Arnaud Bertrand
@RnaudBertrand
Subscribe
Rather interesting timing that the Pentagon would launch a review "to decide if US should scrap AUKUS" right after the US-China talks in London.It's probably a mere coincidence - all the more because the talks were about trade and not defense - but it remains intriguing to see the Pentagon announcing it might "scrap" an anti-China alliance literally right after a round of US-China negotiations concludes.For those who don't remember, AUKUS started in 2021 when Australia stabbed France in the back by cancelling, without prior warning, a $66 billion contract to build submarines in order - as per the AUKUS deal - to buy U.S. submarines instead.It was later revealed (https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/29/emmanuel-macron-boris-johnson-brexit-migrants/…), by Boris Johnson in his newly published memoirs, that AUKUS was a "revenge" against Macron because he "suspected him" of purposefully not doing enough to stop the flow of ‘small boats’ with migrants that cross the Channel to Britain, all as a way of "punishing Britain" for Brexit. As a result Johnson writes in his book that "he managed to get US President Joe Biden to agree to sign a secret defence deal with Australia at the G7 summit in Cornwall in 2021, which meant Canberra would have to pull out of an agreement to buy submarines from the French."Yet another proof of the maturity and statesmanship of Western leaders - the guy literally weaponized on a global scale a spat over rubber dinghies in the English Channel, causing considerable tensions in Asia.Anyhow Johnson's "revenge" strategy might be about to come full circle because it's become increasingly clear over the years that Australia was never going to receive its promised U.S. subs, simply because the U.S. has become incapable of building them.The U.S. Congress admitted as much in a report late last year (https://congress.gov/crs_external_products/RL/PDF/RL32418/RL32418.285.pdf…), writing that the U.S. industrial base is so degraded that it can barely meet its own submarine needs, let alone Australia's. They would need to be able to 2.33 submarines a year to be able to fulfill AUKUS yet they can barely produce 1.2. Selling subs to Australia would therefore mean depleting the U.S. Navy's own fleet, leave the U.S. Navy with fewer boats until at least 2040-2049 according to the Congressional report, which U.S. doctrine forbids. So what will likely happen now?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember at the time many saying that no subs would ever be built.
@RnaudBertrand
Subscribe
Rather interesting timing that the Pentagon would launch a review "to decide if US should scrap AUKUS" right after the US-China talks in London.It's probably a mere coincidence - all the more because the talks were about trade and not defense - but it remains intriguing to see the Pentagon announcing it might "scrap" an anti-China alliance literally right after a round of US-China negotiations concludes.For those who don't remember, AUKUS started in 2021 when Australia stabbed France in the back by cancelling, without prior warning, a $66 billion contract to build submarines in order - as per the AUKUS deal - to buy U.S. submarines instead.It was later revealed (https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/29/emmanuel-macron-boris-johnson-brexit-migrants/…), by Boris Johnson in his newly published memoirs, that AUKUS was a "revenge" against Macron because he "suspected him" of purposefully not doing enough to stop the flow of ‘small boats’ with migrants that cross the Channel to Britain, all as a way of "punishing Britain" for Brexit. As a result Johnson writes in his book that "he managed to get US President Joe Biden to agree to sign a secret defence deal with Australia at the G7 summit in Cornwall in 2021, which meant Canberra would have to pull out of an agreement to buy submarines from the French."Yet another proof of the maturity and statesmanship of Western leaders - the guy literally weaponized on a global scale a spat over rubber dinghies in the English Channel, causing considerable tensions in Asia.Anyhow Johnson's "revenge" strategy might be about to come full circle because it's become increasingly clear over the years that Australia was never going to receive its promised U.S. subs, simply because the U.S. has become incapable of building them.The U.S. Congress admitted as much in a report late last year (https://congress.gov/crs_external_products/RL/PDF/RL32418/RL32418.285.pdf…), writing that the U.S. industrial base is so degraded that it can barely meet its own submarine needs, let alone Australia's. They would need to be able to 2.33 submarines a year to be able to fulfill AUKUS yet they can barely produce 1.2. Selling subs to Australia would therefore mean depleting the U.S. Navy's own fleet, leave the U.S. Navy with fewer boats until at least 2040-2049 according to the Congressional report, which U.S. doctrine forbids. So what will likely happen now?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember at the time many saying that no subs would ever be built.