high that Marcus Hellyer, from Strategic Analysis Australia, has described it as the country's 'fourth service', sitting alongside the navy, army and air force. Hellyer says many of the risks linked to the deal, including questions over US submarine production capability and whether Australia will have enough nuclear-qualified submariners, still remain almost four years after the agreement was struck. 'There are serious risks around this and the risk picture is not a particularly comfortable one at the moment,' he says. Hellyer says the heavy investment in traditional assets, including submarines, leaves Australia with a limited ability to invest in emerging defence technologies. 'We don't have a lot of flexibility because so much of our investment budget is tied up,' he says. 'Unfortunately, it's tied up in things that won't be delivered for a decade or more.'
BBC News
13-06-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Aukus: Could Trump sink Australia's submarine plans?
Australia's defence minister woke up to a nightmare earlier this week - and it's one that has been looming ever since the United States re-elected Donald Trump as president in November.A landmark trilateral agreement between the US, UK and Australia - which would give the latter cutting-edge nuclear submarine technology in exchange for more help policing China in the Asia-Pacific - was under White House said on Thursday it wanted to make sure the so-called Aukus pact was "aligned with the president's America First agenda".It's the latest move from Washington that challenges its long-standing friendship with Canberra, sparking fears Down Under that, as conflict heats up around the globe, Australia may be left standing without its greatest ally. "I don't think any Australian should feel that our ally is fully committed to our security at this moment," says Sam Roggeveen, who leads the security programme at Australia's Lowy Institute think tank. A pivotal deal for Australia On paper, Australia is the clear beneficiary of the Aukus agreement, worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn).The technology underpinning the pact belongs to the US, and the UK already has it, along with their own nuclear-powered subs. But those that are being jointly designed and built by the three countries will be an Australia, this represents a pivotal upgrade to military capabilities. The new submarine model will be able to operate further and faster than the country's existing diesel-engine fleet, and allow it to carry out long-range strikes against enemies for the first is a big deal for the US to share what has been described as the "crown jewel" of its defence technology, and no small thing for the UK to hand over engine blueprints arming Australia has historically been viewed by Washington and Downing Street as essential to preserving peace in the Asia-Pacific region, which is far from their own. It's about putting their technology and hardware in the right place, experts when the Aukus agreement was signed in 2021, all three countries had very different leaders - Joe Biden in the US, Boris Johnson in the UK and Scott Morrison in Australia. Today, when viewed through the increasingly isolationist lens Trump is using to examine his country's global ties, some argue the US has far less to gain from the Secretary of Defence Policy Elbridge Colby, a previous critic of Aukus, will lead the White House review into the agreement, with a Pentagon official telling the BBC the process was to ensure it meets "common sense, America First criteria".Two of the criteria they cite are telling. One is a demand that allies "step up fully to do their part for collective defence". The other is a purported need to ensure that the US arms industry is adequately meeting the country's own needs Trump administration has consistently expressed frustration at allies, including Australia, who they believe aren't pulling their weight with defence spending. They also say America is struggling to produce enough nuclear-powered submarines for its own forces."Why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it?" Colby himself had said last year. A chill in Canberra The Australian government, however, is presenting a calm front. It's only natural for a new administration to reassess the decisions of its predecessor, officials say, noting that the new UK Labor government had a review of Aukus last year too."I'm very confident this is going to happen," Defence Minister Richard Marles said of the pact, in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).But there's little doubt the review would be causing some early jolts of panic in Canberra."I think angst has been inseparable from Aukus since its beginning… The review itself is not alarming. It's just everything else," Euan Graham, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, tells the BBC. There is growing concern across Australia that America cannot be relied upon."[President Donald Trump's] behaviour, over these first months of this term, I don't think should fill any observer with confidence about America's commitment to its allies," Mr Roggeveen says."Trump has said, for instance, that Ukraine is mainly Europe's problem because they are separated by a big, beautiful ocean. Well of course, there's a big, beautiful ocean separating America from Asia too."Washington's decision to slap large tariffs on Australian goods earlier this year did not inspire confidence either, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese saying it was clearly "not the act of a friend".Albanese has stayed quiet on the Aukus review so far, likely holding his breath for a face-to-face meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week. This is a chat he's still desperately trying to get the US president to agree several former prime ministers have rushed to give their two Morrison, the conservative leader who negotiated the Aukus pact in 2021, said the review should not be "over-interpreted" and scoffed at the suggestion another country could meet Australia's security needs. "The notion… is honestly delusional," he told ABC radio. Malcolm Turnbull, who was behind the French submarine contract that Morrison dramatically tore up in favour of Aukus, said Australia needs to "wake up", realise it's a "bad deal" which the US could renege on at any point, and make other plans before it is too Paul Keating, a famously sharp-tongued advocate for closer ties with China, said this "might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself"."Aukus will be shown for what it always has been: a deal hurriedly scribbled on the back of an envelope by Scott Morrison, along with the vacuous British blowhard Boris Johnson and the confused President Joe Biden."The whiff of US indecision over Aukus feeds into long-term criticism in some quarters that Australia is becoming too reliant on the for Australia's own inquiry, the Greens, the country's third-largest political party, said: "We need an independent defence and foreign policy, that does not require us to bend our will and shovel wealth to an increasingly erratic and reckless Trump USA." What could happen next? There's every chance the US turns around in a few weeks and recommits to the the end of the day, Australia is buying up to five nuclear-powered submarines at a huge expense, helping keep Americans employed. And the US has plenty of time - just under a decade - to sort out their supply issues and provide them."[The US] also benefit from the wider aspects of Aukus - all three parties get to lift their boat jointly by having a more interoperable defence technology and ecosystem," Mr Graham so, the anxiety the review has injected into the relationship is going to be hard to erase completely – and has only inflamed disagreements over Aukus in there's also a possibility Trump does want to rewrite the deal."I can easily see a future in which we don't get the Virginia class boats," Mr Roggeveen says, referring to the interim would potentially leave Australia with its increasingly outdated fleet for another two decades, vulnerable while the new models are being designed and happens in the event the US does leave the Aukus alliance completely?At this juncture, few are sounding that alarm. The broad view is that, for the US, countering China and keeping the Pacific in their sphere of influence is still crucial. Mr Roggeveen, though, says that when it comes to potential conflict in the Pacific, the US hasn't been putting their money where its mouth is for years."China's been engaged in the biggest build-up of military power of any country since the end of the Cold War and the United States' position in Asia basically hasn't changed," he the US leaves, Aukus could very well become an awkward Auk – but could the UK realistically offer enough for Australia to sustain the agreement?And if the whole thing falls apart and Australia is left without submarines, who else could it turn to?France feels like an unlikely saviour, given the previous row there, but Australia does have options, Mr Roggeveen says: "This wouldn't be the end of the world for Australian defence."Australia is "geographically blessed", he says, and with "a reasonable defence budget and a good strategy" could sufficiently deter China, even without submarines."There's this phrase you hear occasionally, that the danger is on our doorstep. Well, it's a big doorstep if that is true… Beijing is closer to Berlin than it is to Sydney.""There is this mental block in Australia and also this emotional block - a fear of abandonment, this idea that we can't defend ourselves alone. But we absolutely can if we have to."
West Australian
11-06-2025
- Politics
- West Australian
Chinese aircraft carriers enter Pacific Ocean for first time, challenging US dominance near Japan
The Chinese Navy has sent its two aircraft carriers into the Pacific for the first time, demonstrating to the world its ability as a naval power to threaten America's dominance of the world's biggest ocean. Two carrier battle groups led by the Liaoning and the Shandong operated near the Japanese island of Iwo Jima over the weekend, the Japanese Government reported. It is the first time either of the carriers have sailed that far west, military experts said. The People's Liberation Army Navy posted photos of the ships and aircraft on the X social media site, declaring they were engaged in routine training aimed at 'continuously enhancing the PLA Navy's capabilities of fulfilling the missions'. Operating the world's biggest navy by number of ships, China has embarked on an ambitious plan to build aircraft carriers to extend its military power far beyond its borders. A third carrier currently being tested would be almost as technologically advanced as its American counterparts, according a military analyst at the Lowy think tank in Sydney, Sam Roggeveen. 'It's a signal of what China's increasingly capable of,' he said. 'Traditionally the apex of naval in the modern age has been aircraft carriers and they are are showing they are on a path to having capabilities that are equal and maybe superior to that of the US.' Satellite photograph shows a fourth carrier may be under construction in the port of Dalian on the Yellow Sea. In response, Japan is building its first aircraft carriers since World War II. Never before has a Chinese carrier sailed beyond what is known as the First Island Chain, an informal maritime boundary that runs from southern Japan, east of Taiwan to the South China Sea. Each of the two carriers in operation probably carry 30 to 36 Shenyang J-15 jet fighters, Mr Roggeveen said, which are similar to the F/A-18F Super Hornets operated by the Royal Australian Air Force. 'Chinese naval vessels' activities in those waters are fully consistent with international law and international practices,' a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said at a press conference in Beijing. 'Our national defence policy is defensive in nature.' The Shandong fleet sailed north of the island of Okinotorishima and flew jets and helicopters inside Japan's exclusive economic zone around the island, according to the Japanese government. With the aircraft carrier is a 'super-destroyer', two frigates and a supply ship. The Defence Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
