{"id":4818,"date":"2013-03-25T13:55:11","date_gmt":"2013-03-25T03:55:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=4818"},"modified":"2016-02-04T11:31:03","modified_gmt":"2016-02-04T00:31:03","slug":"us-australia-military-interoperability-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/us-australia-military-interoperability-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"US\u2013Australia military interoperability II"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"he<\/a><\/figure>\n

In his recent summary of his Alliance 21 paper for this blog<\/a>, ADM Gary Roughead cogently explained why Australia and the United States benefit from high levels of military interoperability. He also suggested several fertile areas where further developing shared approaches would pay dividends, including the establishment of a governance mechanism to move what has been a somewhat ad hoc (but often successful) approach onto a more formal footing. I’ll resist covering the ground again here, other than to say ‘what he said’. In any case, my perspectives on some of those issues can be found in my full length paper<\/a>.<\/p>\n

ADM Roughead’s paper comes with the perspective you\u2019d expect from someone with an impressive career as an operator of military capability. My paper takes a different tack and focuses on acquisition and industry policy, mostly here in Australia but also raises some issues where the United States could helpfully review its approach.<\/p>\n

A couple of the recommendations for the development of Australia’s defence industry policy have appeared in my previous ASPI publications on off-the-shelf procurement<\/a> and naval shipbuilding<\/a>:<\/p>\n