The UK, US and Australia have declared AUKUS “full steam ahead” after Washington completed its internal review, with all three governments shifting from planning to delivery of submarines and advanced technologies, the Ministry of Defence stated.
Meeting at the Pentagon, Defence Secretary John Healey joined US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles to reinforce that the trilateral programme must now move faster amid rising global instability.
Healey said “this is full steam ahead for AUKUS. Our reviews are done. Now, we deliver,” adding that “business as usual is not an option.”
According to the MoD, the UK has committed £6 billion in the last 18 months to modernise critical facilities at Barrow and Derby, enabling continuous submarine production and the construction of a new AUKUS-class attack submarine every 18 months. The SSN-AUKUS design is expected to be the Royal Navy’s most capable attack submarine to date, with the programme projected to support more than 7,000 new UK jobs and sustain 21,000 roles at peak production.
The MoD also notes that more than 3,000 jobs linked to nuclear work have already been created since July 2024, with a further 4,400 construction roles anticipated. Healey said the investment shows “defence as an engine for growth – boosting our shared security, keeping our people safe and creating good jobs across our three nations.”
The UK sees AUKUS as both a strategic and industrial pillar. The MoD states the wider Defence Nuclear Enterprise is projected to support around 65,000 UK jobs by 2030, with nuclear-sector salaries averaging 20 percent above the national average. Officials argue the programme is bringing long-term economic benefits to regions most in need of skilled employment.
Beyond submarines, the meeting signalled a push under AUKUS Pillar II to accelerate delivery of advanced military technologies for frontline use. The UK highlighted its parallel efforts to strengthen innovation within NATO, including its new hybrid Navy approach, and its technical support to Australia under the Geelong Treaty as Canberra prepares to operate nuclear-powered submarines.
Healey framed the moment as a turning point for the partnership, stating “AUKUS is too significant and the stakes are too high for it to be allowed to drift. Our driving focus now is overcoming any barriers to delivery. And the UK is all in.”
I’m pretty sure there is a very long build portion before we are ever anywhere near the ‘delivery’ phase of this project. Standard boilerplate PR nonsense.
Agreed, “delivery phase” is nonsense. But UK submarine build times have become so extended that the reactor for the SSN-A first of class will need to be ordered from R-R very soon to have even a tiny chance of the first sub being completed by the end 2030’s.
You have to deliver the build portion which is a very complex business in itself mind before actually delivering the submarines. Much preparation needs to be put into place and that needs to be delivered. The term ‘deliver’ is far more than the literal physical delivery of submarines, far more nuanced and widespread a process before that happens.
Well said. The business language can be confusing to those not familiar. But that is well explained.
💯👍🏻
Relying on the current US administration to stay the course isn’t a given either.
Guys I’m scared, I have a feeling like one of the services has a cohesive strategy for the next decade and I’ve never experienced it before in my life, I don’t know what to do with it.
Well, a UKDJ group “counselling” session might help. We could set up regional “workshops” where “safe spaces” are available with trained, SMEs on military matters are on hand to talk through things?
These should also come with “panic and frustration rooms” like those in Japan where you can go and beat the padded walls in despair at HMGs latest blockbuster.
I volunteer to run the Southern England one.
We need 8 others: West of England, Wales, Midlands, East of England, North West, North East, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
The Eastern England one should come complete with motorbike sessions and Phals.
The Scottish one would be interesting, given their attitude to all thinks nuclear.
Phals?
Halfwit. He mentioned he lives near the USAF bases, so that implies Lakenheath, Mildenhall, so Eastern England.
He has a liking for self punishment, the Phal.
👍🤣
Yup, We call it the “magic triangle”, Phals are what us “Old Boys” eat, none of this Quenoah/Falafafal Vegan shite that these young iPhone zombies share on instafame.
“Oh look at my Vegan food, I’m VEGAN you know” Pfft, bunch of fannies.
As for Motorcycles, yeah, I’m old school, none of this Tech shite like Wheelie control, Traction control, Cruise control, Phone mount, Lap time counter, Lean angle ABS (ffs, what are the young folk doing for fun ?) If it goes from 0-200 without interference, I’m in my element.
Yound folk are like, show me the tech, all the gear and no idea !
Anyway, Meeting in my Garage, fine by me. Just bring Ear Defenders, those Yanks are bloody noisey on re-heat.
‘Phall (Bengali: ফাল, lit. ‘jump’) is an extremely hot curry that originated in Britain, specifically in the Bangladeshi-owned curry-houses of Birmingham, England ‘ Had to look it up.
I smell a Gen Z(ed) joke at my expense… Wouldn’t mind a room full of waxwork ex-service chiefs however, Lord West has a very punchable face. And having access to SMEs would be nice, though they might need counselling themselves after I badger them with questions!
Not at yours or Gen Z expense, no. Never occurred to me.
Just my warped sense of humour.
You must understand the gen x are simply cooler than all other generations it’s not our fault.. we grew up as children of the 60s and 70s we parted hard in the 80s 90s it just means we literally own popular culture for ever.. even smiley faces 😀 our are generations intellectual property… we own starwars. ABBA.. house music.. heavy metal.. garage music.. essentially everything.. the baby boomers are boring and every generation after just copies our stuff 😂🤣
I’ll accept that, Top Gun is still very much the dominant anthem for school bus journeys. Problem is, our buses are so old that when the solo comes on I worry the bass will shake pieces off.
You deffo need to get out more ! If I had a room of waxworks, they’d be Liz Hurley, Sydney Sweeney, Julianne Hough and Debbie from Dallas !.
No Claudia Schiffer? Peasant.
If you yearn for waxworks figure of hot women, someone needs to remind you lockdown is over.
Starmer and co might need some counselling / a safe space now that they will actually have to get the cheque book out and order something…
I can do the North East one, I have a garage and some spare mattresses. I might be able to procure some tomatoes and cardboard cutouts of various politicians.
😁
That’s a great idea, the cutouts, expanding on Sailor Bs waxwork.
But there’ll need to be a medical professional on hand for the physiological and other debriefing after using the room.
J being the obvious candidate!
What kinda tomatoes?
Tinned, I hope 🤣
In or out of the tin… just asking😊
Cherry tomatoes don’t really have the desired effect 🙂
Giant Killers.
😂
You don’t need counselling just a bit of a reality ! Sorry but it’s taken me a while to compose this so feel free to comment.
There is a massive amount of Political BS in this announcement the most glaring one is £6 billion in the last 18months which has created 3000 new jobs since July 2024 ! In other words since the last General election so it’s all down to the present Government.
What a load of complete Garbage !
AUKUS was announced in 2021 and the investment in new facilities, plant and recruitment & training started even before it was ever announced. Spookily pile driving at the back of the site here in Derby was banging away in 2020 and SFM was nationalised 3 days before AUKUS was publicly announced.
However the one thing he says that is true is it’s way too important to let it fail !
Which is why all those Billions haven’t been wasted and SSN A is already a material fact, although the final design may not be at main gate the key long lead items are all well known and actually being produced. Reactors are the longest of long lead items and need to be ordered about a decade before a boat build needs it.
I know you love knocking the evil MIC but just sometimes some parts of it actually know what they are doing and when funded properly can deliver. The sums involved may seem scary but when you compare £6 billion invested compared to a £100 billion + spent so someone can take 15 minutes less to get from London to Birmingham on a train it’s small Beans.
You are a Railway Man but you love defence, just think what the hell we could have done with £100 billion ?
I’ve had to do some digging to ensure this is buried away but is in the public domain. But right now that there are 5 reactors in various stages of the assembly process in the Raynesway plant, 2 are PWR3 (Dreadnoughts) and the other 3 are PWR3 + and earmarked for SSN A no’s 1, 2 and 3, major parts for boats 4 & 5 are in build elsewhere and the supply chain is busily getting ready for no’s 6 & 7.
There you go !
Wow and this is all down to Mr Healey 😡
As for UK industry letting the side down and not being able to deliver a boat every 18 months, if HMT and Australia provide the funding on a schedule that enables it to happen then from Derbys point it’s perfectly doable. I’m damn sure BAe, Babcock, SFM etc etc are all aware of what’s at stake but we all know been done it before and can be done again (in fact it will speed up). Reactors these days may be bigger and far more powerful, but due to better metallurgy, CAD and decades of operational experience they are far simpler and not “over designed” just in case like the early ones were.
When I say it’s been done before here is a bit of U.K. Nuclear Submarine history. Between July 1966 and December 1969 RR&A, Vickers and the rest of U.K. industry delivered HMS Valiant and all 4 Polaris SSBNs all done with no CAD, no M6, no CNC, no plasma cutters, no EU, not a lot of H&S and no covered assembly halls. And there was one other very important detail buried away in all that, an inspired little 6 year old boy watched HMS Repulse being launched up at Barrow with his Uncle who worked here in Derby on her PWR1 and helped commission it.
Yes that 5 boats in 4 years 5 months !
So yes it can be done, you just need to keep the Bloody Politicians out of it. IMHO as that now includes the American and Australian variety that is the biggest threat to success.
Feeling better now ?
Thanks for that post ABC, very insightful.
Great post mate.
The first paragraph, it’s well documented that this government will claim all and everytjimg.
Spin at a new level. I’ve highlighted examples before on the UK German side.
Worryingly, your digging typically stops at 7! Which is another of my concerns, we’ll end up with the same number of Boats as now.
The Evil MIC. Yep, afraid so, the defence budget seems to go into their pockets for little back for the military. When that ends, I’d change my tune. Likewise, IF HMT ever released the tax receipts back to defence regards costs of home build, and we know that doesn’t happen either. I’d also like to see home grown build cheaper stuff that is good enough and can be built in bulk, and I’m dubious about that as well given costs quoted to the MoD.
Railways, well, HS2 is just another example, look at the costs. Would it cost as much elsewhere? I’m not against HS2 though, as another line is needed as WCML is at capacity
And it’s employing people and putting money into the economy! Isn’t that the justification we read here every time when industry takes priority and the military is shafted?
Am I feeling better?! Not really! 😉 as the military is crumbling but love the detail and the insider facts in your post and as always, you’re the last word and SME on this subject.
I can report from down in the Westcountry that the infrastructure investment at Devonport for the nuclear boats is pulling in all available Engineers with a lot of Contractors looking at a 10 fold increase in workforce. It does feel like a renaissance moment.
Thank you for the very interesting post ABC,
The fact that they are already building the first 3 reactors for the SSN-A boats (with components for more being built) says a lot for the urgency that is being applied.
The fact is your post points to a process that has been long over due and reverses 50+ years of industrial and military decline. The two are linked. An industrial renaissance is the first step towards a military renaissance, without the industrial capacity we cannot have the military capacity to, preferably, deter our adversaries or fight a sustained war of survival if the worst should happen!
So for me your post is one of the best pieces of good news for a long time as it is a clear pointer to the link between industrial and military investment.
Lets hope we hear about boats 8 and 9 at the appropriate time… as we are going to need at least 12 boats.
Thanks
CR
I’m in West Mids, we already have places like this due to our footy teams causing many mental breakdowns and the whole country constantly greeting us with an “alright mate” (brummy accent) once they hear a slight Midlands twang. They are oft referred to as “the local”.
Might need one or two local chapters in Australia before this is all over!!
It’s ok it’s only this month.. you will feel normal again soon.👍
Fuckin man up, init !!!! 😁
Just hang around here for a week. The general doom and cynicism will so overwhelm your current optimism and positivity.
😂😂 To be fair mate, as one of the older statesmen on here, I’m stunned that there actually seems to be a viable plan in motion, the first time ive seen such a complex and extremely expensive MoD programme actioned since 1990!
If they can pull off all 12 SSN-AUKUS, I’ll mentally forgive Healey and friends. It’d be the single biggest boost to RN capability in two decades. The American Virginias are likely the single most lethal conventional assets afloat – anything that can be drawn from those boats will only complement the already technologically adept British submarine industry.
If the UK wants to remain a global player whilst focusing on the North Atlantic, the SSN is our best bet.
On that note, some of the designs already appearing from Rolls Royce are very interesting.
What was originally billed as a design being close to that of the upcoming Dreadnought-class bombers has developed into what might be described as a British Virginia (shame we can’t call it the QE-class). The most recent designs displayed by RR and BAE have appeared very close to the Virginia (with strangely no indications of a VLS, though this can be assumed to be present from various comments).
wwwnavalnewscom/event-news/indo-pacific-2025/2025/11/aukus-builds-steam-but-requires-full-australian-commitment/
Fix the link by adding the dots between ‘www’, ‘navalnews’ and ‘com’.
This article is very interesting, mainly because under the image of the SSN-AUKUS model, Naval News describes it as an:
‘accurate depiction of what the SSN-AUKUS will look like’
This is very much a Virginia-class derivative from the outside – the distinctive chine of the British submarines like the Astute, Vanguard and Trafalgar is absent, replaced with the subtlest hint of a downwards slope in the bow. The major difference compared to the Virginia-class are the six torpedo tubes (compared to four on the Virginias), which are a good addition of course, and the new X-tail. Much of the Virginia is British-designed, however, (the propulsor, for example), and what appears to be an adoption of American systems may in fact be a re-adoption of upgraded technologies originally distributed to the USN from the UK in the late Cold War and early 2000s.
Usually, I’d be the first to warn not to read to much into scale models, but this is now the second or third time that NN have reiterated that this design is accurate to the final design of the submarine.
Had me until “Much of the Virginia is British-designed”. It’s not, at all.
That was like, the second-to-last sentence, I’m happy you made it that far ;).
Perhaps much is an exaggeration, but there’s definitely British designed elements in the Virginia-class boats. Again, the propulsor is a BAE product IINM.
Bit surprised, I don’t think they look that alike at all, after all a submarine will naturally have general similarities. Astutes are to a degree a bit of an anomaly in uk design the shape somewhat having been made deliberately as compact as possible there being no VLS it was then dictated by the size of the pre existing reactor so the rear is somewhat more bulbous than would naturally be expected. As the AUKUS is going to be bigger the reactor more advanced and a VLS making it longer you are going to get a more uniform and traditional cigar shape. But within that natural commonality they look visually somewhat different to my eye. Doesn’t look that much different to the a Dreadnought, the fin looks different but it’s also very different to the Virginia too, looks similar to an Astute to me. The planes are in the traditional uk position, probably cleaner but that was talked about in future UK subs well before AUKUS came along for hydrodynamic reasons, that position for the planes is something the Americans have pretty closely moved to these days. The Dreadnought again a little deeper behind the fin than AUKUS but that’s again natural as it has to incorporate ballistic missile silos that the AUKUS does not. AUKUS to me due to size simply seems less compromised away from the natural cigar shape. A bit more of a point with the bow I think but again from what we see the Dreadnought has already moved away from the chine so maybe this is just another version in the AUKUS. Overall I would say if you are going design a submarine more of the philosophy and size of a Virginia than an Astute which is more focused on being a specialist hunter killer then you are going to see a general similarity. The internal layout is certainly going to be a lot closer than say previous UK designs and that perhaps will have had some natural influence on bringing the look more in line with a Virginia too.
You don’t think they look alike at all? Really?
I understand your point about submarines existing within a similar set of shapes, and this is such a departure from even pre-Astute designs that the differences are marked. The most recent images of the Dreadnought show a much more ‘whale-ish’ bow that is certainly not present on this SSN-A model, nor does this SSN-A carry the distinctive sloped sail of the Dreadnought – both great aesthetic shames in my humble opinion.
The fin has a similar profile to the Astute, but is less thick relative to the size of the hull, though that could be a product of the hull growing in size rather than the fin changing. It’s definitely more compact in terms of the length to height ratio, which is somewhat closer to the Virginias.
TBF though, I’ve just done a quick bit of Googling, and I’d wager that much of this design isn’t actually drawn from the Virginias, but rather from the early designs for the Astute-class, back when a larger boat was being considered. There are several that show a more even upper surface, less pronounced chine, and less wide-set sail. I wonder now if BAE, rather than building off the Virginia as I initially thought, have instead dived into their archives and pulled from their own prior hydrodynamic research.
Just bare in mind that the key parameter of designing any Nuclear Submarine is the size of the reactor vessel and associated plant OR larger due to the length of any VLS.
As you mentioned the finished Astute looks very different from when it was B2TC, I’m pretty sure the same will apply to SSN A as it develops.
The bit about the DSEI concept that suggests a move in the US direction is the positioning of the bow waves to the USN preferred mid point. Then again it took the Yanks decades to move theirs from the Fin to the bows (damned if I am calling it a Sail).
The one thing that will ensure we don’t go down the massive lengths of the Virginia class is the size of our infrastructure and we don’t have crews as large as theirs.
The length is an interesting point – I believe some people down in the SPF thread estimated it to be not dissimilar to the Astute in length.
Would fully anticipate that the SSN-A design will be a derivative/evolution of Virginia Block 6 design. Full access to USN SSN tech has evidently been granted. Only logical to assume the available systems will be evaluated, and the most successful alternative downselected for incorporation. In turn, anticipate USN SSN(X} will be an evolution of the SSN-A design. Iterative designs will eventually yield a SSRN Seaview equivalent, complete w/ flying sub UUV/UAV. 🤔🤞👍😉😁
🤔. Actually, optionally manned “flying sub.”
Hi M8, I actually think it may be a happy merger, the Virginias are now at a length where even the US is struggling to dock them. We traditionally build our boats shorter, beamier and leaner manned, I’d suspect that the USN will have to maintain volume by extra beam rather than just continuously adding length.
Recent British submarines have leant in heavily to active sonar evasion using angular shapes much like the F117 did with RADAR. Current US navy submarines don’t do this, it is very much a European thing.
The new SSN AUKUS model appears to use something more like a continuous curvature almost like the B2 does. I don’t agree it takes much from the Virginia design is look more like what it is a very highly evolved Astute design. However it’s important to consider that Rolls Royce is not designing the submarine, BAE is and I not sure RR would even know what the final design looks like. At this point I don’t think BAE knows the final design and if it did they certainly won’t be putting it on any models at naval shows.
She does have the blended forward section of the conning tower however this feature much as the x plane is standard on almost all western submarine designs in the last ten years.
I wrote a little bit on this in response to another comment, but I suspect you’re right in the design’s relation to the Astute – there are several older designs from the Astute procurement that were intended to be a larger, more broadly capable option built around a larger reactor, that are very similar to the design above. I have a feeling that BAE have dived into their own prior research for the design.
I was also suspicious about the model, but it appears NN have received some confirmation that the design is valid, given they’ve repeatedly stated that the model is representative.
The fact that you claim that the Virginia class is UK designed is the biggest laffer I have ever heard. It’s the clownish astute class that needed help from electric boat. Do a little research. And that’s not glowing preys since they don’t really seem to be able to go to see at all
Ray Spruance is the exact name I would pick if I was an AI troll generated in st Petersburg.
Coincidence 🤔
Welcome comrade 😀
Jim, these comments are just from a “Person” with an agenda, not a bot or russian troll, they are just a human with one goal. There are a few on here who post under different names, you can spot them really easily if you look.
That’s what they want you to think 😀
I’m suspicious of anyone posing as an American because all the ones I have met have been lovely people and most of the rest can’t read 😀
Talking of which Mr Halfwit, you mustbhave had a terrible time at school…
‘glowing preys’ lmao.
Bore off troll 😉
Vatnik 🤷🏻♂️
It does seem that this program is moving forward. I think construction is meant to start somewhere toward the end of the decade, so that should not be a problem. However, I do have a concern, I keep seeing up to 12 boats, is that 12 boats for the RN and five for the RAN or 12 boats total which would mean that the RN would only get seven. Can anyone tell me how many the RN could get.
The Government announced ‘up to 12 boats’ around the time they released the SDR — a couple of days before, if I recall correctly.
Hopefully there’ll be enough pressure from the other side of the pond that we actually do get all 12.
I think the real pressure is coming from the fact the country invading and nerve agent deploying Neo facists in Moscow have the Uk at the top of their naught/to do list.
I wish you were right, but previous governments didn’t take the threat seriously enough, and that hasn’t changed with this government. Even Russia’s invasion wasn’t enough to make them take defence seriously. It took Trump putting pressure on us and the rest of NATO to commit to 3.5% defence spending, rather than responding to the actual threat Russia poses.
So I’m hoping we do get 12, and that if the government tries to drop the number, pressure from the US makes it much harder for them to make any significant reduction.
I see it as similar to GCAP — it’s a lot harder for the government or HMT to slow things down when we’re in these kinds of partnerships, and Japan doesn’t seem interested in hanging around.
Oh, and I definitely agree that we’re at the top of their naughty list.
I think it’s up to 12 for the RN which, of course, could mean 7. Or 6 even.
It’s 12 for the RN, I believe it was confirmed in one of the press releases.
The RN has said it plans to get 12 on several occasion’s. Although it’s also up to 12 depending on what the industrial base can deliver.
So 12 every 1.5 years means the first one will be 18 years of age by the last one comes out! What is the life length is it 30 or 40 years?
Because say its 30 years. 12 plus 4 nuclear deterrent ones mean you’re already now at 25 years. At a push we could get to 15 UKUSA subs at 5 nuclear deterrent ones before it all needs replacing again!
RN needs at least 12 SSNs that is the “minimum number” consistently reported to defence select committee as needed in peacetime to meet deployments and commitments, the true number should probably be 15.
I totally agree, 12 minimum, it should be 15 or 15, giving us a fleet of 10 active boats at all times.
That would allow us to meet our NATO requirements, plus a worldwide presence. It would also allow a surge to the far East if needed, and the only really meaningful capability that the UK could deploy in a regional bun fight with China.
The social media in China mentioned secret deals by PLA and Russian navy. Once old Donold ends the Ukraine war, Russia will buy aircraft carriers, destroyers, and frigates. China could churn out destroyers and frigates by the dozen and aircraft carriers in 4 years.
This is literally the worst case for the west.. China could recapitalise the Russian navy in a few years flat ( it can churn out the equivalent of the RN in about 2 years ) and NATO ( and the UK ) will essentially fucked. The very very worst case is China building Russia a new SSN fleet.. because China now has an insane nuclear submarine built capacity ( about 30+ slips possibly) capable of building up to 6-8 nuclear boats a year moving forward.
This is why the US is being profoundly idiotic.. the only limit on China built its navy is really funding and how quickly it can train the crews.. even with those limits by 2035 it’s going to wipe the floor with the USN.. but if it can also sell to Russia and rebuild Russia as an ally even those limits go.. and the US could face a huge modern China and huge modern Russia fleet in the pacific.. the US seems to have completely forgotten Russia is a pacific power to and essentially now chinas junior ally and completely tied in..
I honestly think the US is completely fucking itself and is going create an unwindable war that destroys its power..
Hmm, a Russian fleet equipped with Chinese subs and ships would be a major threat to eNATO. The RN’s Atlantic Bastion strategy would be hard pressed to contain such a force. Even if the numbers were relatively modest say a couple of dozen frigates and a dozen destroyers with half a dozen Chinese built SSN added to the better Russian SSN & SSGN and eNATO would struggle to hold the line in the high north.
The mid 30’s are going to be very interesting indeed. If ‘interesting’ is the right word..?
As FormerUSAF put in recently we ‘Brits are masters at just time’. Lets hope our record holds…
Cheers CR
PS I paraphrase the quote.
Just had another thought Jonathan,
Lets be optimistic for a moment and say that the US hit 1 SSN per year may be rising to 1 every 9 months say and the UK does indeed manage to get to 1 every 12 months and the French and Australians manage one every 18 months each. That is still going to be well short of the 8 SSN per year you suggest for the Chinese fleet… and the Chinese will have a heck of a head start on the west industrially which means they could close the numbers gap on the west before we even get to the optimistic production numbers I hypothesise which still leave us trailing by as many as 3 or 4 boats per year assuming Chinese production doesn’t accelerate as well!
Cheers CR
Not very secret deals if they are on social media 😀
China and Russia hate each other, both are hideous racist xenophobs and both love the west which is why they send all their kids to live here.
Yep. China will want Russia’s surface fleet recapitalised so Russia can offer a meaningful threat and be a support to Chinas planned war of conquest.
China’s shipbuilding capacity means Russia could very easily have 12-15 destroyers and 2-3 full sized carriers in 8-10 years without adversely affecting the PLANs own ongoing expansion.
How would Russia pay for it all? With gas, oil, raw goods, iron ore, coal etc.
Here is the complete transcript released by the Australian Gov..
Opening Remarks, AUKUS Defence Ministers’ Meeting
WASHINGTON D.C.
WEDNESDAY, 10 DECEMBER 2025
SUBJECT/S: AUKUS.
PETE HEGSETH, US SECRETARY OF WAR:
Good afternoon everybody, welcome to the Pentagon. Richard, John thank you so much. I can’t count how many meetings we’ve had at this point – and I say that only out of goodness because of the strength of our alliances, our bilateral relationships and our trilateral relationships are as strong as they’ve ever been. And as President Trump has laid out from the beginning, the President loves supporting countries that step up. And whether it’s in the Indo-Pacific or on the continent, the discussions we’ve had are a reflection of both Australia and the UK stepping up. You see through AUKUS and the review that we conducted, a continued commitment to a pragmatic, practical application of hard power between our countries, that reflect peace through strength and also hard power – real capabilities – that demonstrate a deterrent effect that we all want. We may lead our departments of war or ministries of defence, but our goal is peace – on behalf of the American people, the Australian people and the UK – and we pursue that together on behalf of our leadership. So it’s a privilege to have you at the Pentagon. Look forward to talking more in depth about AUKUS and our partnerships. And I would be remiss also, John if I didn’t mention the passing of your paratrooper in Ukraine. We’re certainly– our thoughts and prayers go out to you, and to him, and his family. And it’s a reflection of the sacrifice and commitment that so many make around the world. So thank you both for being here. Welcome to the Pentagon. Look forward to our discussion. Richard–
RICHARD MARLES, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you. Let me also start there and pass on my condolences, John to George Hooley’s family. We are all very much thinking of you in this moment. Pete and John, it is fantastic to be here and to be here with both of you at what is the fourth AUKUS Defence Ministers’ Meeting. And we are both very excited about the progress that we’re making in relation to AUKUS and what we will be talking about today. It’s only six weeks since the President and the Prime Minister of Australia met, where the President invoked us all to move ahead on AUKUS “full steam ahead”. And that really has been something of a motto for the way in which we have been going about our work. This is the first AUKUS Defence Ministers’ Meeting where we’ve been meeting with you, Pete, so it’s great to be doing this with you. And I just also say, we had a fantastic AUSMIN – our 2+2 meeting with the US on Monday, and thank you very much for that. The last 12 months has seen a lot of progress in relation to AUKUS. In the last six weeks, we’ve had the USS Vermont in HMAS Stirling south of Perth in Australia undertake the most extensive maintenance of an American nuclear‑powered submarine outside of America ever. And it is an example of what we are doing together. But this is a massive project, and there is so much more to do. And it’s really important that we are looking at the ways in which we can now get on with this and deliver it. I think delivery is very much the focus of the conversation that we will be having today. I’m very excited about what we can do together, the progress that we’re making, but the challenges that we both need– or all of us need, to grab hold on as we move forward and again. Thank you for having this meeting today.
JOHN HEALEY, UK SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE:
Thank you both for your remarks about Lance Corporal George Hooley. I will pass those on to his family. I know they will appreciate your sentiments and it’s a reminder for us all the risks that our service men and women put themselves at in order to keep the rest of us safe. Pete, thank you in particular, for welcoming us to the Pentagon, bringing us together in this way here in Washington. But thank you also for the spirit of cooperation which guided your Department’s work during their recent review of AUKUS. For the UK, AUKUS is quite simply the most important military collaboration for the last 70 years: since the US and the UK first agreed in this great city in 1958 to share nuclear technology. And just as it was back then, this partnership will be a foundation for these shared security for generations to come. So this a big moment. This big moment for AUKUS. It’s a big moment for three nations together. It is, as President Trump has said, the moment of full steam ahead for AUKUS. And it’s right that all three governments, as newly elected governments, have carried out a review of AUKUS. Those reviews are now done, and all three of us are now determined to reboot AUKUS with a new commitment and a new determination, in particular, to deliver. So the reviews are done, it’s time to deliver. And when we talk about delivery, we talk about the most powerful, most feared attack submarine the world has ever seen – the apex predator of the seas. And we talk about delivering the technologies of the future, putting our war fighters one step ahead of our adversaries, reinforcing our deterrence in the face of adversaries, and we talk about putting our industries at the leading edge of new export markets. Pete, you said your mission and the mission of AUKUS is peace, and you’ve often argued it’s peace through strength. And AUKUS embodies the way that a nation can secure strength through alliances. And in the face of this new era, we need those alliances more than ever. We need more subs in the Indo‑Pacific and in the Euro Atlantic. We need more burden sharing by America’s closest allies in Australia and the UK. And as the UK steps up on European security, we know that each of the three nations have a role to play to protect our people, to keep our citizens safe, and to reinforce that global deterrence. But we are clear as well, this isn’t just about strengthening our shared security, AUKUS is also about an engine for growth that will lead to new jobs, new skills, thriving businesses in all three nations. And in the UK alone, since our government was elected last year, we’ve created over 3,000 new jobs in the nuclear sites. We’ve committed 6 billion pounds – $8 billion investment – new investment to boost production in our shipyards and to deliver up to 12 of the most advanced attack submarines ever to sail under the Royal Navy ensign. Pete, I say to you, Richard, I say to you the UK is all on AUKUS. And as our three nations which share a long friendship work together on AUKUS, we extend that friendship long into the future. The generations ahead of us will share its strength. They will inherit its security and in the jobs that we create, in the technologies that we develop, and in the peace that we preserve. I look forward to working with you both in the months and the years ahead to deliver this most important program.
ENDS
Doesn’t it just make you feel all fuzzy when the mango-coloured moron sends his drunkard Fox News presenter to tell you just how well the UK and Australia are stepping up?
Anyhow, good news to see some level of interest in the AUKUS pact from all participants.
Nice that even Hesgeth noticed our LCpl Hooley as well, it shows a level of attention from either him or his team I wouldn’t have expected.
It seems far more likely that Healey simply mentioned it to them prior to the speech. Still, it is good all the same.
British politician sounds off the longest – what a surprise
Use a search engine to find original web page- on an apple mac, i right click to highlight the words and choose “Search with Google” (my default search engine) from the contextual menu.
minister defence gov au/transcripts/2025-12-10/opening-remarks-aukus-defence-ministers-meeting
If I die, and am opened, the reason will be found graven upon my heart…want of submarines.
“A submarine, a submarine! My kingdom for a submarine!”
It is very good news that they are pushing hard to make AUKUS Pillar I a reality, although, I don’t think they have much choice.
I think that is the first time I’ve seen you use mocking / contemptuous words about Trump.
No reflection on you Leh, as it’s a common reflection / aspersion, I too used to call the peeps in the current US administration derogative and abusive names, but, I stopped doing so about a year ago as it is not an enlightened perspective for adults, it detracts from the legitimacy of the comment, and I feel it is not how conversational discourse should proceed. I guilty of it, however, I try hard not to engage … although, what I think about them internally, usually, involves multiple use of the “C” word.
Again, no reflection upon you Leh as I find your comments are reaoned, erudite and always worth reading.
Also, thank you for showing how to post links, with some experimentation I think I have found my own way, as some links have multiple “.” in them which I replace with “+”. So replace “+” in the link with “.” and push on, but, more importantly it allows for a contextual google search leading to the required web page. Time will tell.
Thanks for the compliments, I try my best 🙂
The link-busting is an annoying hoop to jump through, but I’m always appreciative of anyone who’ll take the time to add in a link to a source, as you did above.
I’d like to thank you you both for the heads up on the link issue. I used links a lot in the past, so will do again, until they close the loop hole 🙂
Cheers CR
There needs to be a bit of context setting I think in regards to where the UK is now going in regards to SSNs..
The US is managing to produce no more than 1 SSN a year.. it’s been as low as one every 18 months.. even now our none SSN shipyard is going to be building components for that 1 US SSN a year and the ambition of the Uk is to also build one SSN a year..
That is huge.. as is 12 SSNs with a proper vertical launch strike capability and long range cruise missile.. because if the US let Russia beat Ukraine and China decides to recapitalise the Russian navy the only things that will make Russia blink over attacking the UK would be
1) NATO and NATO land forces to attack Russian forces.. but quite frankly I would no longer bet my nation on NATO and that weakens any European land based deterrent..
2) the ability of the RN to put a carrier battle group in the high north, take sea and air control and undertake long range air attacks against Russia and its assets
3) the ability of the RN to use SSNs to attack Russia targets deep in Russia and anywhere on the planet.
4) the ability of the UK to fire long range missiles from its own sovereign territory into Russian territory and hit strategic targets
5) the ability for RAF land based air power to tanker close enough to Russia to launch cruise missile strikes.
6) the ability to launch crippling cyber attacks on Russia
7) The ability to go to MAD as well as deliver a sub strategic nuclear deterrence.
8) the ability to take hits.. through defensive capabilities, civil defence, mass mobilisation and mass casualty management.
9)the industrial capacity to keep producing the strategic munitions to keep hitting Russia
10) The political and national will to go to all of the above and keep on hitting even when we are getting hit hard and people are dying and suffering… we have to fully comprehend a peer war is about the suffering of the whole population it’s not just sending the lads off to die.
The SSNs are a big part of that.. and 12 is a good number.
With the six French boats as well, that’s at least eight very modern, cruise missile capable attack submarines loitering in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean at any one time.
Roll on VLS fot the UK and Aus subs, although late 2030’s delivery seems so far off.
FULL STEAM AHEAD!
Re-opening the pits too it seems !!!!
Fine words and good sentiments we hope these SSN’s get to commissioning. But where will the money come from ? UK according to Reeves is strapped for cash and the Aussies are looking at a trillion dollar deficit.
What are you smoking??
The Australian deficit in 2026 is projected to be $42 billion or approximately 1.5% of GDP. (That’s the just under £21 billion).
By contrast the UK deficit is projected to be £97 billion pounds or 3.5% of GDP.
Australia has already paid out big sums up front to the U.S. and UK towards AUKUS infrastructure overseas (without any immediate return) including a payment of $1.6 billion (out of a committed $3 billion over the next 3 years) and committed $4.6 billion (£2.4 billion) over 10 years to prop up the nuclear submarine construction infrastructure in both countries.
That doesn’t include $30 billion for Australia’s own infrastructure and supply chains before we even get to the cost of the subs themselves.
I don’t you need to worry about Australia stumping up the cash. Our other partners however I’m not so certain about.
If we can get the first new SSN for 2035 there is a good chance that we can actually get SSN numbers up early.. the incompetence of previous governments means that the trafalgars got thrashed in later life, the astutes were all late and they have all spent years doing nothing.. so in reality the first 4 boats will probably get 30 years commissioned life because they will have spent about 5 years of the planned 25 years reactor fuel waiting around for dry docks.. so if we do give those boats more reactor life so laying around we can see that the astute class could be around a while yet..
Astute 2040
Ambush 2043
Artful 2046
Audacious 2050
Anson 2050 ( assuming no long against the walls )
Agamemnon 2051
Achilles 2054
If the RN can get the New SSN commission for 2036 it could have 8 boats and 12 boats by 2040.. the uk can at that point easily supply aus and the RN because it would only be losing an A boat every 3 years.. infact it could still have 4 A boats 14 years after first commissioning with the last A boat going almost 20 years after first commissioning of the new SSN.. so if it gets very very bad in the 2040s the UK would have the option to go above 12 commissioned boats…. If it can launch boat one for 2035 and commission for 36…. Which is a real challenge.
Now we just need names for them, which is one of my favourite bits of new warship projects.
It’s obvious that the large cruiser-like T83s should have I-names, because then we could pick up the battlecruiser names like Invincible, Indefatigable, Inflexible, Indomitable and so on. Impregnable and Irresistible are also available, but I doubt any naming committee would select them. Add on Intrepid or Intelligent if we fully replace T45.
As for SSN-AUKUS, a C-class might be nice. Reading through the lists, we could do:
Camperdown
Canopus
Cavalier
Cerberus
Charybdis
Churchill
Cleopatra
Commonwealth
Conqueror
Cornwallis
Don’t be so perverted I cannot believe you’re making comments about Impregnatable and Irresistible on a defence website.. the youth of today, only one thing on your minds 😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣I’m so funny it hurts.
But yes lots of good old names to be brought back in service as they expand the navy.. MRSS will be interesting as large “capital” commissioned warships.
Did you see Halfwit’s waxwork comment? And people have the nerve to blame it on young people!
MRSS could be interesting as the RN doesn’t have a long history of amphibious vessels. Fearless and Intrepid would be a nice start, but not enough if we are getting a sensible number of them. Perhaps there are pre-dreadnought classes that might be suitable? Mars, Jupiter, Caesar and Hannibal were all in the Majestic class but perhaps classical names have gone out of favour.
Terrible names. The “I”s are aircraft carrier names and the “C”s are destroyers.
They were in specific classes, but most of the good names have been used several times over the centuries for many different types of vessel. For example, the name HMS Eagle is now heavily associated with aircraft carriers but there have actually been 18 in the RN, from one-gun brigs to ships of the line. HMS Enterprise has been a name for survey vessels in the modern era but there have been 15 of them, the first a 24-gun 6th rate in 1705 and the most recent front-line ship was a WW1 light cruiser.
When I make up names I try to group them more based on the words themselves than on what they have been used for in the past. It would have been strange in the 1940s when the ‘I’ carriers were being built, as for example Indefatigable had only been used for heavily armed cruisers and frigates before then.
“US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth” – fixed it for you.
Since July 2024?
The jobs were created by the AUKUS agreement, signed in September 2021, years before the present Labour government took office in July 2024.
All the blame where things are going amiss is deflected onto prior governments, all the credit where things are going right is lauded to the rafters as belonging to the current administration.
Potentially a curve ball idea, but would getting some AIP subs be good.
With 12 SSN-AUKUS that would be up to 4 in the water at any time (with competent management).
One of these would inevitably end up in the North Sea, but say we dropped it to 9 SSN-AUKUS and used the remaining funding to buy some AIP subs.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that they will cost the price of an Astute, 1.65 billion (and follows whatever inflation will end up as). For three of them you would end up with a budget of 4.95 billion.
That amount of money can afford about 7.5 Dosan Ahn Chango submarines from South Korea. With 7 of those subs we could have 2 of them in the water at once, allowing 2 subs in the North Sea and nearby waters, leaving the remaining 3 SSN-AUKUS subs sailing to go on further deployments.
The Chango is a very quiet design, 6 533mm tubes and 10 VLS cells. Topped with a 20+ day underwater endurance, and 10,000nm range (same as the QEC), so is actually a very well armed design, with impressive capabilities.
The main benefits of a nuclear submarine are the range and ability to stay submerged, but in the North Sea and GIUK area, range isn’t an issue and there are plenty of bay, fjords to hide in when recharging. And an AIP submarine runs quieter whilst submerged (assuming equal tech) so in small shallow water areas is actually probably the better design even ignoring the price.
A cheaper and more simple submarine should also allow for at least 1/2 subs to be in construction at any point preventing the ever constant gaps in production allowing shipyards to keep workers and skills.
I still defend nuclear subs and believe we should have them, but by dropping to 9 SSN-AUKUS and swapping to a design like the Dosan Ahn Chango, we could end up with 5 subs in the water at any point instead of 4, the North Sea better protected with 2 subs there instead of 1, and we’ll protects our shipbuilding better. Not to mention if we ever truly need to surge capacity over 5 years, it’s far easier to do so using an AIP submarine than a nuclear design.
And as a random thought exercise, not that I support this idea, but for the same price as the seven Astute’s, we could have purchased 115 Gotland class submarines.