Canada is actively engaging in discussions with the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States to join an expanded Aukus security partnership, citing rising concerns over China’s growing influence in the Asia Pacific region.

During a recent visit to Tokyo, Canadian Defence Minister Bill Blair expressed Ottawa’s commitment to counteracting Beijing’s increasing military presence in the region.

Canada is particularly focused on participating in the second phase of Aukus, which aims to foster collaboration on cutting-edge military technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing. However, details of Canada’s role in this expansion remain unspecified.

“There have been important discussions about processes and platforms on a project-specific basis on where other nations, including Japan and ourselves, might participate,” Blair stated, during his meeting with Japanese Defence Minister Minoru Kihara.

Japan is also considering its own role within Aukus. Blair expressed optimism about these negotiations, saying, “I would respectfully wait until they’ve come to their determination, but I’m very optimistic.”

The current phase of Aukus, established in 2021, focuses on helping Australia acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines. Blair’s trip to Japan followed a visit to South Korea, which is similarly exploring the possibility of participating in the security partnership.

Canada’s defence responsibilities are expanding both at home and abroad, and Blair highlighted the government’s efforts to increase military spending. “Next year, my defence budget will rise by 27% over this year. And… in the next three or four years, our defence spending will triple,” he remarked.

Beyond Aukus discussions, Blair and Kihara also addressed recent incursions by China into Japanese waters, which led Tokyo to issue formal protests to Beijing.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

118 COMMENTS

  2. Canada tried to obtain Nuclear sub tech before from the Brits but it was blocked by the Americans.
    They may be more success ful this time but they will need to open the piggy bank to do it.

    • They certainly contemplated it before, I think the collapse of the Soviet Union stymied any such plans, did the Americans block it, first I have heard of that, would be interesting to explore.

      However this present situation is about participating in AUKUS 2 so not about obtaining nuclear subs to replace the (Brit) ones they obtained when they didn’t go nuclear back then. Presently they are planning to obtain new conventional subs, don’t know if there is any prospect of that changing, the problem is they need replacements rather sooner I suspect, but the way things are going with China/Russia a plan to move in the nuclear direction would probably be welcomed by the US so that they can help patrol the North Pacific in a similar fashion Australia helps eventually add numbers and capability in the South Pacific. Canada, like Australia certainly has more of an impetus for greater range in its submarine fleet than say Japan or South Korea simply due to Geography.

      • You may remember Australia had a contract sighed for 12 SSK’s then changed its mind when AUKUS was put on the table. Much like Australia before Canada wants a conventional submarine that can do what a nuclear submarine does. The rules of physics may yet catch up with them.

        • I totally agree I think this may well be a choice they will come around to (or would wish to) if they raise their defence spend considerably to make it feasible, their surface ship replacement et al is already considerable mind. Problem is timescale in this, with the AUKUS agreement Australia has to push its existing subs to extremis time wise to accommodate it even assuming there are no delays in the timescale and a capability gap may well still happen. The Americans are finding it tough to spare the required subs to fill the gap to new build and despite investment there is little chance of the uk being able to meet demand for further submarines to meet a Canadian order within the lifespan of their present aging subs and the US won’t be able to fill in their gap too. Lucky for Canada they have the US next door which is why such matters haven’t always been a crucial concern (till Ukraine). So they may plan for a nuclear future but it’s likely a long way off being realised so just maybe a reliance on the US combined with a few new conventional subs might be their answer if an alternative to an all conventional fleet is contemplated.

          • Arguably Canada doesn’t have the same dire need Australia but also Canada’s SSK’s are much older than the Collins. Canada could look at an interim purchase of SSK’s then add on to the end of the SSN A production run.

          • Hmmm…wonder whether it would be feasible for RCN to lease several SSKs from a (to be named later) allied navy, w/ the express intent to return same, if/when RCN acquires SSNs? Beyond obvious treaty negotiations, this would require a very significant long-term increase and commitment to increased Canadian defence expenditures. However, it is remotely possible that Mad Vlad’s behavior in UKR and ChiCom aggression in the SCS is beginning to concern the Canadians. They may be interested in joining AUKUS Pillar I after SSN-A design finalized and construction is underway, in a similar manner to T-26/Hunter class. Certainly not predicting this course of action by the Canadians, but the concept may have occurred to someone w/in the Canadian MIC. 🤔

    • Actually Reagan was open to the idea in the end and if Canada had perused it they woukd probably have gotten Trafalgar class SSN’s in the 90’s. At the end of the 80’s they pulled out of the idea themselves due to budget cuts.

        • The US and Canada have a long list of grievances even today over the North West passage and there were many in Congress and the navy who didn’t want Canada getting SSN’s. Reagan at Thatchers bidding however was said to be willing to push it through in the end.

    • Good Lord! Why don’t you just bypass the middleman, Canada, and give all your secrets directly to China. Justin Trudeau’s government is not to be trusted, especially when it comes to China.

    • The article says Canada interested in phase 2 AUKUS, the AI intelligence. Does Canada need long range nuke subs as much as Australia with all the etc nuke infrastructure?

  4. On balance the notion of Canada joining the AUKUS submarine program is a bad idea.

    Although the benefits of Canada and other nations like Japan being part of AUKUS weapons and technical development programs are clearer.

    Progressing the negotiations, contractual and legal frameworks, technical, industrial and workforce issues not to mention the political issues, between three nations on a nuclear submarine program is complex enough without adding a fourth.

    There are numerous examples of multinational defence programs being delayed, running over budget, having the capabilities compromised or failing entirely.

    The development of the Eurofighter Typhoon is a case in point, which had it’s challenges exacerbated by the number of nations involved (although ultimately producing a high end platform).

    The theoretical upside of economies of scale or interoperability are unlikely to materialise, particularly given Canada’s historical underspending on defence.

    There are enough uncertainties about whether Australia can pull off a nuclear submarine program. Canada would need to seriously lift its game not to mention its budget.

    • You look at what has happened with T26 – three totally different vessels with different hulls.

      No point in common origin with that approach.

      OK if they were just buying from us but too much risk to add a design partner who will gold plate in another direction.

      Small and fast is beautiful.

      Anyway where would CAN danger the no eye from? Its defence budget is very small?

          • The decision has already been made, the UK will be using US combat systems in SSN-A and the boats will be identical.

          • Let’s see how that rolls.

            I think the hull systems and propulsion will be identical but the electronics fits will vary.

          • Actually fella no that’s incorrect. DsTL and Quinetic are currently trialing the new flank array hardware for SSN(A). UK Subs will be using UK sonars – son of 2076.
            As for combat systems, that’s just computers with software, and whilst there may well be some overlap on certain systems, let’s just wait and see what UK subs are actually fitted with. Don’t believe everything being spouted out of this tripartite relationship. We are not pissing away lots of our expertise for inferior sub systems/weapons just because some yank says so.
            Agree that there is potential for lots of commonality, but not at the expense of sub systems we excel at.

          • Also, the present RAN Collins class, while using a US combat system (the same one as Virginia class) & US torpedoes (the torpedoes do have some Australian IP in them), the sonars though are all Thales. Collins does not use US sonars & neither did the now cancelled Attack class. ie Australia wanted the US CMS, it never wanted US sonars. Torpedo tubes are standard 21” size.

        • The joys of auto mangle.

          I was talking about budget. Where does it come from. SSN are not cheap and if they insist on making them (or most of them) they will be much more expensive than RN ones.

    • That historical underspending is and has become a thing of the past in Canada. The T26, F35 and Poseidon purchases (funding) have proven that as of late, just to name a few but big projects. Joining AUKUS would also mean they would have to fund some projects, maybe a nuclear sub project. That would get Canada to the 2 % target.

      The current Liberal government was in a coalition with the NDP. so they had to be careful about how they would increase the defence funding to get to the 2% target. Now that the NDP has pulled out of the coalition an early election is looming maybe in Canada. The NDP are for small military so dealing with them is (was) difficult.

      I don’t agree with any of these politics as I only care about supporting the Canadian Armed Forces and what they need to do to do the job in the end.

      • Canada’s military spending may be set to grow in the future but this year Canada’s budget was around $26 billion (USD) half of Australia’s $52 billion (USD) while Australia only has two thirds the population of Canada.

        Australia’s military spending in 2024 was more than France and almost equal to Japan and is the 9th largest in the world. So it would be good to see Canada step up.

        • That budget is increasing every year due to the projects that I outlined. There is also the Kingston Class replacement and the Griffon helos replacement that are right around the corner, and for the Army, boosting Canada’s presence to a Brigade level in Latvia by the end of this year,

          Submarines could be a mix of SSK and SSN, Canada is seeking 12 subs so this could be a mixed force hence the interest in AUKUS.

          • It will need to especially if Canada seeks to add SSNs to that list. The RAN are budgeting up to $368 billion (AUD) for the nuclear submarine program alone out to the mid 2050s.

            Australia’s defence budget is planned to grow from $52 billion annually to $100 billion in the decade to 2034.

      • Thanks for the explanation of internal Canadian political dynamics. 👍 Have always considered the Canadians to be similar in temperament to the Brits–slow to anger, but capable and even deadly if one finally manages to truly p**s them off.

    • I don’t know if the US and the UK could uplift Canada to use nuclear subs at the same time as Australia. The extra instrustrial expansion for both countries and the provision of Virginia subs couldn’t be easily replicated.

      • Unfortunately I agree with you, it’s seems amazing that even with all the money required the US is unable to produce 2 SSN’s a year.

        It beggars belief that we can just double up Barrow or reopen Cammal Laird but the manufacturing base seems to be so eroded and the navy and government completely useless on both sides of the Atlantic.

        Canada, Australia, UK and the USA make up the world’s largest economic and geographical unit on the planet and annual GDP of over $40 trillion. Knocking out 4 or 5 SSN’s a year should be easy for them and would allow them to continue to dominate the world’s oceans.

        It beggars belief that they can’t do this.

        • SSNs alway seem to be an industrial bugbear..look at china it’s got over 50% of the worlds shipbuilding capacity.but it’s only commissioned 4 SSNs in the last decade and 2 in the preceding decade..

          The US with its declining ship building base is only managing about 6-7 boats a decade.

          The UK 4 a decade, ( with a need to pause a decade in every 3 for SSBN products)

          france is about 4 a decade as well( with a need to pause a decade in every 3 for SSBN)

          russia looks like it’s hit a capacity for around 6 a decade ( but we will need to see if that can be sustained).

          simply put the whole worlds capacity is probably something like 22 boats a decade on average.when you factor in switching resources to SSBN production now and then.

          • “The US with its declining ship building base is only managing about 6-7 boats a decade.”
            am i misreading something i.e. commissioning vs launching? because it looks like the US launches at least one a year and sometimes 2- 2021 had 2 and 2024 has had 2 boats launched so far. they’ve had 6 boats launched since 2020-now and between 2010-2019 launched 12 virginia class which is double what you claimed.

          • They are currently suppose to be at 3 a year, they have down graded to 1 a year even though congress paid for 3.

            6 boats launched since 2020 is a very poor rate for them and it’s getting slower. It is suppose to pick up and the investment Australia is making is suppose to help but it’s nearly impossible to hire ship workers in America given high wages in other sectors and little unemployment.

            The America of today has a very small industrial base relative to the size of its economy much of its industry is in primary resource extraction like oil and gas rather than manufacturing.

            Its wages are hire than any other G7 economy by a large margin which makes things like ship building very difficult to do.

            Japan has the lowest wages in the G7 and knocks out hundreds of ships each year.

    • In my mind Canada is a special case the same as Australia, Canada came to our aid no questions asked every time we needed them and was a founding part of the British and American nuclear weapons programs that ultimately spawned the reactors we use in submarine’s today. If Canada wants nuclear submarines just like Australia it’s our responsibility to facilitate that, NZ as well but I can’t imagine them ever needing SSN’s.

      • Hadn’t really thought of that but totally agree. The Manhattan project could not have been launched the way it was and the timescale had the prepatory work not taken place in Canada. Considering we were dumped out of our own initial project by our American cousins mind thereafter I doubt that Canadas role will hold much sway.

      • There aren’t many questions on the morality grounds, it’s the technical feasibility of it all. Look at the difficulty the US and UK are having right now building and maintaining SSN’s. It’s yet to be see if Australia can even build one, and frankly unless we send them an entire sub disassembled like an Ikea product, I can’t see them building one either.

        • Canada has a mature nuclear industry already, it’s in a much better place than Australia to work on SSN’s but yes obviously it would still be a massive struggle.

          • Jim, good point, they even exported power station design to india and south korea: pressurized heavy water. still i’d be tempted to let usa do nuke sub stuff its expensive & complicated and again does usa want to share their nuke tech with a 3rd party when their boats are in the region .

          • What about France re Canada? They have that inbuilt French connection. The new French SSN seems to be working as expected & is a reasonable size. LEU shouldn’t be a problem for Canada, they may even be able to refuel the reactor themselves. Could France handle 4 for Canada?

      • It seems Canadian government is trying too get AUKUS technology but is behind in this issue, it spends less than 2% of gdp, too tight arsed to buy new fighters they bought many of our classic F18 fighters some for spare parts, they are soft on China , a lot like New Zealand they have no fighter aircraft since retiring our former Royal Australian navy Skyhawk, only two Anzac class frigates both built at Williamstown in Melbourne in a class of 10 ships all built on schedule and on budget , political agendas had the dockyard closed and replaced in South Australia where the 6 Collins class submarines and the 3 Hobarts destroyers where built

        • Canada has ordered 88x F35 fighters to with deliveries starting in the next three years. If Canada gets into AUKUS it will get to the 2 % mark considering what Canada is looking to get out of joining. The F-18 parts bought from Australia was to keep the current CF-18s in good working order for parts for a number of years. The T26 and Posideon purchases/funding all have increased Canada’s defence budget incrementally as well.

          Canada is not soft on China as relations are at an all timelow. Canada joined with the US on a 100% ecar tariff recently for example.

    • Typhoon biggest problem was the Germans who continually first wanted it cancelled and after that failed, they tried to dumb it down. The project went from German orchestrated crisis to crisis.
      Which is why I am perfectly happy the are “ partnering” with France to develop the European 6th gen jet. I wish them Bon voyage !!

  6. The article does say “Canada is particularly focused on participating in the second phase of Aukus, which aims to foster collaboration on cutting-edge military technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing”.

    If one sets aside the submarine stuff and focuses on that then this could make a lot of sense given how absolutely core the two technologies mentioned are to SIGINT. If Canada was to join on that second phase then CAUKUS (copyright Geoff Roach 😀) would only need to become CAUKNZUS for it to be a 100% overlap with Five Eyes

    • Similarly to Canada, New Zealand would need to significantly lift its game and its military spending to make any significant contribution to AUKUS.

      In 2024 the Kiwis were ranked 60th in the world for defence spending ($3.3 billion USD) versus Australia at 9th ($52.5 billion USD).

      If New Zealand spent the same amount per capita as Australia on defence their budget would be $10 billion or almost 3 times their current budget. Can’t see that happening any time soon.

      New Zealand likes the benefits of sitting at the table and that’s OK if their main objective is to add another flag but its unclear if they are prepared/able bring much more than that.

      • Valid points when it comes to phase (pillar) 1 – building very expensive subs – but for the phase (pillar) 2 stuff involving collaborative R&D in key technology areas such as AI and quantum computing I would have thought that intellectual capital is equally or more important than spending levels.

        NZ is, according to Wikipedia, ranked 21st in the OECD in terms of gross R&D spend as a percentage of GDP and 27th in the Global Innovation Index. It also has a few universities ranked quite high (upper 250) in various global indices. NZ also has a quite mature space launch capability (Rocket Lab) which right now is more than the UK has, at least until one or more of the UK planned launch facilities gets up and running and a few successful launches of UK-built rockets under its belt. My guess is that SaxaVord will be the first to get established but it’s not there yet.

        I have no connection with New Zealand by the way (I’ve never visited and don’t know anyone at all from New Zealand), I’m just putting forward a counter argument specifically on potential pillar 2 contributions. I agree on struggling to see any benefit when it comes to pillar 1 (submarine) contributions.

        • Australia’s Gilmour Space and their Eris rocket provides similar launch capability as NZ’s Rocket Lab plus Gilmour have a hypersonic test launch capability as well. So yes cooperation with the Kiwis would make sense in the R&D field.

          The University of Queensland in Brisbane ran the Hyshot hypersonic development program that has evolved into the joint US/Australian SCIfire program, so Australia also has some success in this field.

          Like most things though, R&D costs money and someone needs to stump up the cash.

          • They have EOS one of the pre-eminent space sensor companies that also gives them a strong position in anti drone platforms.

        • First NZ needs to get themselves up to at least 3 frigates & the crew to man them. Then the problem that there is nowhere near NZ where a SSK could operate & be military useful. That then pushes you toward a large SSK to get the range.

    • The second phase of AUKUS is a gimmick and never much likely to be any different, right now it’s spending a couple of quid pretending to develop what ever buzz word is kicking round the defence media. Hypersonics, AI, Drones, Photon Torpedo’s.

      There is no hope for anything like a joint development project in any of these areas with the US as the US is so big and its defence contractors are so dominant. If even the UK and BAE get squeezed out of any credit on and the F35 what could Australia or Canadian industry hope to gain.

      Canada should atleast be offered tier 1 AUKUS and we should consider changing the treaty name to CAUKUS.

      • Australia already has a joint hypersonic weapons development program (SCIfire) with the U.S. that predates AUKUS but is now part of the so-called Tier 2 or second phase.

        RAAF Super Hornets will be using Australian weapons ranges to test the USAF’s Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) either later this year or in 2025.

        The RAAF has confirmed they will be integrated on Australian Super Hornets.

        Boeing Australia has developed the Ghost Bat loyal wingman UAV which is already in limited production in Australia and examples are now being flown in the U.S. as contenders for part of their loyal wingman program.

        Arundil Australia has developed and large UUV submarine similar in scale/capabilities to the USN’s Orca.

        Australian company EOS has developed both directed energy and kinetic anti-drone systems which are apparently already in service in Ukraine.

        Both RTX (Raytheon) and Kongsberg are setting up factories in Australia to manufacture missiles for HIMARS and the Naval Strike Missile respectively.

        So opportunities are abundant under AUKUS and there is some serious money and rapid development of new and innovative systems happening in Australian/US partnerships.

        • Yes, now watch what happens if Boeing Australia wins the CCA project (they are not even in the running at present) the MQ 28 instantly becomes an America project.

          No one can successfully develop a joint project with America, Congress and US defence contractors are just too corrupt for that.

          It’s literally illegal for the US to buy weapons from any other country so how can they even enter a joint development project outside of a nonsense research project.

          Konesburgh from your example does not manufacture the JSM it is Raytheon. It would be illegal under the current law for the US to buy any weapon from an Australian based Raytheon plant as well.

          The F35 was a joint UK/US aircraft developed by Lockheed and BAE with two Tier 1 partners and a half dozen tier 2 partners.

          Then one day the F35 magically became an American aircraft and BAE became a sub contractor along side Northrop.

          The E7 is now an American aircraft developed and built in America even though America was the last country to adopt it.

          Why would anything else on your list be any different?

          The UK has the best track record in the world for cross boarder collaboration and BAE is one of the worlds biggest defence contractors and even we can’t “jointly” develop a program with the USA.

          You will be happy to know that even Harrier two is now a US aircraft designed by MacDonald Douglas with just local manufacturing being done by BAE in the UK according to US pundits.

          • Can I add the M777 and M119 towed guns… Both British designed and built under licence in the US…

            Cheers CR

          • Jim, you don’t seem to understand how licensed production works. It’s more benenfical for BAE to allow a US company to produce under license. Money shows up in the mail every time one rolls off the assembly line in the US. BAE makes more money from licensed US production than actual production in the UK. They still get the technical expertise of weapons development and the US has to get BAE approval for export.

          • Yes Chris I understand all that, not much in it for the UK though was my point and any program that involves the US will naturally suck all the oxygen out of the room for any development partner even if that development partner happens to be another major defence spender like the UK.

            America just cannot and does not do joint programs. Never has and never will. Almost every joint development program or even major weapons sale to them (think MRTT) gets canceled or like F35 just gets consumed by the US industrial complex.

            US weapons programs are some of the most corrupt and least efficient in the western world largely based on the need for production contracts spanning 48 states. It’s purely down to the shear scale of the US treasury and a fair bit of skill from some of their engineers that their weapons get made in the first place and that vast scale coupled with their immense political clout lets them dominate international sales.

            What the f**k can Britain much less Australia add into that equation. Any R&D we have or pay for becomes subsumed by US defence contractors and any program we are involved in becomes massively unequal instantly as the US is paying 90% of the budget.

            We are pretty good at developing decent kit on a comparative shoot string which is the complete opposite way the US does things and America can’t buy any of our stuff by law (AUKUS won’t change that) so it just means as with F35 we have to buy from them and maybe we make some components. (That’s not joint development)

            They could not even buy the Canberra bomber from is having to turn it into the Martin B57. No way there buying a drone from Australia or a hypersonics missile from the UK.

          • The elephant in the room here is the US ITAR arms control regulations. In particular the so-called ‘ITAR taint’ when even a single sub-system in a foreign weapons platform is subject to ITAR controls, the whole system regardless of its country of origin becomes subject to US ITAR regulations.

            Australian companies are developing work arounds to create ‘ITAR free’ systems and platforms including advanced solutions in autonomous systems, quantum computing, space-based surveillance, and advanced radars, the Ghost Shark extra-large autonomous underwater vehicle developed by Anduril Australia and passive Low Earth Orbit (LEO) space radars developed by Silentium Defence.

            As it stands Boeing Australia’s Ghost Bat UAV is currently ITAR free, although worryingly if the prototype in the US for testing were modified by USAF it could become subject to ITAR. The E7 with a Boeing airframe and a Northrop Grumman radar was never going to escape ITAR controls. Similarly the F35 in all its variants would automatically be subject to ITAR.

            Just to be clear in my example RTX (Raytheon) and Kongsberg are establishing separate factories in Australia. So the RTX Himars missiles will be automatically subject to ITAR but the Kongsberg NSM/JSM won’t (unless the missile already contains US tech). So in theory Kongsberg Australia could supply NSMs to the RN for instance outside of ITAR.

            The ITAR controls are a two-edged sword for the US both working against sales of US weapons to countries wary of ITAR controls (for example Brazil choosing Gripen over Super Hornet) and its frustrating slow bureaucratic process that works against rapid innovation (think drone tactical evolution in Ukraine). As a result, there is a considerable push for reform and relaxing ITAR controls (a least amongst close allies) and the AUKUS process with its inherent need for technology transfer is playing a large part.

            The UK has also indulged in arms control measures to benefit its own industry and national interests (for example vetoing the sale of Korean designed fighter jets to Argentina because they contained some UK systems). So the UK is not blameless in this regard, it plays the same game.

            Historically Australia’s own defence industries have been the victim of UK self interest. In 1951 a British mission to Australia on developing aircraft design and cooperation saw the (bizarre) appointment of a British officer, Sir James Donald Hardman, as Chief of the Air Staff for the RAAF the following year with supervision of aircraft procurement.

            The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) was in advanced stages of development of the CA-23 a supersonic twin jet, two-seat, all weather fighter aircraft. Hardman cancelled the CA-23 and transferred the R&D, designs and aerodynamic studies to the UK. Whether they contributed directly to the development of the English Electric Lightning (the design similarities are uncanny) or not is a disputed point amid murky claim and counter claim.

            Either way it killed off the Australian aircraft industry ostensibly in favour of UK aircraft. However, with Hardman gone, subsequently Australian leadership in the RAAF procured the US F86 Sabre.

          • I understand all the titanium parts for the M777 are still manufactured in UK. M119 is a licensed copy of the L119 which is a modified version of the L118 that can fire fixed US 105 ammo. Conversion kits exist that allows swapping back & forth from L118 & L119.

          • May wish to consider revising references for your anti-American MlC tirades. There is a small, but definitely non-zero, probability that Boeing will be compelled to declare bankruptcy in the foreseeable future, based upon current business trends/prospects. Suggest an alternative “villanous” US corporation as the strawman.

            Separately, believe BAES is ranked as the 6th largest DoD contractor. If trend lines continue apace, anticipate rank to increase over time.

          • american starfighters sold to western europe at a time when britain led the world in aviation…. there was some acknowledgment by later german govt of the pilot losses & kick backs

      • Absolutely disagree w/that assessment! Pillar II initiatives will ultimately wag the AUKUS dog. Pillar II activity (manpower and materiel committments) will absolutely dwarf Pillar I, regardless of the number of RAN/RN/USN SSNs produced. Space tech development alone (when formalized) will be incredibly consequential. Add AI, Cyber, Hypersonics, Quantum Computing, ad infinitum, and it will create at least one, possibly more, tech revolutions. Within a generation, provided mankind does not voluntarily choose mass extinction/return to Stone Age subsistence, citizens will barely be able to comprehend the new tech. Bicentennial minute/soapbox rant over. 😉

  7. Would be great to have Canada onboard for the Aukus subs. They need to replace their 4 ex RN Upholder class SSKs.
    Would help to drive costs down knowing RN was going to get 12-15, Australia 9 and a Canadian requirement of at least 6. Possibly more.
    Let’s hope this comes about.
    Time we all invested in defence to face off against those states that wish to destroy the West. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea.

    • Having more nations involved in the AUKUS submarine project is just as likely to drive costs up as down plus add scheduling delays.

      The technology transfer and industrial base issues are already huge on this project and more partners adds more cost and potential for disagreement (think Eurofighter development).

      Already there are divergent views on the subs specifications with the RAN opting for US command and control systems (Collins class already uses a modified version of the Virginia combat system) and weapons (CBASS torpedo is a joint U.S./Australian platform) while the UK will be reluctant to give up its sovereign weapons and combat systems.

      The T26 program shows significant divergence between the specifications of the ship for each of the three navies involved.

      Submarines are far more complex bespoke systems than other manufactured items where increasing production numbers drives down unit costs, so significant production economies of scale may not be realized under AUKUS. The main potential for reduced costs lies in design, R&D and perhaps nuclear power plant production.

        • Which is one of the reasons why Thales Australia has a significant presence in country with 4,500 employees across 30 plus sites working with 1,500 local companies and generating $1.6 billion in exports.

          So there shouldn’t be any problems supporting a European sensor fitout on AUKUS submarines.

  8. If Aukus could benefit T26 production that would be great . In ww2 Canada banged out loads of ships for the allied cause. As well as providing decent Navy .
    If Canada and UK could crank up T26 production somehow as production speed is a bit painful. Norway is interested in at least 5 frigates , but wants at keast one frigate sooner than later so uk would probably ha e to provide a Hull being built now . Uk should really make a big effort to get Norway on board otherwise big opportunity missed from apathy . Australia Canada Uk and Norway using T26 would be great and must surely be some synergies in cost and speed of build 🙏

    • I don’t think there is apathy.

      It is a question of how to square the circles of

      – T23 lifespan
      – T45 upgrades -> lower hull availability
      – T31 program behind schedule

      So I think RN has to have the first two to generate numbers.

      There will also need to be a common training pipeline for crews in UK.

      So whilst #3 might go to Norway it might well be in UK for quite a while working up.

      The bigger issue is the price for the other of the other 5 units in an unbreakable contract so RN isn’t left with a smaller number of T26.

  9. It’s long been predicted that Canada and maybe New Zealand – if the later can add enough – will join AUKUS. So 5-Eyes on steroids! Will Japan also be let in remains the big question, they want to join but there are still big concerns about the robustness of their security regimen. 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here