logo
ENFRع
#

Latest news with #StrategicAnalysisAustralia

How to watch: The War Cabinet, as Chris Uhlmann presents expert discussion on 'imminent' threat of conflict
How to watch: The War Cabinet, as Chris Uhlmann presents expert discussion on 'imminent' threat of conflict

Sky News AU

timea day ago

  • Politics
  • Sky News AU

How to watch: The War Cabinet, as Chris Uhlmann presents expert discussion on 'imminent' threat of conflict

Sky News political contributor Chris Uhlmann will host The War Cabinet, a special program where a group of the nation's foremost defence and security experts will discuss the "imminent" threat of conflict involving Australia. The War Cabinet will air live on Sky News at 7:30pm AEST on Monday and will also be available to stream online and through the Sky News Australia app. Uhlmann will be joined by a panel including former foreign minister Alexander Downer, former defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon, former department of home affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo, and Strategic Analysis Australia director Peter Jennings. Drone warfare expert Oleksandra Molloy, CyberCX executive director Katherine Mansted, Strategic Forum CEO Ross Babbage, former major general Mick Ryan, and former naval officer and marine warfare expert Jennifer Parker will also offer key insights into the threats facing Australia. "The threat of a war involving Australia is far greater and more imminent than the public is being told, according to defence experts," Uhlmann said. "China is the main threat. An attack on Taiwan the likely flashpoint, and soon, very soon." Australia's alliance with the United States remains vital, with the AUKUS agreement likely to play a central role. "I think it would be an absurd and reckless decision for an Australian government not to support the Americans," Mr Downer said. However, overreliance on the US has also raised concerns about Australia's independent capability, prompting calls for more investment. "We need to look at a significant, rapid investment of funding into the current Australian defence force," Mr Jennings said. Those calls reflect the reality Australia would be unable to avoid becoming involved should a major conflict erupt in the Indo-Pacific. "Can we sit this out? My view is, we really can't," Mr Babbage said.

Let's scuttle AUKUS before it sinks
Let's scuttle AUKUS before it sinks

Sydney Morning Herald

time5 days ago

  • Business
  • Sydney Morning Herald

Let's scuttle AUKUS before it sinks

In a welcome display of proper process and reasonable judgment, the Australian government has committed to buy 11 Mogami-class frigates from Japan to replace the ageing ANZAC-class frigates (three to be built in Japan, the rest in Western Australia). The Mogami-class is an advanced and settled design; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is experienced and seemingly reliably produces these ships; and Japan is an important security partner in Australia's region. It is a positive departure from the theatre of the absurd that has recently characterised the Australian government's approach to security, especially its pandering to British delusions and determination to flog the dead horse that is AUKUS. Just the preceding month of July saw a conga line of such folly. Examples are as memorable as they are depressing. Britain's commitment to the defence of Australia was declared to be ' absolute ', according to the UK Defence Secretary John Healey, in a show of solidarity as substantive as a mirage within a hologram within a dream. But it is not Australia's dream. Australia remembers the fall of Singapore and the tissue-like protection of British security guarantees. It is exclusively a British dream, and one that should receive no traction in Australia. At the heart of this imperial hallucination lies the AUKUS fallacy – the belief that Australia's defence and security is well served by the acquisition of eight nuclear-powered submarines; that the US will magically increase production of its Virginia Class submarines from 1.2 to 2.3 per year, enabling it to share some with Australia; and that the UK and Australia are capable of developing from scratch a new nuclear-powered submarine within a suitable timeframe and to an acceptable level of reliability and capability (noting that Britain's current Astute-class nuclear attack submarines are often not at sea, including now, when all seven of them are wharf-side in repair or awaiting repair). The deficiencies and contradictions in the AUKUS submarine project are so great that in the commercial world such a prospectus would not gain one investor. It is accordingly irresponsible for the Australian government to bankroll such a doomed venture to the tune of $368 billion, which could be better used in real, effective and appropriate defence platforms and munitions, equipment and personnel, not to mention hospitals, schools or even houses. Loading Apart from the unfortunate but telling example of British maritime industrial inability as demonstrated by the Astute-class submarine, Australia has also been burdened by Britain's contribution to the Hunter frigates, which Strategic Analysis Australia director Michael Shoebridge has described as a ludicrous waste of money for very little military capability. In this context, the bilateral Nuclear-Powered Submarine Partnership and Collaboration Treaty, known as the Geelong Treaty, signed by Australia's Defence Minister, Richard Marles, and Healey, condemns Australia to providing the UK with ongoing industrial support for the next 50 years. Of course, the signatories present the heralded collaboration as vital to Australian and UK shared security interests, but such an assertion collapses under analysis of UK security interests in Australia's region, UK military capabilities available now or in the future to defend Australia, and UK military industrial capabilities to design, manufacture and maintain the submarine capabilities of its imaginings.

Let's scuttle AUKUS before it sinks
Let's scuttle AUKUS before it sinks

The Age

time5 days ago

  • Business
  • The Age

Let's scuttle AUKUS before it sinks

In a welcome display of proper process and reasonable judgment, the Australian government has committed to buy 11 Mogami-class frigates from Japan to replace the ageing ANZAC-class frigates (three to be built in Japan, the rest in Western Australia). The Mogami-class is an advanced and settled design; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is experienced and seemingly reliably produces these ships; and Japan is an important security partner in Australia's region. It is a positive departure from the theatre of the absurd that has recently characterised the Australian government's approach to security, especially its pandering to British delusions and determination to flog the dead horse that is AUKUS. Just the preceding month of July saw a conga line of such folly. Examples are as memorable as they are depressing. Britain's commitment to the defence of Australia was declared to be ' absolute ', according to the UK Defence Secretary John Healey, in a show of solidarity as substantive as a mirage within a hologram within a dream. But it is not Australia's dream. Australia remembers the fall of Singapore and the tissue-like protection of British security guarantees. It is exclusively a British dream, and one that should receive no traction in Australia. At the heart of this imperial hallucination lies the AUKUS fallacy – the belief that Australia's defence and security is well served by the acquisition of eight nuclear-powered submarines; that the US will magically increase production of its Virginia Class submarines from 1.2 to 2.3 per year, enabling it to share some with Australia; and that the UK and Australia are capable of developing from scratch a new nuclear-powered submarine within a suitable timeframe and to an acceptable level of reliability and capability (noting that Britain's current Astute-class nuclear attack submarines are often not at sea, including now, when all seven of them are wharf-side in repair or awaiting repair). The deficiencies and contradictions in the AUKUS submarine project are so great that in the commercial world such a prospectus would not gain one investor. It is accordingly irresponsible for the Australian government to bankroll such a doomed venture to the tune of $368 billion, which could be better used in real, effective and appropriate defence platforms and munitions, equipment and personnel, not to mention hospitals, schools or even houses. Loading Apart from the unfortunate but telling example of British maritime industrial inability as demonstrated by the Astute-class submarine, Australia has also been burdened by Britain's contribution to the Hunter frigates, which Strategic Analysis Australia director Michael Shoebridge has described as a ludicrous waste of money for very little military capability. In this context, the bilateral Nuclear-Powered Submarine Partnership and Collaboration Treaty, known as the Geelong Treaty, signed by Australia's Defence Minister, Richard Marles, and Healey, condemns Australia to providing the UK with ongoing industrial support for the next 50 years. Of course, the signatories present the heralded collaboration as vital to Australian and UK shared security interests, but such an assertion collapses under analysis of UK security interests in Australia's region, UK military capabilities available now or in the future to defend Australia, and UK military industrial capabilities to design, manufacture and maintain the submarine capabilities of its imaginings.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store