Antinuclear

Quiet but sweeping defence changes are yet another blow to our public trust

The Coalition and Labor will most likely be in lockstep for the latest defence changes, a bill that sailed through the last House sitting while attention was mostly on estimates. It changes 14 different acts of legislation, while giving public servants ministerial powers to override state, territory and, in some cases, federal, laws if an area has been declared necessary for “defence capabilities”.

The Coalition and Labor will most likely be in lockstep for the latest defence changes, a bill that sailed through the last House sitting while attention was mostly on estimates. It changes 14 different acts of legislation, while giving public servants ministerial powers to override state, territory and, in some cases, federal, laws if an area has been declared necessary for “defence capabilities”.

Amy Remeikis, Nov 11, 2026, https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/2026/11/11/defence-legislation-public-trust

Peter Dutton is someone who “politicises everything”. He is “loose”. He “darkened his own brand” and chose to “punch down on vulnerable people”. He “played political games” with national security. He was someone who engaged in “casual falsehoods” with international relations and “gaslit” the Australian public.

So of course it makes total sense that the same people who levelled all those criticisms at Dutton would also reward him with a plum position on the Australian War Memorial Council.

Politics is mostly about compliance above competency, and playing the game matters more than public integrity. After all, it’s all nudge-nudge, wink-wink when you’re in the club, right?

To most members of the club, announcing Dutton as the latest board appointment (or Sussan Ley for that matter) is considered a flash in the pan. They’ll weather the criticism, which they’ll assume comes from the usual suspects, and also assume that most voters won’t notice or care, and then the cycle will move on.

What they never take into account is the cost to public trust. That every political appointment, usually of someone rejected by the Australian people, undermines what little faith people still have that their politics can be different.

It shouldn’t have to take collapse and repudiation to bring politicians back to the reasons they purport to have wanted to get into politics in the first place.

But that seems to be what Labor is racing towards. And it is not just appointments that undermine this trust, but the hand-in-hand attack on civil liberties, like protest, and the ever-expanding security and defence state apparatus that continues to grow with almost no checks or balances by the parliament.

The Coalition and Labor will most likely be in lockstep for the latest defence changes, a bill that sailed through the last House sitting while attention was mostly on estimates. It changes 14 different acts of legislation, while giving public servants ministerial powers to override state, territory and, in some cases, federal, laws if an area has been declared necessary for “defence capabilities”.

What laws? We don’t know. That’s not in the bill. But if the minister of the time thinks an area needs to be designated as a defence zone, then the bill allows for public and private-owned assets, the land, sea and sky around it, to become no-go areas.

And another fun fact – you can’t appeal a decision. It sits above the law. So, no doubt, this will end up in the High Court at some point, when civil rights and policy experts get a chance to actually examine the legislation.

Canberra Times journalist Dave Allen is among those who reported on the bill early, while Rita Jabri Markwell, a lawyer, policy analyst and human rights scholar has updated on the bill’s capabilities on her Substack. Sydney Criminal Lawyers, one of the best outlets to follow for the decay of civil liberties, has also alerted on the legislation.

Mostly, though, the bill is being treated like most of Australia’s national security and defence laws – a fait accompli, that both major parties support, and barely worth mentioning more widely.

Never mind that the legislation allows defence personnel, private defence contractors and arms and tech manufacturers from other countries to be given some of the same authorities previously reserved for Australian Defence Force personnel and public servants. Never mind that designated public servants within defence would be given the powers to override state and territory laws if the ADF wants.

Never mind that we are about to create federal militarised zones because our government appears to be preparing for war – and no one is really being told about it, or why they believe it necessary (could it be because Australia is handing over sovereignty to the US with AUKUS, including through establishing more American military bases on our shores, which is what makes us more of a target in the first place?!).

The explanatory memorandum says the bill is to update Australia’s strategic responses for a new era, and to protect against drone attacks. That’s on the minds of all Western powers after Iran showed it did not need multibillion-dollar aircraft carriers or navies to defend its territory – it managed it mostly through drones and AI Lego videos on social media.

The legislation changes will allow defence officials, ratified by the minister (a tick and flick exercise, at best), to declare special security zones, even temporarily, where unauthorised entry or presence (so, protest) – among other unauthorised and restricted activities – could land you in jail and or heavily fined.

Police will be given powers to patrol these special zones, along with defence and defence security officials, who will be given special enforcement gear by Defence for the purposes of their patrol.

Citizens can be searched, detained, compelled to show ID, subjected to use of force, including with dogs, and have items, including vehicles, boats or planes, seized.

It’s a bill the “Temu Trump” himself would have been proud to have under his authority.

So, of course, there will be no conservatives jumping up and down about property rights. No questions of overreach. Just another knock to Australian’s civil liberties that most won’t even know about. It should be more of a scandal that we are sold so cheaply.

Amy Remeikis is a contributing editor for The New Daily and chief political analyst for The Australia Institute

November 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Independent public inquiry report finds AUKUS nuclear submarine ambitions are ‘unachievable’

4 November 2026 | By Andrew McLaughlin https://psnews.com.au/independent-public-inquiry-report-finds-aukus-nuclear-submarine-ambitions-are-unachievable/188112/

A public inquiry into the trilateral AUKUS construct has released its Commissioner’s Report into one of Australia’s most controversial defence projects ever, the planned acquisition by the Royal Australian Navy of nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Titled Surrendering Australia, the AUKUS Deception, the report says the AUKUS Pillar I agreement between Australia, the UK and the US for nuclear submarines from these countries to be rotationally based in Western Australia from 2027, for Australia to buy up to five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the US in the 2030s, and for Australia to build new submarines of a British design in the 2040s should be scrapped.

The report says, since the AUKUS agreement was announced in 2021, the government has declined to thoroughly review the agreement, and hasn’t explained in detail how it advances Australia’s interests or better protects us.

“They have avoided answering fundamental questions about the costs and risks associated with AUKUS and have simply not answered the key question: ‘why AUKUS?’” it reads.

“Similarly, MPs from the major parties have brushed aside community concerns and avoided their responsibility to seriously debate in the parliament Australia’s largest ever defence acquisition program – estimated at over half a trillion dollars when the cost of nuclear waste disposal is included.

“After carefully considering all the material presented to us – over 10 days of hearings around Australia and more than 1000 submissions – we concluded that AUKUS is the worst, riskiest and most costly defence decision ever made by an Australian government,” it says.

“Neither the submissions we received nor the hearings we conducted uncovered any convincing foundations for AUKUS.”

The inquiry found the planned delivery schedule for the Virginia-class submarines and the follow-on SSN-AUKUS boats was “at best, problematic, and most likely unachievable”.

“What is more, successive governments have never adequately explained the need for nuclear-powered attack submarines in preference to submarine types with a more defensive capability and better suited to Australia’s regional waters.”

It said Australia had already spent about $9.2 billion to shore up the defence industrial bases of the US and UK and to start building a submarine shipyard in Australia, and that a further $50 billion was planned to be spent before any submarines are delivered.

“Extraordinarily, the lopsided agreement means the UK and US could walk away without delivering any submarines while retaining the billions of dollars we are providing to support their submarine building industries. Australia would have no redress,” it says.

In addition to these doubts, the report also cited unexplained costs, a declining trust in government here and in the US and a growing overreliance on the US, questions over Australia’s sovereignty over the submarines, a lack of strategic justification premised on what it says are false assertions of an increased risk of war with China, and long-term high-level nuclear waster storage and disposal problems, as reasons not to proceed.

Coordinated by the Australian Peace and Security Forum (APSF) and funded through crowd sourcing, the inquiry was launched on 3 June with the goal of conducting open hearings into the proposed $368 billion project.

The inquiry was headed up by former Labor minister and Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett, and included fellow commissioners former WA Labor premier and federal Labor minister Dr Carmen Lawrence, former Chief of Navy and Chief of Defence Force Admiral Chris Barrie (Ret’d), the co-CEO of the Australia Institute Leanne Minshull, and Yankunytjatjara woman Karina Lester.

“This is a once in a generation, if not once in a century, serious level decision-making exercise by Australian governments plural,” Garrett said at the launch. “The Australian people need to be a part of it.”

Over the four months of the inquiry from June to September, hearings were held in Melbourne, Fremantle, Adelaide, Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong, Brisbane, and Canberra. In total, the hearings heard from more than 150 witnesses, while more than 1000 written submissions were received.

“The Australian Peace and Security Forum, supported by several trade unions and community groups, combined to establish a public inquiry into AUKUS, relying on crowdfunding and grants,” the report reads

“With terms of reference agreed, the inquiry accessed information available on the public record from the three AUKUS partners and invited submissions and testimony from experts and citizens.

Presentations were made by former politicians including former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, former Labor ministers for foreign affairs Professor Gareth Evans and Bob Carr, former Labor deputy prime minister and defence minister Kym Beazley, and former Coalition defence minister Christopher Pyne and defence industry minister Linda Reynolds.

Current politicians who presented included ACT independent Senator David Pocock, NSW Greens Senator David Shoebridge, and Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie, WA independent MLA Johanthan Huston, WA Greens MLC Sophie McNeill, SA Greens MLC Melanie Selwood, Newcastle Deputy Lord Mayor Charlotte McCabe and Greens Councillor for Newcastle Siobhan Isherwood.

The government’s failure to appear and present comprehensive information on, and the reasons for, the AUKUS pact, and to answer the many serious questions asked by constituents was telling, and represents a failure in public accountability,” the report says.

November 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Aukus is ‘worst, riskiest and most costly’ Australian defence decision ever, public inquiry into submarine deal says

Report led by Peter Garrett and former defence chief Adm Chris Barrie says agreement should be suspended and calls for royal commission

Tom McIlroy, 4 November 26, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/nov/04/aukus-worst-australian-defence-decision-ever-public-inquiry

A public inquiry into the $368bn Aukus nuclear submarine agreement has called the plan “the worst, riskiest and most costly defence decision ever made by an Australian government”, urging its immediate termination.

Former Labor MP and Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett, alongside former chief of defence Adm Chris Barrie, led the inquiry dominated by critics of the deal with the UK and US, recommending the suspension of plans for new bases and for a royal commission to be held into the agreement signed by the former Morrison government.

Its report, titled Surrendering Australia: the Aukus Deception, says Australia risks being dragged into military conflict with China because of the presence of powerful nuclear submarines. Aukus badly undermines Australia’s sovereignty and undercuts longstanding commitments to nuclear non-proliferation, it says.

The inquiry report, released on Wednesday, was downloaded nearly 15,000 times within an hour of being published online.

The report calls for a rework of the second pillar of the agreement, which covers technology and defence capability sharing, and for a fundamental recalibration of Australia’s relationship with Beijing.

After hearings around the country and more than 1,000 public submissions, the inquiry highlighted a lack of scrutiny and oversight over the five years since Aukus was announced and called for the auditor general and federal parliament to launch independent reviews.

“Since coming to power, Labor has failed to conduct a thorough review of this most significant of defence agreements,” Garrett told the National Press Club in Canberra.

“Conceived in secret, Aukus has spurned established defence and parliamentary oversight practices.”

He said the Stirling defence precinct in Perth risked becoming a “de facto US base” hosting as many as 2,000 serving American personnel, and that nearby communities including Rockingham and Fremantle would become targets for attack.

“The Aukus submarine plan is not tenable,” Barrie, who served as chief of defence between 1998 and 2002, said.

“It’s time for our government to take the lead on this matter. Scrap the Aukus submarine plan now, and rebuild national security decision-making processes.”

Labor agreed to support the deal for Australia to acquire nuclear submarines, which was negotiated under Morrison, then US president Joe Biden and UK prime minister Boris Johnson. As part of the agreement, Australia is funding upgrades to the US defence industrial base and is due to start receiving secondhand Virginia class nuclear submarines around 2032.

But delays and cost blowouts for production of submarines for the US navy have led to scepticism that Australia will receive the in-service boats.

The UK parliament held a year-long review and, after an inquiry by the Pentagon in 2025, Donald Trump agreed to support Aukus.

But former prime ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, former foreign affairs ministers Gareth Evans and Bob Carr, environmental and security campaigners, and some within Labor believe Aukus is not in Australia’s national interest.

Frustrated by the lack of scrutiny – in part due to bipartisan support for Aukus in federal parliament – unions, not-for-profits and former officeholders launched their own inquiry backed by public donations totalling $220,000.

Labor argues Aukus was considered as part of the government’s defence strategic review.

Government ministers have dismissed the public inquiry as a stitch-up by critics of the agreement. A spokesperson for the defence minister, Richard Marles, said on Wednesday that Aukus is a core pillar of the Albanese government’s national security policy.

“As the national defence strategy 2026 re-confirms, we confront the most challenging strategic circumstances since the second world war, and we do so at a time where Australia’s economic connection with the world has never been greater,” they said.

“We need to support the development of an ADF with a much greater capacity to project so we can defend Australia and contribute to regional security and stability.”

Garrett warned any certainty the US president would eventually agree to send submarines to Australia could not be guaranteed.

“There are no refunds, no enforceable obligations on partner countries, and no recourse if things go wrong,” he said.

The inquiry estimates an additional $180bn will be needed to deal with nuclear waste generated by Aukus, based on evidence to the inquiry. No official cost estimates for waste have been published.

Australia has not identified a permanent storage site for the waste, including the high-level radioactive waste from the reactor core and spent fuel, which will remain toxic for thousands of years.

The government’s preferred measure of the total cost of the deal is 0.15% of GDP over its lifetime.

The first Virginia-class nuclear sub from the US is due to arrive in Australia in 2032, with another arriving every four years, before the Australian-built model is ready for operations. The bespoke SSN Aukus model is due to come online in 2042.

Campaign group Labor Against War welcomed the report.

“With rising cost of living and unemployment, spiralling inflation and interest rates, it is beyond comprehension why the Australian government is throwing billions into the war chests of the US military at a time when the Australian people are crying out for solutions at home,” the group’s patron and a former senator, Doug Cameron, said.

November 4, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

End US Military Basing in Australia

4 November 2026AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay

Australia should end US military basing and operational access on its soil. It should close joint military and intelligence facilities to US operations, remove American military stores and rotational deployments, and develop a defence force able to protect Australia under independent Australian direction.

That is the editorial position advanced here. It rests on a serious concern: facilities that support American military operations can expose Australians to the consequences of wars our country might otherwise avoid.

The United States does not have to threaten Australia directly for its presence here to create danger. The central question is whether Australians should accept that exposure as the continuing price of the alliance or undertake a planned withdrawal and build a more independent defence policy.

Quick Answer

Australia should negotiate an end to US military basing, joint operational facilities and standing military access, while building the capabilities needed for independent national defence. Hosting American combat support can create exposure to retaliation and make staying out of a US war harder. Governments argue that the alliance provides deterrence, intelligence and advanced technology; withdrawal would require managing the loss or reduction of those benefits. The strongest case for ending the presence combines a clear policy decision with lawful treaty processes, practical replacement of essential capabilities, worker support and environmental responsibility. It does not require claiming that war is inevitable.

What ending US military basing in Australia means

The policy must cover what foreign forces can do here, wherever those activities occur.

The Department of Defence’s force posture overview describes northern base upgrades, expanding cooperation, and plans for prepositioned fuel, munitions and equipment. Prepositioning places supplies where a force may need them before a crisis begins.

Ending this presence would mean withdrawing permission for continuing American deployments and military operations. At jointly operated facilities, including Pine Gap, it would mean ending US military and intelligence operations. At Australian bases, it would mean ending US operational access while retaining facilities Australia needs for its own defence.

Changing the sign on a gate would achieve little if the same foreign military functions continued. A withdrawal policy should address personnel, contractors performing military functions, equipment, communications and operational arrangements.

The government’s description of sovereignty arrangements distinguishes rotational access and joint facilities from foreign bases. Those distinctions matter legally. The proposed policy would end the operational presence across those categories, rather than depend on a particular label.

Australia could retain civilian scientific exchanges, trade and diplomatic relations. Decisions about short humanitarian visits would remain separate from granting a foreign military an enduring operating presence.

How the US presence can expose Australians to war

A military campaign relies on support systems. Aircraft need fuel and repairs. Ships need maintenance and supplies. Commanders need communications and intelligence.

Consider a hypothetical US–China war. Canberra declines to deploy Australian combat forces, but facilities here continue supporting American operations. An opponent could consider disabling those facilities useful to its campaign.

The danger arises from their military contribution. It does not depend solely on whether Australia has announced that it is joining the war.

The International Committee of the Red Cross explains that a military objective must contribute effectively to military action and offer a definite military advantage if destroyed or neutralised. Civilian protection, proportionality and precautions remain legal requirements. A military role does not give another country a general legal entitlement to attack Australia or surrounding communities.

Whether an attack would occur depends on the particular conflict, military decisions and risks of escalation. Ending US access would remove one pathway of exposure; it would not eliminate every threat to Australia.

For communities near military facilities, the consequences could extend well beyond the installation itself. Emergency planning must consider possible disruption to transport, communications, health services and essential supplies. Residents deserve a voice in decisions that could increase those risks.

Expansion makes the choice more urgent……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..https://theaimn.net/end-us-military-basing-in-australia/

November 4, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Why Britain cannot deliver SSN-AUKUS on schedule

Australia is pinning its strategic future to an overburdened, fiscally constrained UK industrial baseline.

Peter Briggs, October 1, 2026, https://pearlsandirritations.com/post/2026/10/why-britain-cannot-deliver-ssn-aukus-on-schedule/

Britain says SSN-AUKUS remains on track. But its shipyards are already stretched while new reactor and workforce capacity is still being built. Australia is betting heavily on that gap being closed in time.

The public relations narrative of AUKUS Pillar 1 rests on a singular, untested premise: that the United Kingdom can seamlessly transition from its current Astute and Dreadnought submarine programs to deliver a brand-new, complex, 10,000-tonne nuclear-powered attack submarine, SSN-AUKUS, on schedule.

Recent developments in the UK demonstrate that this political optimism is fundamentally disconnected from the physical, contractual, financial and industrial realities on the ground at BAE Systems’ shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness.

In September 2025, King Charles formally commissioned HMS Agamemnon, the sixth Astute-class submarine, into the Royal Navy. Press releases heralded a major defence milestone. Yet, far from entering active service, Agamemnon remained tied up inside the Devonshire Dock Basin at Barrow for another full year, only departing for initial contractor sea trials on 24 September 2026.

The early commissioning reverses standard Royal Navy procurement. Laid down in July 2013, Agamemnon took 13 years and two months simply to leave the dock. Her actual entry into service will not occur until mid-to-late 2027 – a 14-year construction timeline.

This ceremonial exercise illustrates a broader pattern of political messaging substituting for industrial output. Claims that steel will be cut for the first SSN-AUKUS hull at Barrow in 2027 follow the same pattern. Embarking on physical hull fabrication before completing a preliminary design review (PDR) and freezing the 3D spatial design model risks severe engineering setbacks. For SSN-AUKUS, detailed design funded under a £3.95 billion development contract running through 2028 remains under way. Without a stable PDR baseline, internal layouts, reactor integration and pipework remain in flux. ‘Cutting steel’ in 2027 will merely involve cutting test rings or material qualification modules rather than assembling an operational warship.

Yard saturation and uncontracted infrastructure

The physical state of Barrow shipyard exposes the impossibility of fast-tracking SSN-AUKUS.

The heart of Barrow’s manufacturing capability is the Devonshire Dock Hall (DDH). Currently, the DDH is full. It houses the first three Dreadnought-class ballistic missile submarines (Dreadnought, Valiant and Warspite) alongside the final Astute hull, HMS Achilles (Boat 7), while initial fabrication for the fourth SSBN (HMS King George VI) proceeds off-site. There is no physical bay space inside the primary hall to establish an SSN-AUKUS production line.

The severity of this spatial bottleneck was underlined in a recent planning application submitted by BAE Systems Marine Ltd for its North Quay site, immediately adjacent to the DDH. BAE sought municipal approval to erect a 125-metre-long temporary enclosed scaffold structure on the open quay to house overflowing component manufacturing and outfitting. In its official filing, BAE acknowledged the improvised structure was explicitly required “as a result of capacity constraints within the Devonshire Dock Hall (DDH)”.

When a major nuclear shipyard must resort to 125-metre fabric sheds on quayside aprons to handle current workloads, absorbing a new 10,000-tonne attack submarine line strains credibility.

To bypass this bottleneck, BAE Systems purchased an 18-acre former gas site at Ramsden Dock. The plan is to manufacture hull cylinders on this port land and barge them via a roll-on/roll-off (Ro-Ro) quay to the main dock basin. However, the site requires extensive clearing, re-grading and deep piling before shed construction can begin.

Crucially, while the initial £3.95 billion contract covers preliminary 3D design and basic enabling works, primary contract packages required to build these sheds and construct the Ro-Ro wharf remain unexecuted or fragmented across future budget cycles. Furthermore, in July 2026, the UK MoD awarded a £5.9 billion delivery contract strictly prioritised for the Dreadnought-class SSBN. Because Britain’s continuous at-sea deterrent takes total strategic precedence, primary nuclear engineers, dry docks and yard resources at Barrow are contractually locked into Dreadnought through to the delivery of the fourth boat in the late 2030s.

Reactor supply and logistics bottlenecks

The industrial choke point extends beyond Barrow to the nuclear supply chain at Raynesway in Derby, where Rolls-Royce Submarines manufactures all Royal Navy reactor cores.

To support both Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS, Rolls-Royce began work to double the footprint of its Raynesway site in July 2026. Once assembled, complete PWR3 reactor modules must be transported over 150 miles by road in heavy-duty, radiation-shielded containers under armed police escort along the M6 and A590 corridors directly into the Barrow yard.

While the PWR3 reactor has been lowered into lead boat HMS Dreadnought inside DDH, manufacturing and delivering reactors for follow-on SSBN hulls alongside initial SSN-AUKUS units creates a severe industrial queue. Raynesway remains constrained by strict nuclear licensing oversight and an acute shortage of specialised nuclear-certified welding technicians.

The human and civil bottleneck

The physical sheds at Barrow may eventually be erected; however, the civil infrastructure required to support the workforce does not exist in the numbers required.

BAE Systems has expanded its Barrow workforce from 11,000 to approximately 16,000, aiming for over 18,000. In 2026, the UK House of Commons Defence Committee warned that infrastructure investment at Barrow “has already faltered”. BAE Systems formally advised local government that the shipyard requires 900 new homes to be built annually in Barrow to house incoming technicians. Current local construction struggles to deliver 200 units per year. Thousands of contractors commute daily along the single-carriageway A590, creating severe transport gridlock.

In response, the UK Government established ‘Team Barrow’ with a £200 million regeneration fund. However, Team Barrow leadership has publicly acknowledged that this seed allocation falls far short, stating that £400 million to £800 million in combined investment will be required to tackle the town’s infrastructure deficit. Furthermore, this funding is designated for general municipal upgrades – schools, healthcare and roads – rather than industrial shipyard tooling.

Britain lacks the localised housing, transport capacity and specialised nuclear-certified trade workforce to operate two concurrent submarine construction lines.

Strategic imperatives: NATO vs Indo-Pacific overreach

This industrial overstretch must be viewed through the unforgiving lens of Britain’s fiscal deficit and shifting strategic priorities.

Under mounting financial pressure, the UK Ministry of Defence faces a multibillion-pound structural budget shortfall. The UK Strategic Defence Review has formalised a mandatory ‘NATO-first’ posture, directing military resources, capital investment and force readiness primarily toward European defence and deterrence against Russian aggression. Facing a security crisis on its continental doorstep, Whitehall cannot afford to bankroll massive, long-horizon industrial expansions designed to project power into the Indo-Pacific.

Sustaining Britain’s continuous at-sea deterrent via Dreadnought consumes the lion’s share of UK capital expenditure. Coupled with urgent demands to re-arm land and air forces in Europe, attempting to design and build a bespoke 10,000-tonne attack submarine for Australia would appear to be a lower priority.

Industry is striving to recover from decades of systemic neglect that has left operational SSN capability immobilised and the continuous at-sea deterrent under strain. Political ambition cannot overrule the laws of industrial capacity, national economics and engineering physics.

Australia is pinning its strategic future to an overburdened, fiscally constrained UK industrial baseline. The physical and financial evidence at Barrow – an unbuilt off-site facility, a saturated main assembly hall requiring temporary outdoor work space, unfinalised contracts for primary manufacturing sheds, acute housing deficits, severe reactor supply chain queues, and a UK defence budget deficit whilst pivoting back to Europe – demonstrates that Britain cannot deliver SSN-AUKUS on the promised timeline.

Relying on ‘schedule-free’ assurances while ignoring these constraints guarantees a severe capability gap for Australia. It is time for Washington, London and Canberra to acknowledge these ground realities and undertake a fundamental reappraisal before industrial overreach turns into operational and political catastrophe.

Peter Briggs

Peter Briggs retired from the RAN in 2001 after a 40-year career, specialising in submarines. This included two submarine commands, command of the RAN Submarine Squadron, director of Submarine Policy and Warfare and Head of Submarine Capability Team, established to rectify Collins introduction into service issues. He was the president of the Submarine Institute of Australia from 2006-09 and is a frequent contributor to public debate on Australian submarine matters.

October 3, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

US looks to Australia to help solve its nuclear-powered submarine problem

former deputy US secretary of state Kurt Campbell warned at a US Studies Centre forum in Sydney that there were sceptics at the Pentagon who would “love a stumble” on AUKUS. 

After a US report found the country is losing billions on idle submarines, a top AUKUS ally in Congress pointed out Australia is happy to help.

Anton Nilsson, Sep 25, 2026, https://www.crikey.com.au/2026/09/25/aukus-us-congress-nuclear-powered-submarines-report-henderson-defence-precinct/

A top AUKUS supporter in Washington has pointed to Australia’s contribution to the alliance as a way to solve America’s problems with maintaining its submarine fleet. 

Democratic representative Joe Courtney, a co-chair of the Friends of Australia caucus in the US Congress, issued a statement on Wednesday in response to a damning report on the USA’s ability to maintain its submarines.

The report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), published last month, found the US Navy had “lost more than 15,000 operational days due to maintenance delays and idle time on active attack submarines” over the past decade.

“Inactive idle time describes when an attack submarine designated for decommissioning cannot be inducted into a dry dock in a shipyard,” the report said. “As a result, the submarine and its crew must remain pier-side until a shipyard has the capacity in a dry dock to defuel their nuclear reactor.”

Virginia-class submarines — the type Australia hopes to purchase through the AUKUS agreement — cost US$237,080 per day to operate, and had been idle or in “depot maintenance delay” for a total of 3,522 days between 2016 and 2025, the report said. That meant the total cost for those idle vessels was US$835 million, equivalent to $1.1 billion in Australian currency, in that time period.

Another type of submarine the report looked at, the Los Angeles-class, had a total cost of US$3.3 billion over 15,165 idle days. The problem with inactive idle time was projected to worsen, and could cost the US $3.1 billion through 2030 if solutions aren’t found. 

The GAO recommended the Navy try new ways of decommissioning submarines, including defueling outside of dry docks and reducing the crew numbers required on boats waiting to be decommissioned. 

In his statement, Courtney pointed out that the “swift authorisation of the AUKUS security agreement” would mean “the US Navy’s submarine fleet will have new intermediate repair capacity” at a new Australian Defence Force site at Henderson, WA.

Courtney also pointed to Australia’s US$8.5 billion investment in “repair availability for Virginia-class submarines and the future SSN-AUKUS submarines”, a planned new class of nuclear-powered submarines that forms a cornerstone of the agreement between the US, Australia and the UK.

Australia’s government has said the under-construction Henderson Defence Precinct site will include dry docks and other infrastructure for maintaining the country’s future submarines. Royal Australian Navy personnel have in the past participated in maintenance work on US nuclear-powered submarines on Australian soil, work that Canberra has described as a “significant leap in Australia’s journey to acquire a sovereign capability to operate and maintain conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines”.

Not everyone in Washington is viewing the AUKUS agreement with such positivity: former deputy US secretary of state Kurt Campbell warned at a US Studies Centre forum in Sydney that there were sceptics at the Pentagon who would “love a stumble” on AUKUS. 

“I still think there are probably people at the [US] Department of Defence that would love a stumble [on AUKUS] to be able to say, ‘Ah, gee, this is something we need to reevaluate.’ It’s going to be very important to keep those folks on their back heels, and I believe that we’re doing that,” Campbell said on Wednesday, according to The Australian.

“So, you know, we have many hurdles ahead, and this is going to continue to require consistent, high-level application, challenges and training operations. But I think, so far, I would give us better than a pass grade [on AUKUS].”

September 26, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

What Australia has spent so far

Five years into AUKUS, what do we have to show for it? We’ve measured progress on three key metrics

Thomas Corben and Esther Soulard, The Conversation, 15 Sept 26,

“. What Australia has spent so far.…………………………………………………………Australians are justified in wanting to know how much money their government has invested in AUKUS, and where it has gone.

When the Optimal Pathway was announced in 2023, the Albanese government costed it at 0.15% of GDP annually over the life of the program. This would amount to roughly A$268 billion to A$368 billion over three decades.

Since then, the A$368 billion figure has been widely cited by the media as the ultimate price tag.

Crucially, at the time, a third of this total – around A$122.9 billion – was set aside as contingency funding to absorb the delays and cost pressures that come with a 30-year program. In other words, it may not actually be spent.

Accurately tracking Australia’s overall spending to date is difficult. Since 2023, there has been a flurry of government statements announcing or promising funding to support various aspects of AUKUS over different time frames. These figures are scattered across portfolios, and are sometimes announced and then folded into the forward estimates of the federal budget. Some are projections, rather than down payments.

Both the Liberals and Greens have pressed the government to share updated costings for AUKUS. Budget papers do not offer an itemised account nor a consolidated overall figure for the program so far.

With no central database for AUKUS spending, we set out to build one.

We went through public announcements, portfolio budget statements, annual reports and strategy documents, and attempted to trace everything that’s been spent, announced, promised or projected.

What we’ve come up with hardly qualifies as a ledger. Still, it reveals three important things.

First, the bulk of the funding announced in Australia has gone to infrastructure, across three main sites:

• A$12 billion on the Henderson Defence Precinct, a shipbuilding and submarine maintenance hub on the west coast
• A$8 billion to expand HMAS Stirling so it can host US and UK submarines under SRF-West from 2027, and Australia’s own fleet of submarines from the early 2030s
• A$8.5 billion to the Osborne Nuclear-Powered Submarine Construction Yard, where Australia’s nuclear submarines will be built.

Second, Canberra is investing in the UK and US submarine industrial bases to support the delivery of the Virginia-class and future AUKUS-class submarines to Australia. This reflects the additional demand Australia’s submarines will put on production and maintenance capacity in both countries.

This has included US$2 billion (about A$2.8 billion) to the US in three instalments, with a further US$1 billion (A$1.4 billion) in instalments pledged over the next decade.

Canberra has also paid A$310 million to the UK for components needed to build nuclear submarines and has committed an additional £2.4 billion (about A$4.6 billion) over a decade to expand the UK’s submarine production capacity.

Third, AUKUS will consume a growing share of the Australian defence budget, even if the government follows through on its commitment to increase spending to 3% of GDP by 2033.

In 2023, the Parliamentary Budget Office projected annual AUKUS spending to be roughly A$2.2 billion per year over the program’s first four years, rising to more than A$8 billion annually for the next three decades. This means most of the spending is still to come.

There’s a long list of various capabilities required to meet Australia’s future defence requirements. If the Defence budget does not grow sufficiently and AUKUS eats into those programs, the overall investment in these capabilities could become lopsided.

2. A new submarine base in WA

Until the Virginia-class submarines arrive, we still need to make sure our near-term defence needs are being met. We also need to be ready for when our subs show up.

This is where Submarine Rotational Force-West comes in.

The first phase of the AUKUS program involves frequent visits by US and UK submarines to HMAS Stirling in Perth from next year. These subs won’t be formally based in Australia; they will rotate in and out.

But these aren’t mere pitstops. Australians are being trained in how to maintain the ships and handle their weapons. Some US submarines already have Australians serving onboard. These initiatives are helping to prepare Australia to maintain our own nuclear-powered submarines when they come online.

The US is also setting up local operations to provide services, logistics and operational support to these rotating submarines and their crews. This will be the only location outside US and UK territories in the Indo-Pacific where these subs can receive sophisticated maintenance support.

Crucially, these facilities will be beyond the range of most (though not all) of China’s growing missile capabilities…….

3. US submarine availability

Sceptics in both the US and Australia have expressed doubt about Washington’s willingness to sell at least three submarines to Australia beginning in the 2030s, given how much it relies on them and how long it takes to build them.

Indeed, the speed of US submarine production has been under particular scrutiny. The conventional wisdom is production needs to hit around 2.33 boats per year to meet both US and Australian requirements.

There are no consistent public records for the actual production rate, but the estimates are sobering.

New builds have averaged 1.1–1.3 submarines per year since the COVID pandemic, down from a high of 1.9 per year from 2016–19. US Navy leaders anticipate reaching two subs per year by 2032 – still short of the 2.33 goal.

Yet, production rates only tell part of the story. If Australia is supposed to receive in-service submarines from the US, understanding the state and size of the existing fleet is just as important.

In 2016, the US Navy declared it needed a force of 66 submarines to counter growing Chinese and Russian threats – up from a previous requirement of 48.

But since then, the US’ submarine fleet size has gradually declined, with older submarines retiring at a marginally higher rate than their modern replacements (the Virginia-class subs) have been introduced.

This reflects the difficulties Washington has had speeding up production, even with US$15 billion (about A$21 billion) in navy investments since 2018, contributions from the Australian government, and a growing number of Australian companies supporting US shipbuilding.

What’s more, since 2016, between 25–33% of the US submarine fleet has been undergoing maintenance, at significant financial and operational cost. For Australia, addressing that backlog will be as important as boosting US production rates.

Australia is already helping to ease these challenges with investments at Submarine Rotational Force-West and its own shipyards. If the AUKUS partners take full advantage of these developments, this could increase the number of boats available to the US Navy – and, by extension, to Australia.

So, while the US has a mountain to climb to boost sub production, that won’t be the only factor that determines the timeline for Australia’s AUKUS fleet………………………………………………………. https://theconversation.com/five-years-into-aukus-what-do-we-have-to-show-for-it-weve-measured-progress-on-three-key-metrics-289885?utm_campaign=the-daily-39531&utm_content=the-daily-39531_au%7C1%7C39531%7Cc3c55007&utm_medium=email&utm_source=braze&utm_term=whether+our+investments+to+date+are+worth+it

September 19, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

First nuclear-capable B-52s deploy to Australia

By Bill Gertz – The Washington Times – Thursday, September 10, 2026

A task force of nuclear-capable B-52 bombers has deployed for the first time to Australia in a show of regional force located to the south of China.

The bombers arrived last week at an upgraded Royal Australian Air Force Base Tindal. Local reports called it a new era in Australia’s military alliance with the U.S.

A Pacific Air Forces spokesman confirmed to Inside the Ring that the bomber task force is underway Down Under………….

The exact number of the strategic bombers from the 2nd Bomber Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, was not disclosed. Most task forces include up to six B-52s.

An Air Force photo of the deployment stated in a caption that the bombers arrived Sept. 1. “Operating from RAAF Base Tindal marks our ability to project, sustain, and regenerate decisive airpower across an expanding extended network,” the caption stated.

The long-range bombers can deliver nuclear bombs or conventional precision-guided weapons.

The Tindal base has been upgraded with new hangars and ramps for the bombers. It is located in northern Australia about 200 miles south of the northernmost coastal city of Darwin and about 2,000 miles from the tense South China Sea.

The base also hosts Australian F-35 stealth jets and MQ-4C Triton surveillance drones.

Currently, U.S. Marines are based in Darwin and a submarine rotational force was set up near Perth, with about 1,000 Navy personnel set to deploy in support of Virginia-class submarine deployment. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/sep/10/first-nuclear-capable-b-52s-deploy-australia/

September 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

US turning Australia into military base

“Over more than a decade, the United States has been preparing the capacity for high-tempo warfighting operations with China, springboarding from Australia. From a Chinese perspective, Australia is not so much hosting US bases on its territory, it’s a US base in its own right… Australia is a serious piece of real estate in the US warfighting machine.”

Wed, 09 Sep 2026 , https://www.sott.net/article/508329-US-turning-Australia-into-military-base-Guardian

USA • Australia military eventThe US is turning Australia into a forward base for potential military operations in the Pacific, with American forces and defense contractors controlling or having access to roughly two-thirds of the country’s military facilities,The Guardian reported on Sunday.

Citing data compiled by the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, the newspaper identified 110 facilities across Australia with some form of US military or corporate presence out of 168 surveyed.

The US military directly controls 17 facilities, including the Pine Gap intelligence complex in central Australia, which plays a major role in US surveillance and military operations. The facility tracks missile launches, intercepts communications and provides targeting information for American forces around the world.

Other installations include a naval communications station in Western Australia used to communicate with submerged US submarines and RAAF Base Tindal in the north, which is being expanded to accommodate nuclear-capableB-52 Stratofortress bombers.

The Guardian wrote:

“These aircraft are able to land on Australian soil carrying nuclear weapons. The US government won’t tell Australia if and when they are. The Australian government won’t ask.”

Beyond the facilities it directly controls, the US military has access to dozens of Australian installations, while American defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, operate at others. According to the Nautilus data, 41 of the 168 facilities surveyed have no significant US presence, while the status of another 17 remains unresolved.

The American footprint is also expanding. In June, AFP reported that the US was preparing to establish a permanent stockpile of battle-ready weapons, ammunition, and equipment for the Marine Corps in Australia, with the facility expected to reach full capacity by 2028.

An honorary professorial fellow at the University of Melbourne, Richard Tanter, the author of the Nautilus database, told The Guardian:

“Over more than a decade, the United States has been preparing the capacity for high-tempo warfighting operations with China, springboarding from Australia. From a Chinese perspective, Australia is not so much hosting US bases on its territory, it’s a US base in its own right… Australia is a serious piece of real estate in the US warfighting machine.”

Canberra maintains that the growing American presence strengthens Australia’s security.Defense Minister Richard Marles said in June that the expanding US footprint was important both for building the country’s military capabilities and for its national security.

Marles also argued that the US presence helped counter what he described as China’s “very significant military buildup” in the region.

Former Australian Defense Minister Christopher Pyne has similarly said the 2021 AUKUS pact between Australia, the US, and UK goes beyond Canberra’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines. He described the arrangement as establishing “a new United States submarine base in the Indian Ocean” that would provide Washington with a “massive strategic advantage.”

Tanter criticized Canberra’s approach, calling it:

“A massive institutional failure in Australia, a kind of learned incapacity at a political, parliamentary and bureaucratic level.”

Comment: Tanter is right: Trust and comfort never convey the total picture, nor be they the appropriate guardians of sovereign control.

September 13, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australia’s continued enmeshment with the US could make it a nuclear target, former Labor minister warns

“This makes Australia a priority nuclear target for any adversary of the United States,”

“An adversary would target Australia before targeting the US directly since to do so would invite immediate retaliation.”

Former Labor minister Melissa Parke has warned that Australia’s close military ties to the United States make it a priority nuclear target that adversaries would likely strike before attacking the US directly.

By Tegan George, Tue 8 Sep 2026 , https://thepoint.com.au/new/260908-australias-continued-enmeshment-with-the-us-could-make-it-a-nuclear-target-former-labor-minister-warns

Former Labor minister Melissa Parke has warned that Australia’s close military ties to the United States make it a priority nuclear target that adversaries would likely strike before attacking the US directly.

Speaking on the Australia Institute’s After America podcast, Ms Parke said Australia’s increasing enmeshment with the US was even more reason for it to join the “groundbreaking” Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

“It’s the first treaty to comprehensively and categorically prohibit nuclear weapons and anything to do with them: developing, possessing, testing, using, threatening to use, sharing, deploying, et cetera,” she said.

Ms Parke, now executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), said more than half the world’s countries had joined as states parties or signatories, including almost all of Australia’s neighbours in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific.

While Labor has committed in its national platform to joining the treaty since 2018, the Albanese government is yet to sign on the dotted line.

The commitment was moved by Anthony Albanese and seconded by Richard Marles, now Prime Minister and Defence Minister.

Defence Minister Richard Marles recently travelled to the US to meet his counterpart, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, as the countries marked the 75^th anniversary of the ANZUS alliance.

Following the meeting, they agreed to “accelerate force posture initiatives” at Australian bases but didn’t say whether that would mean more American troops heading down under.

The growing US military presence includes the rotation of nuclear-powered submarines through HMAS Stirling and nuclear-capable B-52 bombers at RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory, alongside existing joint facilities such as Pine Gap.

“This makes Australia a priority nuclear target for any adversary of the United States,” said Ms Parke.

“An adversary would target Australia before targeting the US directly since to do so would invite immediate retaliation.”

She argued other countries in the region had joined the treaty without damaging their US relationship, pointing to Palau, New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand.

Ms Parke said she understood the Albanese government was concerned about “upsetting” the US but cited former prime minister Paul Keating’s remark that “we couldn’t get rid of the Americans even if we wanted to”.

“Our own former foreign minister, Gareth Evans, says that reliance on US nuclear deterrence is both dangerous because it makes us a nuclear target and absurd because the US would never sacrifice one of its cities for ours.”

She said the treaty also provided victim assistance and remediation of affected environments.

“There’s a bit of a myth out there that nuclear weapons have only ever been used twice in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” she told the podcast.

“But in fact, nuclear weapons have been exploded more than 2000 times around the world, mostly on colonised Indigenous and vulnerable communities.”

That includes Australia, where the British conducted 12 major nuclear detonations and hundreds of radiological trials in Western and South Australia between 1952 and 1963.

The tests caused severe radioactive contamination and prompted a royal commission into their lasting health and environmental impacts.

The treaty’s first review conference is due to be held in New York from 30 November to 4 December, but Ms Parke said some affected communities would not attend because they “don’t feel safe” under the Trump administration.

Ms Parke accused the US of doing “enormous damage” to international institutions and appearing willing to violate and discard any rule or norm of international law.

“When we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness,” she said.

“We accept what’s offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating. This is not sovereignty. It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.”

September 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

AUKUS makes Australia a nuclear target, top experts warn

Rob Harris, September 3, 2026 —https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/aukus-makes-australia-a-nuclear-target-top-experts-warn-20260902-p60tnk.html

Australia is significantly more likely to be dragged into a destructive conflict with China — and potentially targeted with nuclear weapons — under the AUKUS security pact, two former senior national security figures have warned.

Michael Keating, a former Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary, and former public servant Jon Stanford argue that the federal government’s current defence posture has “sacrificed considerable sovereignty” to the United States while leaving the country uniquely vulnerable without a guaranteed security safety net.

The pair will front a crowd-funded public inquiry into the AUKUS submarine pact on Thursday, urging the federal government to immediately redesign its national strategy, cancel plans to acquire American Virginia-class and British-designed SSN AUKUS nuclear-powered attack submarines, and pivot to low-enriched uranium vessels sourced from France or South Korea.

Keating, the most senior public servant during the Hawke-Keating era, spent 11 years on the Secretaries Committee on National Security – including five years as chairman – while Stanford has extensive background in submarine research and defence policy.

“Under AUKUS, Australia’s security is under greater threat while it has become increasingly clear that we cannot rely on the US for our defence,” they write in their submission. “We are now in a situation where, because of the AUKUS strategy of integrated deterrence in defence of US regional primacy, Australia is more likely to be attacked, potentially with nuclear weapons”.

They cite prescient warnings from former French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, who noted in 2021 that Australia had made a choice “to the detriment of sovereignty” and predicted it would discover later it had sacrificed both security and self-determination.

According to the submission, the policy of “integrated deterrence” and “pooled sovereignty” effectively converts Australian military facilities into forward operating locations for US forces without giving Canberra oversight or veto power.

They point out that unlike allies such as Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, Australia lacks a formal US security guarantee, such as NATO’s Article V.

Yet, by developing command and basing infrastructure – such as the US submarine squadron facilities at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia – Australia becomes a prime military target.

“If there is a war between the US and China, Australia will inevitably be involved … even if we do not provide military support,” the submission states, adding that escalating hostilities could leave Australia open to nuclear strikes.

Fronting the first day of the hearings in Canberra on Wednesday, former home affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo called for a deeper military integration with the US, agreeing that Australia could surrender sovereignty under the current AUKUS without gaining a meaningful say in decisions that could draw it into a war with China.

Pezzullo, a national security hawk and former senior public servant under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments, was sacked by Labor in 2023 after confidential messages between him and Liberal Party powerbroker Scott Briggs were leaked to this masthead. The Australian Public Service Commission subsequently found he had breached the public service code of conduct on 14 occasions.

“If I was a Chinese war planner,” Pezzullo said, “I would flatten every single potential facility that might be used overnight by Americans flying in.”

He said facilities including Tindal, Stirling, North West Cape and Pine Gap could be targeted in such a conflict.

But Pezzullo said AUKUS’s nuclear-powered submarine program would transform Australia’s military options, giving the navy greater speed, endurance and reach while opening the way for a new generation of autonomous underwater systems.

Undersea warfare would be critical in any future conflict, from anti-submarine operations to intelligence gathering, he said.

At the same time, Pezzullo said Australia should not commit to fighting alongside the US in every future conflict.

“Alliances are political documents first and foremost,” he said, arguing that countries must retain the ability to make sovereign decisions when a conflict actually occurs.

But he said those political alliances needed military planning and preparation underneath them.

Australia, he said, could either try to remain outside a future US-China conflict and accept the consequences if Washington lost, or strengthen its alliance with the US in the hope that the combined deterrent would prevent war.

“The only choice would be whether we want to sit it out and hope for the best,” Pezzullo said. “I think that’s not plausible.”

The choice was whether to remain on the sidelines and accept the consequences if Washington lost, or deepen the alliance in the hope that Australian involvement would strengthen deterrence.

“I prefer that latter approach,” Pezzullo said. “The war machine is the thing that prevents the war.”

September 4, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Fears WA’s HMAS Stirling naval base now a legitimate nuclear target amid US build-up

Experts have warned that a naval base in Western Australia has emerged as a potential nuclear target, leaving Aussie lives on the line.

Adrian Zorzut, August 22, 2026, https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/fears-was-hmas-stirling-naval-base-now-a-legitimate-nuclear-target-amid-us-buildup/news-story/d64650c74a47f29ccdce53c30715cdff?amp

A key Aussie navy base is in the crosshairs of hostile foreign nations – and could even potentially become a nuclear target, an expert has warned.

From 2027, HMAS Stirling – off the coast of Perth – will welcome a rotation of US and UK submarines.

The US could run nuclear-powered submarines out of Australia “tomorrow”, the top American admiral for the Indo-Pacific has said in remarks declaring the endeavour “absolutely essential” to keeping China at bay.

Fronting a congressional committee in Washington on Wednesday (Thursday AEST), Admiral Samuel Paparo praised Australia’s progress in preparing Western Australia’s HMAS Stirling to host US and UK naval rotations from next year

“To have a rotational base in the Indian Ocean is absolutely essential,” he said.

“HMAS Stirling is on track for the rotational force that will arrive here in Perth in a little over a year.

“Between the pier, the shore power, the facilities with the tender and a marine security company, we could be ready today to operate a rotational submarine squadron out of Australia tomorrow.”

He added that “Australian submariners are performing well on the ships” as well as “in the schools”.

“And in every regard, in pillar 1, we’re on track,” he said, referring to the US’ ability to supply three Virginia-class submarines to Australia.

Australia has pumped billions into getting HMAS Stirling ready for Submarine Rotational Force-West, with the biggest work in preparing to support nuclear-powered vessels.

Hosting the boats is part of AUKUS, which aims to arm Australia’s navy with nuclear-powered submarines early next decade.

The $368bn pact is the centrepiece of Australia’s 21st century defence strategy and aimed at deterring China’s growing military aggression in the region.

In a written statement to committee members, Admiral Paparo warned that China was aiming to “project power beyond its near geography to set the rules for every relationship across the globe”.

August 30, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Britain can’t provide us with nuclear submarines, says Malcolm Turnbull.

Speaking at an inquiry into the viability of the Aukus deal, the former
Australian prime minister said the agreement was ‘a colossal mistake’.

The former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has called British
shipbuilding an “industry in disarray” and predicted it will produce
few, if any, of the nuclear-powered submarines promised under the Aukus
agreement in the foreseeable future.

Speaking at an independent inquiry
into the implications and viability of the tri-nation submarine deal, which
will cost Australia the equivalent of nearly £200 billion, the former
Liberal Party leader described the pact as “a colossal mistake”.

 Times 10th Aug 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/world/australasia/article/australia-submarines-aukus-deal-malcolm-turnbull-jqc2x66hq

August 13, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment