The United Kingdom and Australia have signed a landmark treaty committing both nations to deep cooperation on nuclear-powered submarines over the next five decades, according to a UK Government press release.
On 26 July 2025 in Geelong, Victoria, Defence Secretary John Healey and Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles signed the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Partnership and Collaboration Treaty, known as the Geelong Treaty, during a bilateral meeting of defence ministers.
The treaty formalises the long-term framework for collaboration under Pillar I of the AUKUS agreement.
According to the UK Government, the treaty enables comprehensive cooperation on the design, construction, operation, sustainment and disposal of SSN-AUKUS submarines. It will also support workforce development, infrastructure, regulatory frameworks and industrial capacity in both countries.
The Geelong Treaty builds on the existing trilateral partnership between the UK, Australia and the United States. It will help to develop resilient supply chains and enable Australia to receive port visits and host a rotational UK Astute-class submarine presence at HMAS Stirling under the Submarine Rotational Force West initiative.
The agreement is described as being fully consistent with the international nuclear non-proliferation obligations of both countries. These include the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and its protocols, as well as Australia’s safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the AUKUS Naval Nuclear Propulsion Agreement.
The treaty and the wider SSN-AUKUS programme are intended to deliver a next-generation undersea capability for both navies. It is also expected to support security and stability in both the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions. The UK Government stated that the agreement will drive defence as an engine for economic growth, create thousands of skilled jobs, strengthen submarine industrial bases and open new opportunities for industry across both nations.
Good now get on with it. You can’t wait 10yrs + to produce a S/M!!
Err you sort of have to wait as most of the important bits are ordered 10 years before they are needed and at present the entire DNE is busy finishing off Achilles and getting on with the Dreadnoughts.
Also the design hasn’t got to main gate yet !
Actually work has already started with long lead items being ordered. A UKDJ article on June 28. “Work beings on future British nuclear attack submarine”, details a contract for the weapons handling system being let to Babcock. The system is used by the UK and US so a standard ready to go piece of kit. The PWR3 reactors are in production for the Dreadnought Class and I think they have already been ordered for the AUKUS boats as well.?
The date given above probably refers to the formal first steel cutting. Work will be and is well underway way by then.
Cheers CR
Yes I know it is nonesense but from an aesthetics point of view I hope they keep the aerodynamic sail . Looks very cool with the X surfaces at the stern.
Hi CR Maybe I could have been clearer in my answer to Mike, I wasn’t suggesting everything waits till Main Gate ! I’m fairly familiar with parts of the DNE long lead items process, some of the timescales and how they dictate why you just can’t speed the process up at this point.
Since the 5 year D2L2 stage of the project (Detailed Design & Long Lead items) was signed in Oct 23 (it was still SSN(R) then), Babcock, BAe and RR here in Derby have all been heavily involved. Besides design work it does include the ordering of certain parts for the PWR3, (no idea about what the other 2 have to order). It also ties up the loose ends of the site upgrades, renewal and enlargement investment in the existing facilities / plant, which all are vital to enable faster, more efficient production.
2028 🤞🏻we may actually have some idea of the overall numbers to be produced, that is if HMG don’t have a fit and and announce the RN numbers in the Autumn DIP.
Yep I know and the whole cycle will be subject to delay and interference. What we cannot afford is the same shambles as the Astutes build programme!!
I wonder if given the facilities Australia is suppose to be investing in if it will actually be easier for us to keep one of our SSN’s in Australia.
Plenty of SSN maintenance for Australia to practice on for both USN and RN boats given the maintenance backlogs.
Helluva great Idea, we just need to fix one up and get it there !
AUKUS, the new Sub Standard.
#copyright.
It gave me a chuckle.
Jim the USN is already on it and sending boats into Brisbane (USS Ohio put in yesterday), I think the present lack of U.K boats at sea may have something to do with us rotating a boat out their from 2027 onwards.
To do that the maintenance backlog has to be dealt with and now we may actually get a decent stores / spares budget 🤔
Good to know, fingers crossed
I was watching a clip from one of the Australian news networks regarding this meeting of ministers. They said that Britain was sending an Astute to Australia next year to, “help take the burden off Australia’s ageing Collins class.” No further details given on that arrangement unfortunately. From that description it sounds like it might be a prolonged deployment, but who knows?
Having both RN and USN Hunter-Killers rotating/forward deployed through Fleet Base West is part of the plan already.
This is good news and a logical move forwards for the UK / Australian parts of the Tri lateral AUKUS agreement, it’s also more Holistic than a straight industrial defence agreement. Its first time I’ve ever seen “eventual disposal” encompassed in a public document or statement and it’s a very significant one.
Australia is effectively acquiring and then building nuclear submarines without a previously established Defence Nuclear Industry, nor much of a civilian one either. That’s uniques as every other country that has, is or plans to build them has and has built on that capability. That uniqueness brings with it the complications of NPT and how to physically “build, train, operate, maintain and eventually dispose”of Nuclear Submarines without the end user being able to access or repurpose their power source, which is Bomb grade HEU.
This agreement is basically the enabler to start to work that all out and in many ways it’s going be a Humdinger of a process management and control job. I’d be taking a very long look at the documentation for S101 HMS Dreadnought which was a U.k Submarine but US Reactor for any clues.
Disposal may seem the least important part of it, but I can pretty well guarantee it will be the hardest one to solve, due to NPT I think the decommissioning process for the Reactor section (at least) will have to be here in the UK but then what ?
Who knows this may just be the spur that forces UK Politicians to finally grow a pair and build a repository for the long term waste storage.IMHO that may require them to override the wishes of a local population at the optimum site, no NIMBY override, no planning appeals that drag on for decades just getting what needs to be done actioned.
It’s the Growing bucket of radioactive plop that has been kicked by governments down the park ever since GLEEP went critical in 1947, we have done zilch about long term secure storage and AUKUS makes it even worse.
I actually think HMG is possibly ahead on the later and I’ll quote from the Recent NSS 2025 document.
“We will need to be more unapologetic and systematic in pursuit of our national interests”
Read into that what you want, but it’s nothing different to what happened pre WW2 and in the Cold War.
Great post, interesting to see you’re wide awake to the longer term issues unlike most.
BTW, I’m retired from all this.
“UK to install underground heating in it’s continuous efforts to recycle and become energy self sufficient, bringing a warm glow to the North West”.
Thank you, I am also retired and despite a recent rather interesting offer I have decided to stay that way. As for the NW, who knows it could go elsewhere if HMG has the guts to do it there are a couple of better geological sites but Eskmeals is very good. As for safety and concerns if it’s done on the Finish model it shouldn’t be an issue. Have a look at Onkalo Nuclear Repository, it’s a very impressive engineering solution and let’s face it anything is better than the ponds at Sellafield !
ABCR,
Agree, Australia/UK treaty augurs well for long-term viability/success of AUKUS Pillar 1.
Now, the bad news: Perhaps your post should be revised to reflect the probability that the US submarine enterprise is currently overwhelmed and will remain thus for perhaps for the next 15 years? Recent Congressional testimony from SECNAV and prospective CNO is sobering. Current production rate of 1.2 SSN boats/yr is woefully short of projected requirement of 2.3 SSN/yr. This does not include the effect of the 18-24 month delay in Columbia class production. and the historic backlog of SSN maintenance. Worse, uncertain whether anyone truly believes in the current get well plan. Have read articles proposing the development of an additional nuke yard. Uncertain re technical feasibility of this proposal. Current assessment of AUKUS by Elbridge Cleary will reinforce existing concerns, possibly conclude that the interim supply of Virginia class to RAN is impractical/improbable/impossible. Triumvirate collectively must develop a Plan B for acquisition of an interim RAN submarine capability. Possible lease/purchase of Japanese or South Korean SSKs? Of course, everything inevitably rolls downhill in major programmes. Anticipate significantly increased political pressure to accelerate SSN-A programme. Virtually guaranteed. 🤔😳🙄😱
Elbridge Colby, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 🙄
Hi M8, I deliberately left that lot out (though I touch on it in a later post), I like to comment on things that I can quantify rather than Politics. Whilst the numbers you have quoted are the former the latter is down to the whim of people most of us try to avoid.
Some US and Australian Politicians actually make our British ones look not too bad really 🤣
I’ve mooted this point before in regard to the Norway possibly buying 5/6 T26 and how that could effect the RN delivery schedule, but I’ll adapt it for the USN Battle Force issue and Submarines in particular.
As I understand it they have set a Battle force level which is pretty well impossible to achieve at present and also seems to be based on the premise of USN vs PLAN going 121 solo.
To my mind that’s irrelevant as in reality a World War will not be confined to just those 2 adversaries and unlike China the US has allies who add considerably to overall mass.
For instance S Korea, Japan and Australia combined are a 1 to 1 match for PLAN SSK numbers just on their own, add in their combined surface fleets and all of a sudden the world looks a lot Better. Those 3 countries all use US equipment and weapons and are all pretty modern, so the quality is there as well.
Which brings me back to my main point, it doesn’t matter if you can’t build 60 SSNs for the USN but only 50, that isn’t going to change, and selling 3/5 of them to Australia doesn’t actually effect any of that ! It’s still the same quantifiable reality overall.
Just like Norway it is inconceivable that Australia et all will not be involved, in fact they may well be the 1st line of defence so you have those 3/5 boats tasked alongside you, operating in the same waters, doing the same job, fighting the same enemy so what’s not too like ?
Well I suppose they are a bit noisy, stash deck chairs / barbecues anywhere they can, scare sheep and unlike the USN they do get to drink beer at sea.
On the other hand the B plan may just be that the RN LOP(R) the Astutes and builds 12 SSN(A), 1 or 2 for RAN and Australia builds 6 for themselves. The RN ones (plus France’s 6) are sufficient to release the Atlantic / Med USN boats to the East, embed the Australians in our fleets until they get their own boats and forward base USN boats in Australia.
It is something of a surprise for me to say this but the UK has actually learnt from the Astute build fiasco and very similar US woes. We presently have a massive investment in plant modernisation, expansion, upgrades in facilities sites plus a huge recruitment /training initiative all going on before we start SSN(A).
Oh sorry but Trump hasn’t been eaten by wild Haggis in Scotland (he was to full of gas) and is on his way back to your side of the pond. Which may be a relief as he seems to finally talking some sense and his VP is just scary !
And RN boats already have some Australian components in them.
Good post. Doesnt Australia have dome big holes where low kevel radioactive uranium has bern extracted. Moste if the waste from any submarines could be put there (sort of recycling). The fuel itself, even after scrapping the reactors, is too valuable to be put in the ground, and returning it to the UK would provide routes to be NPT compliant (there are other ways thougth)
We are at full capacity to make our own nuke submarines so let’s see how this progresses with Australia. USA may pick off providing the profitable bits or is that too cynical. If we share our 1st division design and manufacturing knowledge , do we see a a reduction in costs per boat?
The US Submarine industry is completely maxed out at present and for at least the next 15 years, so has very limited opportunity to providemuch other than RAN boats with Weapons and CMS.
If it had been otherwise I don’t think AUKUS would even have been mooted and the US would have provided Virginias to RAN.
As for the cost per boat it’s a No and Yes answer !
NO the boats will cost more than Astutes !
Each generation of Boats is bigger, more complex and capable than their predecessors, SSN(A) will be no different, it will have larger crew spaces and allow for fully segregated M/F berthing for all ranks. In addition they will be able to launch, operate and retrieve UAVs, and for a first time ever VLS for TLAM or other Missiles both need space so a bigger boat which will cost more per boat.
YES Building some entire and parts for the other RAN SSN(A)’s will reduce the costs of RN boats compared to a standalone RN build.
The Astutes are horrendously expensive per boat, that is 100% due to the stingy, stupid, short sighted way they have been funded by the Treasury.
But to produce SSN(A) in the number required by both Navy’s on time and in budget means they have to have a maximum efficient build cycle which means being properly funded.
If we end up building 15 / 18 boats or the major parts of them then it gives us an efficiency of scale throughout the supply chain and that will deliver a cheaper boat per hull than just building 7 replacements for Astutes.
Hope that answers your question.
Can’t see the us is too interested in making a profit on the systems they provide. Eight combat management systems is not a big deal for US industry.
It will give them a high degree of control however over Australia. Given how quick Aussie US relations are souring I wouldn’t be surprised if SSN AUKUS ended up with a UK system.
Jim I was being simplistic, these beasties are more complex than a space shuttle and the possibilities for the supply chains are huge. It’s not just weapons and CMS, will the RAN choose US sonars, comms, weapon handling systems, optronics or ours ? Or maybe if it brings costs oa does the RN do likewise ? It’s not impossible that Babcock design a flexible weapons handling system that can handle US / UK weapons and we all adapt the same outfits 🤷🏼♂️ That’s all TBC, but it will be interesting to see how it all pans out. RAN crews will be operating in both RN and USN boats so it will fascinating to get their feedback of both nations kit.
Just remember we already do actually have US components in our Boats and vice versa 🤔
And RN boats already have some Australian components in them.
I was on Turbs when we sailed into Oz in 2003, what a fantastic jolly that was. Any boat being stationed out there is in for a real treat.