The Australian Government has selected BAE Systems and ASC Pty Ltd to build Australia’s new fleet of nuclear powered submarines in the latest significant development in the AUKUS trilateral security pact between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.
Australian Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles, and UK Defence Secretary, Grant Shapps, announced the news in Australia, marking the next step in the pathway for Australia to build and operate its own nuclear powered submarines.
Under the AUKUS agreement, Australia and the UK will operate a common submarine of the future, incorporating technology from all three nations, based on the UK’s next generation design which BAE Systems is leading.
BAE Systems and ASC Pty Ltd will now bring together their complementary skills, expertise and capabilities under a collaborative arrangement in Australia, ultimately leading to the establishment of a long-term, incorporated Joint Venture.
Charles Woodburn, BAE Systems Chief Executive, said:
“We’re extremely proud of our role in the delivery of this vitally important, tri-nation submarine programme. Our selection as a partner in Australia, alongside ASC, recognises our role as the UK’s long-term submarine design and build partner and as a key player in Australia’s maritime enterprise and wider defence landscape. Drawing on decades of experience in the UK and Australia, we look forward to working with ASC to develop an enduring, sovereign nuclear-powered submarine building capability for Australia.
We’re already making good progress on the design and development of the next generation submarine in the UK where we have more than 1,000 people working on the SSN-AUKUS programme and major infrastructure investment underway. This latest step will ensure an integral connection between the UK design and the build strategy development in Australia as we work together to deliver next generation military capability as well as considerable social and economic value to all three nations.”
SSN-AUKUS will be the largest, most powerful and advanced attack submarines the Royal Navy has ever operated and will start to replace the Astute class, which BAE Systems is building at its site in Barrow-in-Furness in the North West of England, from the late 2030s. Australia expects to deliver its first SSN-AUKUS submarine in the early 2040s.
The Ministry of Defence awarded BAE Systems almost £4 billion for the next phase of the SSN-AUKUS programme in October. The funding covers development work through to 2028, enabling BAE Systems to progress the detailed design phase of the programme and procure long-lead items. The award is also funding significant infrastructure investment in Barrow, which will see the site’s facilities double in size from 80,000 to 160,000 m2 by the late 2030s, as part of a multi-billion pound programme, and continued recruitment to support the national endeavour.
BAE Systems has already increased its UK submarines workforce to 13,500 with plans to grow to around 17,000 at its peak to support SSN-AUKUS in the UK, as well as the Astute and Dreadnought programmes, providing a significant employment boost for the region.
BAE Systems is the UK’s long-term submarine build partner and brings critical nuclear-powered submarine building experience and intellectual property. The involvement of BAE Systems in Australia ensures an integral connection between the SSN-AUKUS design led by BAE Systems in the UK and the development and maturation of the Australian build strategy.
A formal announcement of what was already commonly known but good news all the same! I really hope we keep this momentum up and build more than 7 boats because we don’t want to fall back into the usual boom and bust cycle.
I don’t want to see so much of the budget set aside for nuclear powered boats. The conversational powered submarine, is light years ahead of what it was even ten years ago. Speed of the SSN, is an important thing but other than that the difference between the types is much more blurred whatsoever course is adopted by the UK, its time for more emphasis on production rate to be given a high priority.
My major concern with this project is the adoption of US combat management systems in UK boats to placate the Australian’s. The UK already has an excellent combat management system and as we have seen with F35, once you let a US defence contractor control the source code you can kiss the rest of your weapons and sensor programs good buy. Given the increasingly uncertain US political situation the UK needs to begin removing US systems and weapons from its military especially in key strategic areas like SLBM’s and SSN’s. I can’t believe it’s that difficult to build an SSN… Read more »
The Uk has complete access to the F35 source codes. The only other country to be allowed access other than the US.
It has access to parts but other parts like ALIS are LM proprietary technology and even the US has no access. If you f**k around with the code without LM then it very quickly loses major amounts of functionality and becomes very expensive.
Problem is there was little to no modularity to the overall code, weapon, sensor and flight code are all intertwined so change any aspect and you have to check through the lot again for unforeseen effects elsewhere. This is why (amongst other advances) the new coding methodology separating flight from weapons code in future platforms is expected to allow much quicker and safer updating of the underlying code and thus bringing aircraft into service much quicker. We shall see.
Israel has access to source code and has the only bespoke electronics.
Yes but Israel does not use ALIS for this reason.
Doesn’t Israel? Thought they were the only Country allowed to write their own specific code for it.
I thought it was decided that we’d have UK CMS and it would be on the Australians to fund US CMS and weapons. But like T26 Hunter but with UK build as well.
Everything announced so far which may change indicates a common boat between Australia and the UK with a us combat management system.
The US CMS is supported and updated much more than BAE’s. The USN actually has money to upgrade their stuff, and do so constantly.
There is a lot of water to go under the bridge before some decisions are made. And I actually think there may be some joint projects that come out of the AUKUS project. The mighty US is having budget problems and also there are some things that we actually do better than them, we bring quite a lot to the table and always have.
Every US boat built since the Los Angeles class has some uniquely important U.K built components in them.
Hence the US/Uk treaty on sharing….Nuclear sub tech
The things US is lacking is a proper naval Shipyard to out produce China. They are in difficult to produce 2 submarines a year. They do not cover the replacement rate of their own fleet. UK has manufacturing capabilities that are not fully used. And the price of UK Sub is less than US one. CMS is heat, but not worth 600 million $ difference on the price tag between Viginia and your submarines.
Yep and if you think the US costs are high just wait till Australia starts building, their manpower costs are painfully expensive. It’s a very odd set of circumstances that has led us to this situation, the USN built 62 Los Angeles and 18 Ohio class boats in just 25 years (1972-1997). So 80 boats or 3.2 Pa, plus 3 Sea Wolf class (1989-2005). So they are all wearing out together and need 66 Virginias and 12 Columbia by 2045 to reach the Battleforce target. Unfortunately US govt took their foot of the gas post LA class and a lot… Read more »
I think US ordered only one sub this year not to increase backlog. Let’s look a bit into US: fewer and fewer people for milling, welding, casting, drilling and taking pride of it. That’s partly why they overpay their submarines. Look at the price per ton of US shipyard, look at sUK one, France and then Russia or China. The technical advance is USA may still exists, but is largely irrelevant and will not compensate the fact that sheer mass of fleets is not in their side anymore. They are scared and terrified by this arm race they are loosing.… Read more »
Nope not due to backlog of boat production, it’s down to the effects of the budget cap, the budget has been increased but then it’s capped. The Service personnel are due a pay rise which is cast in stone and is more than the budget rise. So as there is an increased tempo in operations as well they have been forced to cut the new equipment budgets for all 3 services. For instance just when the F35 is authorised for full rate production the USAF, USN ans USMC have cut their orders, As for the US submarine force, it’s 100%… Read more »
Ha ok, thank you for the info, I did not interpret this properly. I´ll have another look into it.
Have you got a link to anything that backs your assertion up?
By the “uncertain US political situation” I’m assuming you mean if Trump gets in? Well, if Joe “I’m Irish” Biden approved AUKUS then I can see Trump greasing it and adding a warp drive module. Trump is clearly pro UK and all the NATO hot air is purely a method to get people to pay their 2%…. if you haven’t paid your insurance policy and your house blows away, guess what, you’re SOL
No, I’m not concerned about Trump, I’m concerned about congress, you know the guys holding back ammunition from Ukraine for political point scoring. They will have to approve sales to the UK of any future missile.
They are doing what they are being told to do by Trump exactly the same as they are refusing to pass the Bill on the border even though the delay is allowing to happen exactly what they claim they want to stop. Why? because Trump doesn’t want it solved so that he can one blame Biden for the mess up until the election and then look like the hero when as President he finally gets his ass lickers to pass a similar Bill, much damage already having been done but the gullible will again blame on Biden. We may have… Read more »
I agree, while Trump is personally a deeply unpleasant individual, he does love the UK, unlike Biden, who actually seems to hate us!
We can expect a comprehensive trade agreement signed off pretty quickly with Trump.
The very first thing he will do is put Churchill’s bust back in the Oval Office.
I agree with Trump re NATO, I would give all members 3 years to sort their shit out and bring their spending to the minimum 2%, or show them the door.
Personally I would make it 2.5% minimum spend.
Personally I would just say 3%..it’s what Poland have asked for…the US spend over that..the rest of NATO really need to match it..2% was for peace time..2.5% for a slightly worrying world..the pre war world needs 3-4%.
I would totally agree Jonathan. The fact that our useless politicians can’t see that is frankly depressing.
I agree we need to hit 3% asap but doubt beyond the Baltics and Poland it will happen which is concerning to put it lightly. Always said Europe needs to be capable of defending itself even if it would be short sighted for all in NATO including the US to cut off noses to spite faces. Even the US won’t win the battles ahead on its own even if too many there believe they are invincible. China with its attack dog Russia have a long plan here and thinking you can ignore any one element of it is all they… Read more »
Indeed, in reality even if there is no specific plan or Alliance, it’s very likely a war between china and the US, would end up involving both Europe and Russia as well as the Middle East and Korea..simply put Russia, Iran and North Korea would be unlikely to miss their opportunity with a U.S. fully engaged with china and china would pressure them to be involved anyways…in the same way the moment china attacked the US mainland the U.S. would trigger article 5 of NATO.
That’s the U.K. in trouble then. It’s debatable if the U.K. even meets the 2% depending what should be in a defence budget.
True, virtue signalling is simply more important to our political classes.
All of them self serving egotistical idiots…
Biden is under the delusion that he is Irish. He sees Northern Ireland as being occupied by the British. The same British America had to fight for independence. He is very into Irish republicanism and a united Ireland. Some of his ancestors were apparently republican fighters. So yes he hates the British with a passion. It appears that no one has explained to him that he is not Irish, does not hold an Irish passport, is not an Irish national and was born in the USA and not Ireland. Given current poles I do not see him being reelected.
…and his ancestor with the English name Biden was born on the south coast of England before moving to Ireland. But hey the very same Americans who abhorred Irish immigration till past the 1st WW now claim Irish ancestry, I guess German ancestry doesn’t sound so positive. In reality most of the Irish traditions including the St Patrick’s Day festivals and all and early ‘Irish’ achievements were nearly all carried out by Irish Presbyterians.
Ironic that the NI issue triggers him & not the American genocide & theft of Native American lands & nations.
Why didn’t Trump cut us a trade deal when he was last in power?
One could argue that we don’t need a trade deal with the US as it’s already our largest trading partner by country. Also we currently enjoy a surplus with them that a trade deal could potentially put at risk ?
I would suppose we at the time were still infighting what we wanted Brexit to look like.
Thank god now, everyone has accepted it’s actually happened and stopped bloody moaning about it!
How Trump and Starmer get on is open for debate, considering many members of his shadow cabinet have directly mocked and criticised Trump, in fact been outright offensive about him, I would certainly love to be a fly on the wall for the first meeting 🤣🤣.
Let’s see….
Yep in fairness we were in full on “Mad as a Box of Frogs” mode.
Oh please Trump only loves himself and power and adoration, there will be no trade deal that doesn’t, like every other trans Atlantic agreement between our Countries gives the US a substantial imbalance in favour of the US that he can sell to his nationalist supporters. His love of this Country extends only to the degree it can be of use to him while expecting gratitude for it, just like any other rabid dictator, his German father probably taught him that another slimy exploiter and who left him more money than he is now worth.
You do, I am sure realise that we have been the junior partner in our Atlantic alliance for 80 years now? We are utterly dependent on the US for our defence, we have actually elected to disarm and allow that relationship to become even more important to us. That’s a simple fact of life, one that horrifies many of us, but the general public don’t know or care that the RAF has a handful of Squadrons, the Army would struggle to deploy and sustain anything bigger than an enlarged brigade, and the RN that can barely sustain it’s deployment to… Read more »
If you start to threaten your allies, you are no longer an ally, but a land lord. Let’s put it clear: this is unacceptable.
That’s why we are anticipating the US withdrawal that can happen now. At least we can consider the US committed to be flimsy. US help is their for easy money, not for fighting. I cannot blame them. But this will not ensure Europe security. USA think only Asia now. We think Russia.
No it won’t Math, you are falling for the PR campaign hook line and sinker, so I suppose it worked. Uncle Sam is going absolutely nowhere, Trump is absolutely right to point out that Mr Smith in Idaho works hard, pays his taxes and contributes directly towards European defence as a result. Meanwhile many Europeans enjoy the freedom guaranteed by Mr Smith and his fellow tax payers while paying far less for their own defence. Why should the US pay the lions share, when some NATO members are quite frankly taking the piss… They aren’t making an unreasonable request Math,… Read more »
Reasons:
USA sell 78% of EU weapons
USA can influence EU energy policy
You cannot have it all
The taxpayer money point of view is not saying everything. What I understand is the high level of polarization of US foreign politic. The field is very unstable.
If you want European countries to have an effective defence and military industrial complex independent of the US, then we will all have to put 5/6% GDP into the pot. That will never, ever happen. Most barley spent 2% and that quite frankly isn’t enough. You can’t have your cake and eat it Math, most Europeans want extensive public spending on health, infrastructure projects, first rate benefits and pensions etc, etc. defence is ‘way’ down the list. I’m not saying I disagree with you, I think we should all be putting a sensible 3% in the pot and building our… Read more »
Your right, we can not have social welfare and no defense. Though when their is a path in which statesman must walk, statesman will emerge. I am very confident. We see now anger, fear and let’s call it rage. We will see what comes out of the wash. I don’t believe EU states have a big confidence in the ability of US to repeal China and Russia at the same time. Times are changing. We cannot be dependant of a bill in the hand of US congressman that anyway have other thing to do. It’s like egg en bacon. US… Read more »
What sort of school did you go to ? Reason I’m asking is your use of tense, words and grammar suggests it was either really poor. Or English isn’t you 1st Language ? There not “their”. We now see anger not “We see now anger”. Have much (or any) confidence not “have a big confidence in” We cannot be dependant on not “dependant of a bill”. Things to do not “thing to do”. As for “egg en bacon” a third of that is French and you don’t find much bacon in an egg.🤔 Sorry but after reading some of your… Read more »
Yes, English is not my native language, very sorry for my poor level. I am from France.
OK Mon Ami. Bacon et Oeuf 🤪 We tend to get a few Russian Trolls on here.
If only it were that simple Trump wants to screw as much out of Europe in buying US weaponry to help finance the US military industrial base, as per usual he covers his true motives with words that resonate with his supporter’s US First inclinations. Few European Countries aren’t meeting the 2% some much more indeed though that is only a recommended figure it’s not set in concrete. Europe has needed to do more in the past and for its own sake we all need to head to 2.5% or more I believe but in the end it’s in US… Read more »
THe majority of the European nato countries arent meeting the 2%. The 2% isn’t a suggestion (see the text from the nato website). It was set as a target over 10 years ago. Of course America is going to be America first. Britain should try the same approach. I elect a government to do the best for my country where I pay tax, not someone else’s: In 2014, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to commit 2% of their national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending, to help ensure the Alliance’s continued military readiness. This decision was taken… Read more »
2% is a guideline not a requirement.
Resepctfully that’s not really true. From the NATO website: In 2014, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to commit 2% of their national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending, to help ensure the Alliance’s continued military readiness. This decision was taken in response to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, and amid broader instability in the Middle East. The 2014 Defence Investment Pledge built on an earlier commitment to meet this 2% of GDP guideline, agreed in 2006 by NATO Defence Ministers. The 2% of GDP guideline is an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to… Read more »
Jim the future development of E6 and it being available to the U.K doesn’t require any congressional vote whatsoever. The reason being is it falls under the provisions contained in the “US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement”, that is a formal Bi Lateral Treaty signed in 1958 and has already been passed through congress. It just gets updated every decade or so, and it really is a 2 way deal, so not likely to be cancelled We actually paid a contribution to the development of Trident and share the pool of missiles, which reduces the US Taxpayers bill. And as one of… Read more »
M51 cost €4 billion to develop, that’s about 10% of the successor program budget.
I believe the 1958 treaty had to be supplemented for Trident, that was also pre ITAR. I can’t see anyway the UK purchasing E6 won’t require congressional approval.
I don’t feel like putting the UK safety in the hands of the likes of Josh Halley or Matt Gates.
And where does the money come from, the NHS?
From the defence budget, CASD is the foundation of our national defence, having a credible and completely independent system should take priority over everything else.
In reality Daniel you guys fund your healthcare system to the tune of 17.3 % gdp..around 1.8 trillion comes from federal and state governments ( tax) which is more per person than the NHS gets from our government and then private individuals pay around another 2.8 trillion…so in effect the UK state pays 7.7% GDP and the U.S. state pays 8.5% GDP..UK individuals then pay a further 2% gdp of a total 9.7% ish and the US individuals then pay a further 8.8% for the total 17.3% GDP..so if you guys can afford to spend 17.3 GDP on healthcare and… Read more »
Interesting perspective, I think that comparison is relevant in various ways to the bigger picture.
I understand your concerns about losing (sharing?) control over the AUKUS subs CMS but it’s not just a case of ‘placating’ the Australians. The Collins class already uses a variant of the Virginia class CMS and if the AUKUS CMS is an upgraded version then it makes sense for the RAN for training and transition from Collins to Virginia to AUKUS. Curious that the article does not seem to mention the $4.6 billion AUD ($3 billion USD) that Australia has committed to British industry towards the development of the AUKUS submarines. As I understand it this is for British jobs… Read more »
No criticism is intend on the part of Australia in this, Australia is more than just a close Allie to the UK, it is part of a family of nations and it’s only right the UK do everything it can to help Australia secure itself against China. For sure the extra investment Australia is bringing is very welcome and no one woukd ever doubt Australia pays its way in blood and treasure when required. However my point on placating Australia with the CMS does stand. Australia wanted to stick with the US system as that’s what it currently uses and… Read more »
Point taken and appreciate the UK perspective, although there shouldn’t be an impact of a U.S. CMS on crewing since the Collins class operates the Virginia clone system with a crew of just 58 and the same CBASS torpedo as the U.S. (jointly developed and funded by USN and RAN)
Interesting if the CMS is already being designed for the Dreadnoughts would it not be possible to stick with it for the UK boats wonder what the costs and complexities would be to do so compared with going all in US CMS. Is operability between the three attack submarine variants deemed more important or is it a cost issue predominantly?
The CMS is part of the development pathway laid out for SSN(A), it will be a 3 way development by all of the partners but leveraging some US Technology. If you access the Government website you can read all about it. The die is cast and to be perfectly honest it’s a small price to pay for what this programme does for UK plc. We now have a much larger cycle of boats to produce, which is way more sustainable than what we have today. After all a 30 year life span means we then need to do it all… Read more »
Totally agree some things are hard to swallow but if the benefits overall are greater then you go for it except in extreme circumstances.
I am sure we would insist on access to the source code as we did with the F35. This would ensure a sovereign capability. I am not sure why Australia is so linked to US kit.
Yes I’m sure we will insist on access to the source code but as with F35 it will just become easier and cheaper to use American weapons and after a while we will be completely dependent. Maybe this is the way to go as there is not much of an export market for heavy anti ship torpedos but I think it’s a debate we need to have and it’s being overlooked with AUKUS. There will also be the issue of our 4 SSBN’s running on a BAE system that will no longer be in production or development.
Simply post WW2 Australia realised it was dependent on US for defence rathe4 than a Britain solidified when we decided no longer to operate East of Aden. As they were going to operate predominantly with US forces tying into their set up made sense and showed loyalty to the Country they would be dependent upon. Now they are gradually becoming more powerful in their own right but with a still small if growing population it will still be dependent on the US and so makes sense to keep them sweet for the most part. As an aside I wonder what… Read more »
I guess if we hadn’t closed down Black Arrow we may have reserved the ability to build high performing heavy rockets and missiles, after all it had a rather more successful first 4 flights than Space X managed and had some very advanced features only the first flight was a true failure. Of course now we are trying to play catch up in re inventing the wheel. That said at the time we were broke so can see why they closed it down.
And still nobody will break sweat at Barrow
It’s nice to have good news.
Absolutely, another important step….
My concern is that GCAP and AUKUS SSN are virtually in sync to draw on funding in lock step, they are going to be a huge strain on the defence budget.
True but it’s no different to Typhoon and Astute. It’s a large part of where the £50 billion a year goes.
Oh BAE and yet another huge contract… joy and rapture.
I’m unsure who else would be an alternative in making an SSN in the UK, especially a company with experience like BAE.
I agree, there isn’t, but I don’t think the situation is straight forward as many may think. I do sense that the BAE being forced into the Carrier alliance with Thales and Babcock getting the T31 gig has modified BAE’s behaviours at least for the moment. I remember the MoD getting very peed off with BAE in the 90’s over a few different projects hence a change in procurement strategy to keep them honest. Of course, there is no competitor in the submarine sector, but we all remember the hiatus in the submarine build program that has taken so long… Read more »
I think you nailed that, you are right about the BAe attitude, they went through the hiatus and know the pain it caused. And there is really solid evidence that they really are serious about making this work and to be a real success. One of the ongoing issues with our boats is the amount of time, effort and money that goes into long term support and maintenance. It increases the through life costs and that money has to come from somewhere. For this New Design BAe have actually brought Babcock into the design process at an early stage, for… Read more »
Agreed it’s good to see some joined up thinking.
I think if I were BAE, I’d be looking at the USN cutting the number of Virginias and be sniffing around the possibility of an extra UK-built boat (or three).
I have funny feeling that it will be doing a little more than sniffing. The US has just about got it self into a position where they can authorise, order and produce 2 SSN pa and 1 SSBN every 18 months. Which is sufficient to replace their existing fleet with 66 SSN and 12 SSBN, just ! Now that due to the budget they have skipped an order, it does 2 things :- It either increases the pressure on industry to produce the USN Battle-force numbers later on. Or they have to reduce the overall numbers by cutting the Battle-force.… Read more »
What stops the Aussies ordering from the US manufacturer is that the USN was providing two used boats as well as one new. Ordering three new or even two new and one used would bust the budgets. On the other hand, SSN AUKUS will probably be cheaper than a new Virginia, and if it leads to Australia only running one class of boat, training and maintenance would be cheaper too.
The problem with that is the Australians will be left with zero submarines as the Collins goes OOS before the 1st SSN(A) even starts build. And as for funding the purchase of a new Virginia Australia has suddenly discovered where its deep pockets are. If I were them I’d be doing both a quick buy and seeing what U.K. can do about speeding up a bit. There are always options and daft as it sounds Guffaws of Laughter and “no bloody chance” isn’t U.K engineering playbook these days. If asked there are all sorts of things, Astutes can be refuelled… Read more »
It is the story of a contract stolen by US military complexe that they ultimately could not deliver and were forced to handover to the lucky sideliner 🙂 I guess UK will return the favor with a few F35. If the French contract was not killed, the Aussies would have had their submarines in 2 years. Not in 7 or 8 years. Bah, it is not l as if a military competition was taking place in the pacifique ocean.. Anyway, I am glad UK naval shipyard got work. And best wishes of health to the king and the princess of… Read more »
As I heard it, the main reason the French lost the Aussie next gen subs was French incompetance messing the Aussies around. Hence Aus looking elsewhere. Of course France spins it as being betrayed.
Well, the design was approved by Australia. So… It happened, let’s move on. Most important thing is that workload is back to UK naval shipyard. Still in Europe overall. And if UK is better, it is better for the continent. This is the story of a robbery that went wrong for the robber.
It wasn’t the contract it was the continual add ons, trying to get Australia to not for US weapons and well “a more leisurely interpretation of working hours” than the Aussies.
How long is a French Lunch break ?
It is what it is😡, I cannot foresee a reason to shorten it… Though… You know that we could retaliate at 5 o’clock tea time 😉
I think it was the Parliamentary defence committie that said recently that the PRC plans to be able to fight & win world wars by 2049. So it looks like the CCP at least under current leadership is planning on expansion & global dominance. That’s not a world I ever want my kids or grandkids to live in. 1.7 million British citizens live in the Indo-Pacific region & huge amounts of our trade is tied up there. So the AUKUS subs can’t come soon enough. United the combined forces of her immediate neighbours are quite capable of containing CCP ambitions.… Read more »