The AUKUS partnership, comprising Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, has reached a significant milestone with the signing of a trilateral agreement focused on naval nuclear propulsion, according to a press release.
The agreement, formalised on 5 August 2024, marks a crucial step in supporting Australia’s development of a conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability.
The Agreement will facilitate the continued sharing of submarine naval nuclear propulsion information among the AUKUS partners. It also enables the transfer of essential materials and equipment from the UK and the US to Australia, ensuring the safe construction, operation, and maintenance of these submarines under the AUKUS framework.
This development follows the ambitious plan announced by AUKUS leaders in March 2023, which aimed to expedite Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarine capabilities while ensuring that the country can safely operate and regulate this advanced technology.
Here is the statement in full.
“On 5 August 2024, AUKUS partners signed the trilateral Agreement Among the Government of Australia, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the United States of America for Cooperation Related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion (the “Agreement”).
In March 2023, the AUKUS Leaders announced an ambitious plan to support Australia’s acquisition of a conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability at the earliest possible date, while ensuring Australia’s capacity to safely operate, maintain, and regulate this technology. The Agreement will enable AUKUS partners to continue to share submarine naval nuclear propulsion information between the partners, and allow the United Kingdom and the United States to transfer material and equipment to Australia required for the safe and secure construction, operation and sustainment of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS partnership.
Since the announcement of this endeavour, the AUKUS partners have been resolute that this initiative will be undertaken in a way that sets the highest non-proliferation standard, while protecting classified and controlled information, material, and equipment. To this end, the Agreement re-affirms, and is consistent with, AUKUS partners’ respective existing international non-proliferation obligations. As a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Australia has re-affirmed unequivocally that it does not have and will not seek to acquire nuclear weapons.
The Agreement is a significant milestone and a demonstration of the AUKUS partners’ commitment to delivering this critical capability.”
Hang on a cotton picking moment,Where’s the meat to this ? Who is doing what and what is the workshare ? Sorry but I’m rather curious/impatient !!!😁
This agreement only covers information exchanges and the transfer of nuclear materials. It’s the legal foundation for the build program.
In terms of work share and who does what for SSN-A it’s been announced and confirmed that the boats are using a US Combat management system with a Rolls Royce Reactor which will be housed in a compartment built at Barrow and then shipped to Australia.
It’s almost certain it will use UK sonar and optical sensors.
Nice and friendly answer.👌. I was partly being silly ! But it would be great to see the actual meat in this monumental project, not to mention the potential numbers involved and how these numbers are split.
It reminds me of a movie with Paul Newman: the Sting. Come Australia, I have a great deal to propose you… 5 years later, Australia has no sub. There is no sign of a Sub before 2035, but now, they can pay 3 Bn $ to increase production capacity of US Shipyard and they signed a new « paper », foundation of something even greater… whisper to Australia, « make a bet on Freeworld leader in the second race on pacific Rim ». « It cannot loose! ». While we are on it, Lockeed could even sell F35 to Australia. Once a pigeon is ready, just finish it…
The rate of production of US SNA is one a year. Decommissioning rate is 2 per year. 5 Astute class submarines are at dock. « I can’t see what could possibly go wrong », said Australia previous prime minister.
Well… a burglary that made 3 dead: Australian submarine fleet, US naval Shipyard credibility, UK supporting naval industry credibility.
Oh and I guess my initial comment was rather aimed at just what the guts of the propulsion system consists of in material terms. I’m aware that RR will provide the NRC but what else ? Will BAE provide the 6 speed gearbox, long shaft, and whirly thing at the arse end ? I’m no expert as I haven’t served on any thing floaty or sinky but I did once build an Airfix T class.
Yeah, none of the good stuff has been released yet. It doesn’t help that US lobbyists and defence industry are trying to get their noses in what’s largely a UK Australia industrial project.
Not too much of “the good stuff” will get released, most figures in the public domain are fudged and for very good reasons.
If accurate figures are given out then it’s too easy for a potential adversary to work out capabilities such as speed, depth, endurance, power output and probable reactor life.
For similar reasons who is building what, where and by whom is also kept quiet. No one wants to expose the supply chain to being directly targeted or interfered with by CND or worse.
It’s highly likely they will be built with Australian Steel as part of the work share, the reactor, core and other internal materials etc will be built here in Derby and sent up to Barrow.
FYI I’d be amazed if the entire propulsion system isn’t UK supplied, mix and match in such a complex engineering system just isn’t a good idea. You go for what you know works together best as you really don’t want it going wrong.
Jim the simple truth is that without US involvement this project is 100% dead in the water. Australia has stated up front their preference is US CMS and Weaponry so they have maximum commonality with their largest Ally.
So yes US will get those and probably the comms and the weapon handling system. That’s Australias choice and the US gets its work share.
But if we are doing the base design and the propulsion system I’m not going to grumble, that extra work lowers the unit cost so we can 🤞🏻 get what 1SL wants 10 RN boats.
TBH what I’d really like to see is the after life agreement 🤔 Where and how will they be decommissioned and what happens to the waste ?
Sorry to burst your bubble but it’s highly likely that the Astute and Virginia class will be the last Boats with a Jet Pump powered via a reduction gear through a long prop shaft.
Both the Dreadnought and Columbia class will be completely different, much quieter and probably deeper diving. And the SSN designs usually follow the SSBN ones, so I’d be surprised if they reverted.
The Gold Standard for Nuclear Steam powered submarines has always been to do away with long prop shafts and geared Turbines. The simple reason is that just like a T23 / T26 Electric drive is way quieter.
Turbo Electric was tried out in the 70’s by the USS Glenard P Lipscomb but it was too slow, heavy and unreliable.
Well after 50 years of technical advances the day is finally upon us, so the internals are very different. Steam now goes to a Turbo Generator which generates the Electricity which is used to power very large, quiet and expensive Electric Motors which drive the pump jet.
Now the big question is ! Is the motor within the main pressure hull or separately in a separate confinement. Big advantage to the latter is that the short shaft line is external to the hull, fewer inclusions mean a stronger and deeper diving pressure hull.
Thanks for this.
Thanks for the info
Very true.
My understanding was that T26’s gearbox was Successor development derived?
But I agree getting rid of the gearbox makes total sense.
We make very nice motors in Rugby – allegedly!!
No idea about gear boxes, as a young apprentice I once looked at an Haynes manual for my old Honda 100 as it was making noises and I thought about fixing it. Thicker Oil and sold it to a bloke in Lincoln.
It’s pretty widely known that one of the USP for the T26 is it leverages a huge amount of tech from SSN developments. Which may well explain why they are expensive and take a lot of fitting out.
I think a lot of people run our country down, but when we get it right we really get it right.
Starting with the T23 we pioneered Electric Driven ships powered by GT or DG or a combination of the 2. No one else has come close and a lot of that comes down to the combined efforts of RR and GE (Alstom, GEC, EE or other names) at Rugby.
No one seems to be aware that the RN is completely unique in the world as we are nearly 100% fully or part time Electric powered.
T23, T45, T26, Queen Elizabeth, Tides, Bulwark all have GE Motors !
It’s one of the reasons I don’t like the T31, it’s just “So last Century”.
And just to think 10 years ago it looked like Rugby would be shut.🤔
I enjoy having my bubble burst, especially in such an informative set of replies. 😀👌
My understanding the electric motor for Columbia and Dreadnought is the DRS 36.5 MW Permanent Magnetic Motor originally developed for the Zumwalt though not used due to problems under first testing.
The big advantage of a PMM is they are very power dense and said to be 50% smaller compared to an induction motor, very useful attribute for a submarine.
This is way above my head mate, I’m still a Two Stroke fan, can’t beat the smell of Castrol R in the morning ! 🚲 ( sorry for the push bike emoji but the selection is rather bereft of Motorbikes it seems )
“ I did once build an Airfix T class.”
So you are now the most experienced person at H&W?
Joking apart the gearbox will almost certainly be developed from the T26 evolution which was developed from the development of the Astute gearbox for Successor. Can’t remember who made it but it was UK made and not easy to make a quiet gearbox that handles the power level.
The British Taxpayer will get the shaft.
I’d be amazed if anyone tried to make silenced propellers as a hobby shop project.
AUS will struggle enough with the pressure hull etc.
😂
“The British Taxpayer will get the shaft”David Brown Santasalo.
Thnx for jogging my memory – should have googled it!
Not too sure about the later but re pressure hull. When they built the Collins class they had weld issues, but only in the Kockums sourced sections. Sweden used part penetration welds, Aussies use full penetration and very high standards of QC testing.
Don’t underestimate them when it comes to Engineering 🤔
But that was a while back. So a fresh workforce?
As AUS pay trades well people bother to get proper qualifications…..
But that was a while back. So a fresh workforce?
As AUS pay trades well people bother to get proper qualifications…..unlike in the UK, sadly, where quick bucks are seen as preferable…..
Is it just the RAN boats using the US CMS or will that also be the CMS for the RN boats as well?
After the issues (as I understand it) with the UK not being able to negotiate access to F-35 source code the thought of using a US CMS on our subs makes me a bit nervous but then again, thinking it through as I type this, what access does the UK get to BAE & Thales CMS source code?
Maybe it just doesn’t matter, and as a computer scientist I understand all too well the challenges of new people getting up to speed on a significant unknown-to-them code base, but for something as critical to our national security as our SSN fleet I’d sort of like to know that we could at least get access in extremis.
The Royal Navy has already confirmed it will be using the same US CMS system as Australia and all SSN-A boats will be identical.
This seems to be the big thing Australia got and the magical “ American technology” that will make the SSN -A even better than the previous SSN R the Royal Navy planed to build.
If it is developed in UK under MOD funding MOD plod can actually seize it.
Never happens but there are reserved powers in various historic acts that let the Secretary of State do various things.
Same in USA – DoD can do the same. Difference is that it happens.
On the whole everyone plays the game.
The joker is where the supplier develops under their own pound then it is murkier as SoS can still order it to be seized but the fallout would be much worse.
I want aukus to succeed, but it worries me that the agreement can be terminated with just a years notice, by any of the parties. Can you see a Trump presidency following through with the project..?
I personally can’t see a (nother) trump Presidency now that Camilla has taken over from Biden, She is so much a better fit.
Fingers crossed 🤞
I didn’t know that the Queen was moving into US politics!
She ain’t my Queen that’s for sure.😬
Do you deliberately not capitalise Trump? Just curious.
Being equally curious as to why you are “Just curious” enough to raise this question, I took a quick look at you recent comments and have decided that you are having a hard enough time on here with other posters as it is, so I bid you slan.
You people are so transparent it is laughable.
“You people are so transparent it is laughable”, care to elaborate a bit more, I’m unsure what a “you people” is ?
Looks like all your rantings and childish contributions were removed rather quickly this morning. Oh dear, never mind. 😂
Given the state of the US Submarine programme, the threat of China and what’s at stake for US security, I don’t think he will touch it. What he will not like and may do is not sell or lease the US SSN to RAN they have Force level for 2046 that is 64 SSN’s.
Oh, to be able to even dream of having 64 SSNs…
We could use the new tiny SMRs to power them?
SSNs the size of SSKs?
Sorry but don’t be fooled by the ‘S’ in SMR they are actually way bigger than the ones we use in SSN’s ! They are only small when compared to the present generation of Civilian Reactors.
How small could a reactor go then?
Is a two-tier fleet of SSNs theoretically viable for us with the technology level RR is at?
RR have been actively touting a compact reactor for power generation for a fair few years now, don’t ask me what it’s all about though but I’ll guess a small reactor would suit a small Boat, it might just take a war though, before we see anything come of it.
Australia is a weaker link than the US. The projected cost of the project is now almost $A400 and we all know you can at least double that once reality hits. All it would take a hung parliament in next year’s election with Labor needing the Greens to form a government.
Labour will never do a coalition with the greens and there is no way for labour to loose its majority and require another election until 2029. By 2029 AUKUS will be building already as it’s about 7 years from order of long leads to delivery.
🤔 it’s longer !
I wonder how long after/into WW3 all these programs will finally deliver!
I heard the other day that we are now working on WW4 programmes, just waiting on the software from LM.
Putin was seen in a leaked photo on MSN with a crayon drawing of a WW5 winning fleet of Super Dooper Hypersonic Sea skimming Blue Water Caspian Sea Monsters with Gen 7 Stealth, Cope Cage and a rear facing Quad packed Kalashnikov Laser mount.
Meanwhile in Blighty, we are actively looking to slash our military spending to help the less needy and build hundreds more small boat welcoming docks.
Rumour has it that the Thames is to be filled in and 6 million new affordable homes will be built once all the nasty horrible ultra far right protesters have been deported to Rwanda.
I just know I’ll have to come back under a different guise (again) after posting this !!!! 😂