This is borderline corrupt behaviour IMHO (and many others HO's too). There are "guidelines" for the political class, but nobody ever enforces anything even when the corruption is so blatant.
Don't even get me started on Barnaby Joyce and Angus Taylor funnelling tens of millions of taxpayer funds paying for fresh water runoff that was never realistically ever going to be worth anything to anybody. [2]
It was sent to Angus' Cayman Islands company that he founded, then he claimed he did not benefit personally (yeah right).
Also see Christian Porter and his "blind trust" suddenly donating a million bucks into his failed defamation rape case against the ABC. [3] [4] He says he has no idea where the money came from. Yeah right.
For more about Christopher Pyne, and how confected this French Frankenstein sub deal was, read the first 3 links I posted elsewhere earlier [1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28580443
[2] https://www.michaelwest.com.au/barnaby-joyce-80m-valuation-d...
[3] https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/blind-trust-gift-...
[4] https://chaser.com.au/national/prime-minister-who-said-we-ca...
Separately, I've got to think turnkey access to the tomahawk missiles has almost got to play a bigger role in this than the sub itself, other than being capable of carrying said missiles.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nuclear-free_zone
[2]: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nz-says-australias-new-n...
This may be a precursor to increased US naval presence/base in Australia.
That's premised on whether France would have been willing to sell that capability to AUS, and for what price, vs the price (economic and military) of French nuclear maintenance, vs buying diesel.
That equation is easily changed by a competing US/UK offer, be it technology sharing/ training for AUS to gain dinners nuclear maintenance capabilities, or that by being more politically aligned with the US/UK, relying on a foreign country for maintenance isn't as much of a military risk.
>This may be a precursor to increased US naval presence/base in Australia.
I suspect the opposite. What does the US gain by naval presence in Australia (vs Guam or Okinawa or Philippines, etc) besides an additional layer of rapid response in the region? AUS & US already partner in most things that would make a larger military presence in AUS beneficial.
Whereas equipping AUS provides a potential partner for any international rapid response needed in the region. And I think for most incidents that would merit a US/UK rapid response in the region (ie China), AUS would have an equal or greater interest in responding to it.
The other advantage is logistical- if the US and UK deal involves sharing industrial capabilities with AUS, it gains the US and UK likely use of those AUS capabilities and facilities in the event of conflict, instead of having to return to the US/UK.
AUS gains technological and economic benefits, while US and UK get backup maintenance and repair facilities on the other side of the world, without having to pay for a base or for a contractor's presence. (Maybe you'd consider this increased US naval presence.)
Incorrect, the UK has already shat all over the NPT.
The recent Trident plans will raise the UK's weapons from 180 to 260 warheads (> 40% increase).
Which is in complete violation of article VI.
The NPT is for the rest of us.