If you are “deemed not to be doing what you are told you will suddenly find out missiles won’t fire and planes won’t fly

Archived version of article: https://archive.is/UTNkB

Wouldn't be surprised to hear about Australian officials having profound misgivings around AUKUS behind closed doors, but our defence policy in recent years threw so many more eggs into the US alliance basket that it's become "too big to fail" and "too late to change", while our politics are stuck in such a narrow comfort zone (e.g. tax increases being taboo) that the changing conditions are likely to be met with a state of denial or crossing of fingers rather than bold adaptation.

Is this actually a surprise?

I mean actually saying it out loud would be tactless and serves no purpose, but there's no way you'd sell a sophisticated weapon without there being some way to ensure it can't be used against you. Planes, missiles,subs..

I always thought that was the point of making major acquisitions from different countries. As if one country shut down, say, your planes, at least your navy and subs would still work.

It's basic risk management.

Single source vendor = single point of failure

I believe this quote comes from the British describing what they think the US might do. As far as I am aware from reading the article nobody in the US administration has said this. Though, there may be some concerns in the US over the price they have sold weapons for.

Its rumoured that in the Falklands war (early 80's) after a UK ship was hit by a French-made Exocet missile fired by Argentina, UK diplomats massively pressurised their ally, France, to provide the required codes which could be radioed to future in-flight exocets. further french-made armaments would not be able to hit the UK forces.

It pretty sure is buried deep in the contracts for these systems.

You pretty sure won't ever be shown those contracts. Don't ask why.

So, the links don't work anymore so i wonder if the articles been retracted.

But, assuming its not,

The Royal Air Force is focused on buying more F-35s, of which there are currently only 32, and ensuring its new combat aircraft, Tempest, secures future funding.

How does staying the course on this US led platform make sense for any partner Service?

The army source said “we need reserve bases” across the country so reservists with busy day jobs do not have to travel far to carry out training. “That will keep the number up. If you have to travel 50 miles you can’t balance that with life.”

This is a good idea that Aus should also apply. We also need to relax the conditions of 'Able' bodied, or more importantly restrict the scope by which claims can be made against the military for injuries incurred during service. Its probably overboard, and costly in manpower and resources.