According to a press release from the Ministry of Defence, the UK government has appointed Sir Stephen Lovegrove as its AUKUS adviser to maximise the benefits of the AUKUS partnership.

The government says Sir Stephen, who has previously served as National Security Adviser and Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, brings significant experience to the role as the UK seeks to deepen its collaboration with Australia and the United States under the AUKUS agreement.

The AUKUS partnership, established in 2021, is described in the release as a crucial global security arrangement. Sir Stephen’s appointment, ahead of the third anniversary of AUKUS, reflects the government’s commitment to enhancing the partnership’s defence and economic benefits.

His responsibilities include assessing the UK’s progress in meeting AUKUS objectives, identifying any barriers to further success, and exploring additional opportunities to strengthen the partnership.

Defence Secretary John Healey noted the current global challenges, stating, “As tensions increase, and conflicts continue around the globe, our partnerships with our allies are critically important. AUKUS is a pioneering partnership that will not only bolster our defence and security but can drive jobs and economic growth in communities across the UK.” He expressed confidence that Sir Stephen’s extensive experience in national security will be instrumental in guiding the UK’s role in AUKUS.

Sir Stephen underscored the importance of AUKUS, calling it “the most significant global security partnership the UK has joined in decades.” He acknowledged the complexity of the work ahead and stated his commitment to ensuring that the UK fully capitalises on the opportunities presented by the partnership.

This appointment comes shortly after recent reforms to export controls, designed to facilitate closer cooperation between the AUKUS nations by enabling the sharing of next-generation technologies.

These changes could impact up to £500 million in UK defence exports annually and are expected to significantly boost trade across all three AUKUS nations, further supporting the UK’s economic growth.

Sir Stephen’s work will contribute to the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review, helping to shape the UK’s future strategic goals within the AUKUS framework, they add.

Lisa West
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.

20 COMMENTS

  1. 2032 apparently, they are splashing more than $4 billion.

    If they do that the USN and RN will likely send boats to base in Australia just to clear their own backlogs. 😀

      • essentially the ship lift is needed to keep the at sea deterrent running into its geriatric years…there will be almost no capacity for SSNs. Until 15 and 10 docks in Devonport are sorted out.

        • Yes I know the Vanguard boats get priority but it is the start of easing an absolutely woeful situation , that has been allowed to develop. This situation did not develop overnight.

          • indeed it’s been developed since the delivery of the A boats and the fact they still don’t have a dock at Devonport that they can use…the only SSN dry dock was for the Trafalgars…they did not start revamping the nuclear boat docks in Devonport until 2021…which is a decade to late…they should have started this work in 2011/12….with the A boats having their own dock from 2015.

          • It’s funny that…common themes…a decade late seems to the the golden thread of naval contracts….there must be a mathematical formula the MOD use on delaying contacts.

          • It is a wonderful formula – it causes long term costs to rocket and outputs to tank.

            I believe same formula is enthusiastically used throughout the UK public sector 🙂

    • Last night a friend told me that Australians are already working ( under US supervision) on doing maintence work on a US nuke in Western Audtralia.

  2. I recognise the name. He was also a banker I think? So that will certainly maximise profits for the MIC!
    Will it put assets in the hands of the UK military though, beyond the current planned 7 SSN, the current all time low.

    • I’m still not sure what was the worst decision…cutting the SSN numbers of destroyer numbers..

      SSN numbers are probably overall more impactful cut considering the utility of SSNs and the significance growth in the AAW capability of wider RN escorts. But is a cut that was more problematic in causation ( AKA a load of bollox- ups dating back from 1986)where as the cut in in destroyers was pure immediate short term thinking and cost saving..
      so essentially although the SSN cut was a worse decision…it was more inevitable and driven by wider BS and mistakes than pure immediate cost cutting ( infact it was an inevitable cut after SSN20 was canned and they did not follow up with a cheap and cheerful Trafalgar batch 2.

      Its always worth revisiting why we ended up with only 7 very late SSNs….all goes back to 1986 and SSN20 when the RN fell into the same panic trap as the USN ( The Soviet navy is catching up…panic and create a money is no object programs)…sea Wolf and SSN20 both hit the 1990s wall of “what enemy will ever come close to what we have let alone these monsters”….with a rebound to the development of a modest evolved trafalgar class…to be honest if this had been taken forward at speed they could have had a cheaper boat at higher rate production very early..infact they could have bounced of the trafalgar after only 2 years…victorious was launched in 1993 leaving only two boats being built..with a capacity for three…so the first new batch 2 trafalgar SSN could have been laid down in 1993…as it was the move to PWR2, increased requirements on quieting and improved flank arrays meant the final Astute programme was iself not a cheap 1 for 1 Swiftsure and Trafalgar replacement…..closer to the long canned SSN20 in cost ( infact it’s very likely all considered not canning SSN20 would have been cheaper in the long run) ….and a contract not signed until 1997..by the time astutes was ready for design and construction…there were a few barriers..as in no private company had ever designed a Nuclear boat ( up to vanguard every boat was designed by the RN) and the last UK designed boat was 20 years before…and from a building point of view the last vanguard had been launched a couple of years before…essentially the UK had forgotten how to design and build SSNs..with its workforce down to around only 20% of what it had….essentially because of this the early programme was shambolic and around 4 years behind schedule….costing 1.50 billion more than planned..in truth even if they had wanted to build 12 boats there was no hope of getting them built in time to clear the way for the new SSBN..if they had ordered that boat 8 they would not have had the space to start building it until 2021/22…with a launch in late 2020s…that would have put the SSBN programme back by years..

    • Hi M8, I can’t believe I’m going to say this but, BIG BREATH !
      It isn’t all about the numbers of RN Submarines in the short term.
      It’s way more fundamental than that, it’s about how the system copes with the implications of the AUKUS Treaty and what they mean.

      IMHO most developed countries struggle to effectively deliver huge projects that involve cross departmental cooperation.
      You just need to look at UK handling of COVID or the massive failure in US intelligence that missed 9/11 to see that.

      So we have the AUKUS Treaty which involves MOD, FO, Industry, Education and Treasury. All of them have to cooperate, not trip each other up, focus on delivering our commitments to our partners but get as much benefit for U.K PLC as possible.

      If you look at the History of everything we complain about on UKDJ what have all of these got in common.

      SSN very expensive, too few and that’s because they were ordered about a decade late.
      Frigates and Destroyers, too few and over a decade late.
      F35 Aircraft, too few ordered.
      FSS, nothing available and about 15 years too late.
      Army equipment, everything too few, not enough replacements ordered and too late.

      They are all the result of short sited Political decision’s, made by all parties who kicked the ball down the field for the next incompetent to then do exactly the same. And they could do it because we have zero “Checks and Balances” on the decision making process.
      “I have a majority, so I don’t care here you go !”.

      AUKUS is lovely just because it provides the “Checks and balances” that have been missing since WW2. So appointing someone to coordinate all the depts and remind all of the Ministers, their “special advisors” and the Civil Service of the consequences of failure is pretty prudent.

      It’s a massive stick to be able to beat someone with, none of those usual suspects wants to carry the can for mucking it up. Just hope they picked the right stick waggler.

      That stick is already being waggled and the proof is in that no one has interfered with the massive investment going on right now.
      Usually any requirement is pared to the bone and then some, but not this time. We are investing in everything at the same time. BAe at Barrow, SFM at Sheffield, URENCO at Capenhurst, Babcock at Plymouth and Rosyth and here in Derby. Everything is being primed and got ready, that’s the supply chain, maintenance / refit and disposal all getting investment at the same time.
      They just need to get the waste depository sorted out.🤷🏼‍♂️

      Oh and if we get it right, the unit cost per SSN goes down so we can buy more. And I have a funny feeling that decision will depend far more on industries need for continuity of production than any short term cost savings. 10 !

      • You’re like Jonathan mate, a man of reason!
        All true and most encouraging, just requires patience that no one has as the benefits, to hull numbers, are so far away!

        • Thank you, it’s taken 6 decades of Swearing, Tea and Beer to get here. Yes it’s decades away but just for once it’s actually Industry led and it’s being fully funded, up front and not a cost cut in sight.
          Anyone would think someone at HMG asked industry “can you do this and what do you need to do it properly, efficiently and in a sustainable way ?”.

          Answer is “Yes we can, we need A, B, C through to Z, plus new apprentices, we need to start right now, planning issues overcome and it’s going to cost £X billions. Here is our Bank details !”.

          Its an opportunity of huge significance and not just for Australia and U.K, the US sees this as burden sharing and of real mutual benefit.

          The biggest issue for a past mistakes isn’t actually individual Politicians, IMHO it’s our antiquated Political system. First past the post delivers a strong result but as our 2nd chamber cannot stop the commons from doing what it likes we essentially elect a 5 year dictatorship.
          We have no effective Checks and Balances in place.

          We really need a reform of the 2nd chamber and get rid of the unelected Lords. I’d replace it with a PR elected chamber of @450 each serving 6 years with 150 up for election every 2 years.
          But they have the ability to block or severely modify any silly ideas the Government has.

          Only problem is no Government will do it as it’s their turn to rule.🥴

  3. He’s got a ‘Sir’ in front of his name so I’m sure he’s the perfect candidate to sort out what the countries involved need with regard to submarines. I’d have preferred someone who was a bit more submariney but what do I know….

    • I disagree, it’s not all about Submarines, it’s got far more opportunities than just that. So you need someone with experience of the departmental / political system and how to get it to behave.
      AUKUS delivery depends on getting MOD, Industry, Education, Environment and Treasury to all play nicely.
      It’s a Venn diagram of sworn enemies, so good luck to him.

      As Teddy Roosevelt could have said “Walk softly and carry an International Cooperation Treaty in your hand”. 🤣

  4. Is sir Steven already a paid civil servant or is this an appointment of another quango? How much is he being paid and from which budget?
    I feel a freedom of information request coming on.

  5. As the World Parliament of Peace President Vitali Alexandrovich Druzhinin I commend AUKUS for such dignified professional political military Intelligence appointment of Sir Stevens to the role of permanent advisor . Now, France will lead the attack on Central Russia,and Britain will unite maritime forces to attack China and Russia simultaneously. God will remind Britain of it’s mighty power in the crusades and the unbeatable fleet and the intelligence services in the Middle ages leading them from the East to the Caribbean basin where now the chief battles would ensure. God bless British Empire born again in our mighty God

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here