Is AUKUS dead?

The historic AUKUS (Aus, UK, US) defence tech pact is in the news again, with Aussie outlets flagging the Trump administration might revise the deal, years after the ink dried. 

Revealed via a shock 2021 announcement, the trilateral deal pledges varying defence tech cooperation, but the kicker was to help Australia get nuclear-powered (not armed) subs.

Why such a shock? The announcement meant a couple of big things:

• First, the US was sharing its crown jewels (ultra-secretive nuclear propulsion tech) for the first time since looping in the Brits way back in the 1950s, and

• Second, while that earlier move was to empower the Brits to help counter Soviet naval power, this 2020s move empowers the Aussies to help answer a new China.

How? This particular tech gives subs unlimited range and unparalleled stealth. In practice, that means rivals never really know where you are, so have to think twice about any move.

But of course, there were always some big questions around this AUKUS deal:

• Realistic? These big defence projects are rarely on-time or on-budget

• Expensive? We’re talking somewhere from USD200B to $250B or beyond

• Enough? By the time Australia maybe starts getting 3-5 US subs (2030s) and 5-8 AUKUS subs (2040s), China will have 50-90 new subs (several nuclear-armed)

• Too soon? Some argue AUKUS spooks the region and triggers an arms race (though AUKUS fans would note it’s a response to China’s own historic build-up)

• Obsolete? There’s debate whether that tech still has an edge by the 2040s

• Lawful? China and Russia have (unsuccessfully) argued that sharing this propulsion tech breaches non-proliferation rules

• Sovereign? Some argue adopting US-controlled tech binds Australia to the US

• Dependable? Others query if the US will uphold its part, whether in capability (it’s behind schedule on its own subs) or policy (rising scepticism towards alliances).

Anyway, four years into the deal, several of those questions are still bubbling away, which brings us to today’s news: the US quietly launched a 30-day review of AUKUS last month, billed as ensuring it’s all in line with the president’s America First foreign policy. 

Those 30 days are now up, and there’s been no public word, but leaks suggest the senior Pentagon bigwig driving the review (Elbridge Colby) wants a couple of tweaks, including:

• More money from the Australians, and 

• A pledge to use the subs to back the US in any conflict with China 

Colby, who many would describe as a prioritiser (ie, believing the US needs to drastically pivot its resources and focus to counter China), reportedly argues that a) the US is giving away its crown jewels despite not meeting its own sub needs, and b) it’s still not getting enough quid in return for that American quo.

So if those reports are true, we’re talking about several of the above AUKUS fears now coming to life, potentially leaving Canberra (and others watching) some tough decisions.

But right now, we’re just dealing with initial leaks. And the latest word is Washington’s 30-day review might actually take several more months.