There is always money for priorities.
I don't see Canada making Aegis and CEC a priority.
From the article:
Without CEC, it is difficult to see Canadian warships working effectively within future multi-national maritime forces, let alone ever again assuming the command role.
I don't buy the loss of sovereignty. Australia will still have 9LV, its Ceafar radars and other weapons and systems and its surface combatants, OPV's, amphibious ships and AORs. Aegis adds, it doesn't take away. If you don't want to link up, you don't have to. However, I will admit I wasn't aware of the two combat system arrangement until Australia announced it, even though Japan and Korea had used it before. The UK also talked about integrating CEC, but it never happened. Not really clear why, money may have been an issue.
From Australia's point of view, we definitely want to be able to command our own group. Having the US provide a cruiser to do air nearly broke the whole operation for a whole bunch of reasons that weren't really clear until you try it. Also, nations may be more inclined to sign up to an Australian lead US supported operation, than a US lead operation, including the US.
For Australia it is much more important that we can lead and network an Aegis task force, than a single ship having 96 VLS. If we need that, we hit up Japan, US for a destroyer or two. Not all Burkes have CEC, only recently upgraded ones AFAIK.
With East Timor, the US military was more than capable of basically running that, however, politically, there was no support for it in Washington. US did eventually send assets and some support (but no combat troops), but it wasn't comprehensive.
I would argue without being able to build and lead a multinational naval task force (let alone a complete mission which would involve air, land and sea elements) you have weakened your sovereign position. Australia isn't worried about a US commander firing our missiles without our deliberation, we are worried about the US not turning up. If they do turn up, we want to call the shots, set engagement. Generally. The US current stance is probably amenable to that as well (as well as the wider region). Even if the US doesn't turn up (immediately), we are likely to go forward anyway even at less ambitious outcomes (the US does have a habit of coming on later, and claiming victory).
I guess it comes down to what you see your country doing in international affairs. Each nation faces a different set of values and challenges and sees a different role for itself. You have to spend a lot of time looking at your own national reflection and questioning who you are to come up with those answers.
