The US might be serious about the RAN getting nuclear submarines sooner rather than later, if it is true the Chinese are going to be peed off big time

Block IV did sound like the logical choice to me, Also giving is not getting the boat for free its selling the boat or homeporting in Freemantle with a mixed crew in my opinion


AUKUS: Nuclear subs possible for Australia by 2030: US defence expert



ADAM CREIGHTON
WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

JUNE 27, 2022
Australia could have two nuclear powered submarines of its own by 2030, a decade ahead of the timetable laid out under the AUKUS security pact, according to a US defence expert close to the Pentagon.

Bryan Clark, a former adviser to the head of US naval operations, said a new bipartisan bill in Congress to allow Australian naval officers to train on US nuclear submarines signalled the US would provide “one or two” nuclear submarines by 2030.

“Previously I thought the US would not be willing to follow through with the subs part of AUKUS – because of a reluctance to give up domestic submarine production to Australia - but it sounds like there’s been movement on that, that the US may be willing to divert some of its new submarines,” he told The Australian.

“I think the US is now looking at giving Australia one of the final block IV Virginia class subs, within the next few years, as it comes off production, with a second one by the end of the decade,” Mr Clark, a defence technology expert at the Hudson Institute, who earlier spent 25 years in the US navy, said.

The Australian Submarine Officer Pipeline Bill, which will see Australian sailors train on US nuclear-powered submarines, became part of the US military budget negotiations last week, helping ease its passage through the Senate.

“Inclusion in this year’s [military budgeting] is a clear signal that our effort and the underlying AUKUS alliance both have strong, bipartisan support in Congress,” said Democrat Congressman Joe Courtney, who first introduced the bill.

The AUKUS security pact between Australia, the US and UK, which emerged in September, provided 18 months for the three nations to develop a concrete path for Australia to acquire eight nuclear-powered submarines using UK and US technology.

“It’s an open question over how the rest will be built though, the US doesn’t have the capacity to provide six or eight,” Mr Clark said.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton was criticised earlier this month for revealing plans in train when he was defence minister to obtain two nuclear powered submarines before 2030.

The AUKUS pact envisages the prospective nuclear-powered submarines would be built in Australia, but experts have suggested the earlier submarines at least would be made in the US or UK.

“It’s more likely they’ll be US built and they’ll establish maintenance and overhaul facilities in Australia,” Mr Clark said.

Kurt Campbell, Joe Biden’s National Security Council Co-ordinator for the Indo-Pacific, said last week the three-way security deal was “behind the scenes making quietly remarkable progress in areas associated with tech”, flagging an “announcement about the submarine initiative shortly”.

The Biden administration has praised the Albanese government for maintaining the previous government’s focus on AUKUS and for working with the US to push back against Chinese belligerence in the Indo-Pacific region.

“Establishing a joint training pipeline between our navy and the Australian navy is a critical step that will take our security partnership to the next level,” said Congressman Mike Gallagher, a Republican, who also sponsored the joint training bill.

The government agreed earlier this month to pay France, where Prime minister Anthony Albanese will meet president Emmanuel Macron this week, a 555-million-euro settlement over Australia’s severance of an earlier contract with French industry to build a fleet of conventional submarines to replace the ageing Collins class.

Charles Edel, a senior adviser at the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies specialising in Australia, said shared manning of submarines would “jump-start” the AUKUS process.

“One of the key requirements for Australia to field nuclear propelled submarines is ensuring that they have the sailors to crew those subs,” he told The Australian.

ABC NEWS

AUKUS nuclear submarine plan to be revealed by March 2023
By defence correspondent Andrew Greene - 7h ago

Australia's future nuclear submarine plans are expected to be unveiled early next year, with the government also looking to detail its moves to fix a looming capability gap.

Defence Minister Richard Marles is working to announce by March which nuclear submarine Australia will acquire, in line with the original 18-month time frame set out when the AUKUS partnership was first revealed last year.

Within nine months, Labor also hopes to know whether an "interim" conventionally powered submarine fleet is needed to bridge the gap between the retirement of the Collins class and the arrival of nuclear-powered boats.

The Morrison government had previously suggested a decision on nuclear-powered submarines could be brought forward to before the end of this year.

But Mr Marles said that suggestion was "optimistic in the extreme" and it is clear the former government's plan would have delivered submarines by the 2040s.

"We will be looking at every option available to try and bring that time forward," he said.

"I think bringing that time forward to eight years from now would be extremely optimistic."
In recent weeks, numerous retired defence figures have warned Australia needs a so-called "son of Collins" fleet because the country will be left exposed before the AUKUS submarines are due to enter service in the 2040s.

Last week, outgoing Navy Chief Vice Admiral Mike Noonan said a new class of submarines to be built as an "interim" capability could not be ruled out.

"I think we're going to see a period of study and reflection and we're going to look at all options, so I don't rule out any decision that our government might make with respect to realising our future navy capabilities," Vice Admiral Noonan said

On Tuesday, Mr Marles announced the surprise decision to extend the terms of Australia's Defence Chief, Vice Chief of Defence and Chief of Joint Operations by two years, in part to help oversee the massive naval project.

"The former government left a lot of major procurements to fall behind time. Australia has a number of capability challenges – most significantly delivering the next generation of submarines," Mr Marles said.

"And as a country, it's important that we are bedding down the new AUKUS arrangement.

"Against this backdrop, in considering the new service chiefs the Albanese government has placed an emphasis and a premium on continuity," he told reporters.

While the ADF's most senior leaders will remain beyond their initial four-year appointments, new service chiefs have been announced for Navy, Army and Air Force.

Rear Admiral Mark Hammond will become Chief of Navy, Major General Simon Stuart Chief of Army and Air Vice Marshal Robert Chipman will become Chief of Air Force.

Mr Marles said the senior Australian Defence Force leadership appointments came at a time that was "as strategically complex as any since the end of the Second World War in terms of our national security and the needs of our defence procurement".

Labor is also expected to complete a promised Defence Force Posture review next year.


https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... uxbndlbing

Wrong post

bt

There is a large amount of commonality between the Virginia Block IV and V, things like a better attack center can port back pretty easy. So production could be concurrent for Block IV for Australia and V for the US. Australia would save a boat load using the Virginia sustainment and training. Just like the F-35 is doing for the other countries.

I'm partially perplexed at Australia's desire to construct the entire boat, there is a lot of skills there that don't translate to the ongoing shipyard capabilities. Rolling heavy high strength steel and forming pressure bulkheads would best be done at a current US or UK yard. The reactor compartment could be built at the US yard, the rest of the hull parts made and shipped to Australia for final assembly. Fitting out the boat is the big part and it needs the same skills that the shipyard will need to have to support the fleet. A real win-win.

Seems the Chinese are really up in arms about the nuclear weapons program of the ADF

Beijing has launched the latest strike in its global campaign to sink Australia’s AUKUS submarine agreement with its allies America and the UK.

Beijing warns AUKUS submarine project sets a 'dangerous precedent' and threatens non-proliferation

But the best bit

"Given the fact that Australia already has a body of nuclear weapons-related knowledge accumulated historically and that it will get into its hands nuclear-capable delivery systems, once the country takes the desperate step to develop nuclear weapons again, the lead time to a nuclear breakthrough will be too short for the international community to respond effectively," the report says.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-21/ ... /101257714

Somehow I don't think they would get many submariners if the knew that they were going on a one way suicide mission, beside the Collins can do exactly the same as an astute or Virginia class submarines in delivering 70year old nuclear weapons designs


History of British nuclear testing in Australia

https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understandin ... ns-testing

Forgive me if I'm wrong.
I thought Australia was getting submarines with nuclear propulsion and not nuclear missiles?

Or are nuclear submarines classified as 'nuclear weapons'?

ReverseFlow wrote:

Forgive me if I'm wrong.
I thought Australia was getting submarines with nuclear propulsion and not nuclear missiles?

Or are nuclear submarines classified as 'nuclear weapons'?

yes nuclear powered not nuclear armed

Seems the Chinese are looking at way to try and stop it from going ahead anyway they can even if its a figment of their imagination

Nuclear powered submarines are not classed as nuclear weapons, that's why they are not in breech of non-proliferation treaty

What would really tick them off would be to have a NATO style nuclear sharing with Japan, the RoK and Australia. It would be irrational not to consider it since the DPRK already have nukes and missiles that can deliver those weapons all the way to the continental US and Australia.
https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d00809/

bajs11 wrote:

What would really tick them off would be to have a NATO style nuclear sharing with Japan, the RoK and Australia. It would be irrational not to consider it since the DPRK already have nukes and missiles that can deliver those weapons all the way to the continental US and Australia.
https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d00809/

Yes I can just imagine the frothing at the mouth

And the frenzy within the Chinese media

I guess my idea of transferring retired B-1B's to Australia wouldn't go over very well either.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I guess my idea of transferring retired B-1B's to Australia wouldn't go over very well either.

If we are barely keeping them up, I doubt the RAAF would want them. More F-35s, hypersonics, LRASM, and Quickstrike make more sense that trying to keep the state of the art 1982 bomber flying.

The Chinese complaining about a non-proliferation breach while having the Pakistanis and North Koreans as allies is rich.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I guess my idea of transferring retired B-1B's to Australia wouldn't go over very well either.

They would be awesome at long range maritime strike for the RAAF

A101 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I guess my idea of transferring retired B-1B's to Australia wouldn't go over very well either.

They would be awesome at long range maritime strike for the RAAF

They already have long range maritime strike capability.

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/senso ... a-poseidon



bt

bikerthai wrote:

A101 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I guess my idea of transferring retired B-1B's to Australia wouldn't go over very well either.

They would be awesome at long range maritime strike for the RAAF

They already have long range maritime strike capability.

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/senso ... a-poseidon



bt

Yep I know but they can’t carry the same amount of EO


https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... black-sea/

Loaded up the P-8A max out at 4 LRASM and maybe 10 SBD-2s.

So yeah, not comparable. But fits the bill.

bt

FlapOperator wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I guess my idea of transferring retired B-1B's to Australia wouldn't go over very well either.

If we are barely keeping them up, I doubt the RAAF would want them. More F-35s, hypersonics, LRASM, and Quickstrike make more sense that trying to keep the state of the art 1982 bomber flying.

We can't afford them because we are spending a fortune on other aircraft - F-35, B-52 reengine, B-21 etc.

The Aussies would do a fine job maintaining the B-1s especially if we sold them for about $500k a bird. Look how long they kept the F-111 in the air.

And the thought of a dedicated long range, high speed bomber ready to dash across their borders vs a P-8 is a whole different ballgame for PRC planners.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

And the thought of a dedicated long range, high speed bomber ready to dash across their borders vs a P-8 is a whole different ballgame for PRC planners.

The subject was maritime strike. Crossing the border is a different ball game.

Would the US even consider cross border strike with anything but stealth? Or total air superiority?

And if the US would not, why would the the RAAF?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

And the thought of a dedicated long range, high speed bomber ready to dash across their borders vs a P-8 is a whole different ballgame for PRC planners.

The subject was maritime strike. Crossing the border is a different ball game.

Would the US even consider cross border strike with anything but stealth? Or total air superiority?

And if the US would not, why would the the RAAF?

bt

For that the RAAF wouldwant to get involved in B21.

But for maritime strike yeah the B1 would be good but it’s gettinglong in the tooth for new introduction

B21 have been talked about in the Australian media but not really sure what sort of traction it gets within the GOTD

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/getti ... plan-b-21/

But would make more people nervous in the immediate region besides the Chinese

F111's with refueling had really long legs. I don't think anyone outside of N. Korea and PRC were worried about those birds in RAAF service.

Just giving the Aussies a squadron would complicate PRC planning for air defenses.

johns624 wrote:

A101 wrote:

But would make more people nervous in the immediate region besides the Chinese

The new Australian states of North Island and South Island?

Realistically, does Australia even have the capability to overtake (assuming they would ever want to) any other larger country in the region, like Indonesia?
Indonesia has ten times the population, even if Australia is technologically more advanced, I don't see them holding any major portion of
the country for long. Any of the other direct neighbours are much weaker already.
B21 sounds interesting.

johns624 wrote:

A101 wrote:

But would make more people nervous in the immediate region besides the Chinese

The new Australian states of North Island and South Island?

Unfortunately NZ didn’t federate with Australia in 1901, the door was left open for us to join if we want to. It probably would have solved a lot of the social problems we have today.

A101 wrote:

B21 have been talked about in the Australian media but not really sure what sort of traction it gets within the GOTD

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/getti ... plan-b-21/

But would make more people nervous in the immediate region besides the Chinese

How about the F-15EX (Eagle II)?

889091 wrote:

How about the F-15EX (Eagle II)?

Why? Austrailia is already working with Boeing on the MQ-28? Better to focus on that technology and evolve it into a deep strike drone if needed.

You'll probably get more bang for the buck and don't have to train more pilots. At least ones that passes flight physicals anyway.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

889091 wrote:

How about the F-15EX (Eagle II)?

Why? Austrailia is already working with Boeing on the MQ-28? Better to focus on that technology and evolve it into a deep strike drone if needed.

You'll probably get more bang for the buck and don't have to train more pilots. At least ones that passes flight physicals anyway.

bt

I was alluding to the F-35 & F-15EX (bomb/missile truck) combo you mentioned in the F-15EX thread.

Since the RAAF already have the F-35.....

In that case, I'd rather save my money and invest in a red phone to call up Uncle Sam when you get into a situation where te RAAF would need a bomb/missile truck.

bt

johns624 wrote:

A101 wrote:

But would make more people nervous in the immediate region besides the Chinese

The new Australian states of North Island and South Island?

Well it is already within the constitution of Australia for that to happen

MohawkWeekend wrote:

F111's with refueling had really long legs. I don't think anyone outside of N. Korea and PRC were worried about those birds in RAAF service.

Just giving the Aussies a squadron would complicate PRC planning for air defenses.

In the immediate area of the F111 that were nervous was Jakarta but relations were somewhat different then

stratable wrote:

johns624 wrote:

A101 wrote:

But would make more people nervous in the immediate region besides the Chinese

The new Australian states of North Island and South Island?

Realistically, does Australia even have the capability to overtake (assuming they would ever want to) any other larger country in the region, like Indonesia?
Indonesia has ten times the population, even if Australia is technologically more advanced, I don't see them holding any major portion of
the country for long. Any of the other direct neighbours are much weaker already.
B21 sounds interesting.

No militarily just too small and never the intention, we have the space and resources to be self-sufficient the ADF is more about collective security with like minded nations

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

A101 wrote:

But would make more people nervous in the immediate region besides the Chinese

The new Australian states of North Island and South Island?

Unfortunately NZ didn’t federate with Australia in 1901, the door was left open for us to join if we want to. It probably would have solved a lot of the social problems we have today.

I'm not 100% sure on the social that's really open for debate, but collectively security wise we are are stronger together even with NZ very modest defence force.

johns624 wrote:

stratable wrote:

johns624 wrote:

The new Australian states of North Island and South Island?

Realistically, does Australia even have the capability to overtake (assuming they would ever want to) any other larger country in the region, like Indonesia?
Indonesia has ten times the population, even if Australia is technologically more advanced, I don't see them holding any major portion of
the country for long. Any of the other direct neighbours are much weaker already.
B21 sounds interesting.

I was trying to be humorous by insinuating that Australia would invade New Zealand.
To your question, Australia's position isn't to invade any other larger country but more to make Australia too hard of a nut to crack for anyone to try to push them around.

I got you. My angle was more to try and put myself into a neighbour's shoes here. I'm sure a country like Indonesia keeps a close eye on the Australian military, even though it's pretty unlikely Australia would ever start an offensive war.

stratable wrote:

johns624 wrote:

stratable wrote:

Realistically, does Australia even have the capability to overtake (assuming they would ever want to) any other larger country in the region, like Indonesia?
Indonesia has ten times the population, even if Australia is technologically more advanced, I don't see them holding any major portion of
the country for long. Any of the other direct neighbours are much weaker already.
B21 sounds interesting.

I was trying to be humorous by insinuating that Australia would invade New Zealand.
To your question, Australia's position isn't to invade any other larger country but more to make Australia too hard of a nut to crack for anyone to try to push them around.

I got you. My angle was more to try and put myself into a neighbour's shoes here. I'm sure a country like Indonesia keeps a close eye on the Australian military, even though it's pretty unlikely Australia would ever start an offensive war.

Correct the Australia Indonesia was and can be a rocky relationship, Indonesia was the reason the RAAF received F111 and why FPDA was set up

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

A101 wrote:

But would make more people nervous in the immediate region besides the Chinese

The new Australian states of North Island and South Island?

Unfortunately NZ didn’t federate with Australia in 1901, the door was left open for us to join if we want to. It probably would have solved a lot of the social problems we have today.

We wouldn't have to deal with the bloody All Black either

LTEN11 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

The new Australian states of North Island and South Island?

Unfortunately NZ didn’t federate with Australia in 1901, the door was left open for us to join if we want to. It probably would have solved a lot of the social problems we have today.

We wouldn't have to deal with the bloody All Black either

They’re not the team they used to be.

Kiwirob wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Unfortunately NZ didn’t federate with Australia in 1901, the door was left open for us to join if we want to. It probably would have solved a lot of the social problems we have today.

We wouldn't have to deal with the bloody All Black either

They’re not the team they used to be.

Maybe not, but still good enough to take care of the Wallabies unfortunately.

RAN personnel training on reactors;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/austral ... e-courses/

889091 wrote:

A101 wrote:

B21 have been talked about in the Australian media but not really sure what sort of traction it gets within the GOTD

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/getti ... plan-b-21/

But would make more people nervous in the immediate region besides the Chinese

How about the F-15EX (Eagle II)?

I don’t know what good the F15 would be. It’s an upgraded old plane. If people thought the stealthy F22 was no use for Australia then I don’t think F15 would be any good either.

Long range stealthy drones would seem the way to go for use as bomb/missile carrying machines.

B21 is nice but so top secret nobody in power in America will let it out even to a trusted partner. It’s also manned which is somewhat of a risk.

The linked article raises one further question, do we really believe Australia will get US nuclear submarines if the political landscape changes in the USA? Or will it go back to the old ways.

cpd wrote:

The linked article raises one further question, do we really believe Australia will get US nuclear submarines if the political landscape changes in the USA? Or will it go back to the old ways.

What old ways? Austrailia fought along side the US in so many wars that it would be difficult to break that bond.

cpd wrote:

Long range stealthy drones would seem the way to go for use as bomb/missile carrying machines.

Once they've incorporate the Ghost Bat, they can work on a larger version.

bt

cpd wrote:

889091 wrote:

A101 wrote:

B21 have been talked about in the Australian media but not really sure what sort of traction it gets within the GOTD
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/getti ... plan-b-21/
But would make more people nervous in the immediate region besides the Chinese

How about the F-15EX (Eagle II)?

I don’t know what good the F15 would be. It’s an upgraded old plane. If people thought the stealthy F22 was no use for Australia then I don’t think F15 would be any good either.

People didn’t think they (F22) had no use but the use was very limited in a strategic sense. At the time when the RAAF were replacing the French Mirage IIIO the F15 was one of the planes in the mix, at that time it was a “Not one pound for air-to-ground” F15 Eagle primary role was air superiority mission, the RAAF had the Mirage IIIO(F) interceptor but were later reconfigured to the Mirage IIIO(A) multi role air & mud role hence the reason the Hornets were selected. It also helps that that it was cheaper than F15.

Fast forward with the current strategic situation with a peer on peer in a coalition a Hi-Low mix would indeed be a benefit to the RAAF but never going to happen as F22 is no longer in production. Its congress that stopped the export of F22 not the USAF, the USAF was happy for the RAAF to have them and actually pushed it in the early days.

Assuming that China does make inroads into the Pacific and is able to set a military base that changes the operational matrix for the RAAF and an Air-to-Air superiority fighter will need to be looked at again, by that time the Strike Eagle and Super Hornets will be old hat. To get that high low mix the RAAF might need to wait and see if the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter is available for export.

cpd wrote:

Long range stealthy drones would seem the way to go for use as bomb/missile carrying machines.

That’s a possibility but would that put a halt to the B21 program itself for the USAF and just continue the current fleet until they became available.

cpd wrote:

The linked article raises one further question, do we really believe Australia will get US nuclear submarines if the political landscape changes in the USA? Or will it go back to the old ways.

I think the second hurdle is past with commitment from the ALP to continue with the program, I think that for the next President to look at the bigger strategic implications if the US was to withdrawal from it, I think it would create a bigger problem than when NZ banned US warships from entering NZ waters ever did for US/NZ relations then US/AU relations.

bikerthai wrote:

cpd wrote:

Long range stealthy drones would seem the way to go for use as bomb/missile carrying machines.

Once they've incorporate the Ghost Bat, they can work on a larger version.

bt

That would need to be extremally large which would be a different program in itself

A101 wrote:

That’s a possibility but would that put a halt to the B21 program itself for the USAF and just continue the current fleet until they became available.

Didn't they not stated the the B-21 could eventually ne un-manned?

A101 wrote:

That would need to be extremally large which would be a different program in itself

They would need new structure design and flight testing, but the software would already be developed.

With digital design and assembly it might not need to be large. How successful they do NGAD, will tell.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

A101 wrote:

That’s a possibility but would that put a halt to the B21 program itself for the USAF and just continue the current fleet until they became available.

Didn't they not stated the the B-21 could eventually ne un-manned?

Not sure I would have to look into it, if they can turn a F4 Phantom into a drone cant see why they cant with B21 but the software program would be huge

bikerthai wrote:

A101 wrote:

That would need to be extremally large which would be a different program in itself

They would need new structure design and flight testing, but the software would already be developed.

With digital design and assembly it might not need to be large. How successful they do NGAD, will tell.

bt

Different roles just have to look at difficulties in programing the software fore F35 and its manned its a lot more programing than a ISR drone

But I could not say for sure as I'm a dinosaur when it comes to computers and I do not even know how to work half the functions on my iPhone or even upload a picture on the board I still pay my bills at the post office with paper bills

A101 wrote:

Different roles just have to look at difficulties in programing the software fore F35 and its manned its a lot more programing than a ISR drone

The flight control software would be the same whether it's a man or unmanned. It's the AI programing that needs to adjust for airframe capabilities and mission profile.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

A101 wrote:

Different roles just have to look at difficulties in programing the software fore F35 and its manned its a lot more programing than a ISR drone

The flight control software would be the same whether it's a man or unmanned. It's the AI programing that needs to adjust for airframe capabilities and mission profile.

bt

It seems you were on the money with B21, if that's the case then it would seem a waste of money for AusGov to start a long range drone bomber fleet then


https://warriormaven.com/air/b-21-raider

johns624 wrote:

Something just occurred to me because of the other thread on Australia, NZ and PNG. The AUKUS Pact is yet another step away from NZ for Australia. It shows their drift apart and the recognition that NZ wouldn't really add anything to the alliance. While NZ may think their location makes them isolated from the problems of the world, once your friends start to desert you, then you're really isolated. That's when you're most vulnerable to other outside forces.

Being in Five Eyes means they have some intel capability, if only in positioning for facilities, they have a SAS regiment which saw service in Vietnam, just prior to that in the other SE Asia Counter Insurgency, Borneo, which was won without a bomb being dropped, more recently also in Afghanistan.
AUKUS is specific in agreement in development of systems mainly SSNs and Hypersonics, neither of which NZ are going to operate.

While it was the blundering and epically stupid act of, call it what it is, state terrorism and a murder, by France on NZ territory in 1985, beyond the mealy mouthing, don’t think that the New Zealanders have forgotten who gave France diplomatic cover and stymied attempts to censure France. Clue; Not France.
Why? Because a democratically elected government opposed tests that were in their of the world, which were a result of France saw as their nuclear test playground, yes they also banned warships that could carry nuclear weapons but like it or not, the government that enacted that was elected and it wasn’t close, meaning that policy was popular.

After that, rather good of them to provide troops in a US led operation like Afghanistan and prior to that, Kuwait.
Despite their small military they are over here (UK) training Ukrainians and the artillery they were training on some of which looked from NZ stocks.
So way more with that than US largesse provider and ‘friendly’ rogue state Israel.