Plans have surfaced from a recent ‘Departmental Minute dated 28 June 2023‘ indicating the Ministry of Defence’s intent to contract BAE Systems for the ‘Detailed Design and Long Lead Items‘ phase of a new class of nuclear submarine.
Mark your calendars: this initial stage is slated for ‘commencement from July 2023.‘
The new submarines, christened the ‘Ship Submersible Nuclear AUKUS‘ (SSN-AUKUS), are marked to replace the existing Astute Class submarines.
According to the Minute, the ‘Detailed Design and Long Lead Items’ (D2L2) contract with BAE Systems, the UK’s only submarine builder capable of this critical Defence requirement, includes ‘procurement commitments with the supply chain for Long Lead Items‘ along with early steel fabrication at the Barrow Site.
BAE Systems has requested enhanced protection, beyond the usual Defence Contractual Conditions, covering potential outstanding commitments and rationalisation costs if the contract is terminated. As such, the contract includes non-standard clauses which could create liabilities if the MOD were to terminate the contract or refrain from awarding a subsequent one.
Significantly, the Minute explains that, “The non-standard clauses commit the MOD to fund committed spend on long lead items and for allowable and reasonable rationalisation costs in the case of termination of convenience or force majeure, and reasonable rationalisation costs in the event of a termination due to contractor default.”
While these potential financial liabilities are recognised, the MOD perceives these risks as ‘remote,‘ given the strategic significance of the SSN-AUKUS Programme.
However, the document admits the liabilities are “currently deemed unquantifiable due to the early stages of the programme.” The total financial commitments and plausible rationalisation costs are uncertain at this stage.
The Treasury, according to the Minute, has “approved the proposal in principle.’ Nonetheless, final approval will be held back if objections are raised within the span of ‘fourteen parliamentary sitting days”.
The AUKUS class submarine – What do we know?
The SSN-AUKUS submarines will be the largest, most advanced and most powerful attack submarines ever operated by the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy, combining world-leading sensors, design and weaponry in one common hull.
In September 2021, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States revealed a significant trilateral initiative known as AUKUS, with the aim of assisting Australia in obtaining conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs).
After an 18-month evaluation period to determine the most suitable approach for Australia to attain this capability, a model has been selected that is based on the UK’s leading-edge design and integrates advanced US submarine technology.
Both Australia and the UK will manufacture new submarines following this design, referred to as “SSN-AUKUS.” The UK’s submarines will primarily be constructed in Barrow-in-Furness, while Australia will focus on developing its submarine industrial base over the next decade. Australian submarines will be built in South Australia, with some components produced in the UK.
The first UK submarines utilising this design are expected to be delivered in the late 2030s to replace the current Astute-Class vessels, with Australia’s submarines scheduled to follow in the early 2040s, read more here.
A contract for 12 with huge cancellation costs would be ideal for any future government to be unable to cancel if it’s all progressing smoothly.
Speeding it up a bit to 2034-35 for first boat hitting the water would be good also.
The Aussies could do with plans as early as possible.
Agree the Uk gov should be contracually punished for termination for Convenience. That is fair enough and common. Article implies the same cancellation
Liability will apply for termination due to FM. While it’s common to have some compensation for FM events triggering cancellation it should, if anything, only be a fraction of the Liability in the for Convenience case.
The time frames are a bit ridiculous but at least they’re seriously starting now! If it looks like getting delayed I’d like to see Aus get 2-3 extra long range diesel subs in the interim to add to the six Collins.
I guess you didn’t catch the other reports, confirmed by both the US and Aussie governments, that the USN will provide 3 Virginia-class SSNs by 2032 – two used “with at least 20 years service life remaining” and one new-built for Australia.
Not quite unfortunately it would appear that the first of 3 will arrive around 2032 and then at 3 year intervals afterwards according to the published timeline.
That not what was put in place for the Aircraft carriers? Too expensive to cancel.
TOBA also meant that HMG had to pay the workforce and the facilities overhead wether they had work or not.
All the long lead bits, which are the expensive part of the build had already been ordered and most were sat in warehouses.
The block build contracts had been let meaning that the block building yards would have had to be compensated too.
Gordon Brown did a good job there for both RN and UK shipbuilding otherwise Clegg, Osbourne and Cameron would have cancelled POW and cancelled UK shipbuilding.
Not that it had anything to do with it being inthe next constituency to his own and the largest employer in Fife.
But as you say he did a cracking job in holding his succesors feet to the fire not even Cameloon could get out of it.
I have to ask the question. But given the lessons of Ukraine. An aggressive China and an increasing Dangerous world. What government in their right mind would cancel these boats. If anything the defence budget need to be driven up to a steady three percent. With a temporary surge past that to quickly bring U.K. armed forces back up to scratch.
Forget what I said. I just remembered the TSR2!!!
There no logic to it, political parties like to do the opposite of the other.
“What government in their right mind would cancel these boats.”
Good point, but mute as we haven’t had a HMG in its right mind for quite some time.
I can see two very good reasons for this kind of clause. Firstly, as has already been mentioned, it makes it very difficult for a future government to cancel. Secondly, it sends a strong message to Australia – ‘This IS going to happen, you can rely on us’.
Could this arrangement be applied to surface vessels? If so, it may be another route to go when developing and amortising future warships builds for the RN.
From what I can recall, the contracts for the carriers held something similar…getting out of one would cost more than actually taking deliver of both..it’s the only reason the Cameroon government did not cancel the POW.
The Cameroon Govt could cancel a sovereign UK carrier programme, geez that’s worrying, not heard that one before. Does this mean this present contract is specifically designed to prevent other third World Countries having a veto on our Nuclear sub programmes? The ramifications are scary, with the Wagners gaining control in these sort of Countries one can see why Putin has a degree of forgiveness it gives him control over all of our defence programmes potentially. 😱.
I know it’s totally shocking, the loss of sovereignty is scary…as is auto correct.😂😂😂
Just do what I do call then Cameloon and Oddborne, sums em up nicely.
All I can say about this I just wish the pile driving at the back of the RR plant here in Derby was just a little quieter ! 😉 On a serious note the preparation work on the necessary design, development and production facilities to build these is progressing nicely. The easy bit is construction of the buildings and outfitting them with the necessary equipment. It will be a challenge to vet, recruit and train the necessary staff, and then retain them as they will be very high on everyone’s poaching list. The supply chain has to be readied, long… Read more »
Umm…er…yes, could we review the bidding re development and manufacture of SSN AUKUS CMS, sensors and weaps. (presumably heavy torps. specifically)? 🤔 A recent NL article speculated that SSN AUKUS would be a common design incorporating a combination of UK and US derived systems. If this is indeed the path chosen, predict internecine warfare between rival contractors on an epic scale. If the system requirements and interfaces are handled more rationally, in a vein similar to your proposal, relative peace and tranquility will prevail in Aukusland. In any event your paragraph beginning “The really hard bit about this project…”, is… Read more »
I read the same and it filled me with dread, the UK should never accept a US combat system, it will completely remove our indigenous industry and our superior weapons and sonar like Tiger fish and 2076. As with the F35 we will be stuck with a system costing substantially more with IP and maintainance right owned by a corporation. There will be zero savings from larger numbers being procured just ongoing cost and an inability for the UK to operate its own submarines.
What ever the combat management system is the main thing is it’s the best available and not contractor owned software etc
My understanding was that ideas shared, systems bought that are available etc.
Just like how it’s done now with U.K. and USA boats having some parts that are made in each other’s countries. There are so many small parts that go into a boat.
Actually finding out what these bits are is a bit more difficult due to the secrecy around subs.
Sheffield forgemasters have done some work for Virginias.
Everything I have read I.e. the UK and Aus boats being identical and both using US technology suggest a common CIC as the Aussies will guarantee want commonality between Virginia and AUKUS. It’s obviously early days in the program but it think that would be a massive mistake much the same as allowing Lockheed Martin full control of F35 AIS as proprietary technology.
It’s a bit more than some work they have been making very highly specialist machined forgings for GD Electric boat for nearly 20 years now. All of the Virginias have some and now a $60 million contract for the new Columbia class. A bit of Yorkshire trotting around in a USN Boomer !
Interesting little snippet but they made a prototype Pipe clamp to enable the Nordstream pipes to be patched a few years ago. No idea how that went.
And folks wonder why it got Nationalised.
It’s a bit more than some work they have been making very highly specialist machined forgings for GD Electric boat for nearly 20 years now. All of the Virginias have some in them and now a $60 million contract for the new Columbia class. A bit of Yorkshire trotting around in a USN Boomer ! The simple reason is that every country including the US took the Post Cold War “Peace Dividend” and reduced, paused or cancelled replacement kit on the same scale. The supply chain withered and many companies either re purposed, outsourced or went under. As Forgemasters are… Read more »
Er…Tigerfish? 🤔 Possibly Spearfish? In any event, ABCRodney has stated in reply that he believes there is sufficient good will by all parties to reach an accommodation. 🤞 My background is in aircraft systems, so must defer to more relevant expertise.
Sorry yes I meant spearfish,
sufficient goodwill?
When it comes to business there is no such thing- if there is you shouldnt be in business.
I fear for any UK indeginous services- as simply being ‘the best option’ just wont cut it – no matter what others may hope.
We would be stuck with ITAR nonsense if we bought American.
I thank you for the last sentence, my tongue was firmly in the side of my cheek. Yep it is going to be fun, but as long as Engineers take the lead and can talk to other engineers a solution can usually be found. But if contactors and Politicians get involved well it’s “Mad as a Box of Frogs” time (even worse if some are actually French). I cannot see the UK dumping our own Torpedo development in favour of US ones or vice versa but if the general specs are similar then it really shouldn’t matter (it has been… Read more »
Hope your assessment of project politics and dynamics proves to be correct. 🤞. There are several arenas in which the West needs to compete effectively in the foreseeable future, and underseas ops.
is definitely among them. 🤔
Agree that it appears blindingly obvious to third party observers that Canadians should become a full member of AUKUS Pillar 1, as well as Pillar 2 programme, but doubt whether current government will choose to participate, due to an imponderable internal political rationale.
Yes can’t imagine Trudeau going for SSN’s, there is also a long running dispute with the US and Canada over the North West passage with Canada viewing it as an inshore waterway and the US seeing it as an international strait. Can’t see the US willing to supply Canada with nuclear submarines without some resolution on it.
Canada has shown interest in the KSS-III submarine from Korea to replace the Victoria class. A lot of interest.
Interesting. Once the Arctic ice cap recedes sufficiently, both the Orcs and ChiComs will come calling. Then the Canadians will face an intriguing dilemma re conventional subs. Perhaps they could expropriate the line from the movie Jaws, “We’re gonna need a bigger boat (and, oh by the way, a helluva lot more of them).” 🤔😉
They are there already but their presence will increase only more in the coming years. Canada recently reaffirmed the EZ claim extending to the pole and to the north west. Three bases in the arctic are getting upgrades (tied to Canada’s NORAD funding increase)
12 subs are on the menu. These KSS subs have small crews and vertical launch cruise missiles and can be built in Korea and not have procurement problems that have caused delays domestically/politically.
The RCN and chief of staff are pushing this to the government as a high priority now.
Hmmm…if this indeed becomes reality, presume that RCN should at least be able to patrol EEZ relatively effectively. Unfortunately, this force would not contribute meaningfully to naval balance in Indo-Pacific. 🤔
The 8 Harry De Wolfe class OPVs are the primary ‘at sea’ force for Arctic patrol and planting flags. Their multi mission payloads and a ASW helo make them adept for this. Four of the class are completed as of now. They would be backed up by a frigate, sub, mine sweeper or air assets while on patrol. This would take a bit of pressure off of Atlantic and Pacific fleets for their respective activities. Patrolling the total Canadian coastline is a daunting task. The P-8s that the RCAF may come to posses soon will increase that range and aid… Read more »
AUKUS supply chain currently forming/organizing: Article stated that Fairbank Morse Defense (US) has formed a teaming relationship w/ Marand Precision Engineering (AU) to address AUKUS marine propulsion issues (diesel?). Supply chain train is already leaving the station.
… Fairbanks Morse…🙄. Article from NavalNews.com, 30 Jul 23.
I wouldn’t get too excited about that, as part of the AUKUS project the RAN will operate some Virginia class boats, until they get up and running building their own. The US boats use the Fairbanks diesel generators as an emergency back up propulsion system. Australian firm to support those units. But I would be very surprised if the mix and match approach to equipping the U.K. and RAN assembled boats use those engines. Both will be reliant on U.K built reactors built here in Derby. The reactor and the entire machinery is a very complex, finely tuned set of… Read more »
Reasonable explanation that the teaming arrangement will address Virginia class diesel maintenance and sustainment, rather than AUKUS SSN. 👍 (Article did state Fairbanks Morse diesel design is dated.)
BTW, what exactly is ‘strath’? Purchance stealth (sound suppression)? 🤔
Yep Typo. And I will not comment on Fairbanks Morse engines as I know nothing about them. But I do know that MTU are used by nearly everyone in conventional boats and nearly every RN surface ship.
I know they are now capacity constrained with Dreadnought work nearing its peak prior to AUKUS then ramping up as quickly as possible, but its a disappointment that BAE Subs hasn’t had more export success. The French Navy only has nukes, but that hasn’t stopped Naval Group from having considerable success with AIP powered submarines, leveraging technologies developed for the MN. The only export by BAE Subs I can recollect in the last 20 years is construction of the pressure domes for the four Spanish S-80 Plus subs.
We just don’t build conventional subs anymore and our nuclear ones are way to big design wise to adapt to conventional or AIP.
BMT do have a family of designs for export but realistically the only way that will happens is the RN bought some and that just isn’t going to happen.
We do however still have some other avenues for export from the supply chain and also in smaller more niche markets for specialised Submersibles such as Msub.
BMT have some nice CGI images but nothing like a designed submarine.
If it makes you happy the Sonar and CIC the Swedes are bidding for the Netherlands submarine requirement are British.
Given that for SSN-AUKUS the RN will be switching to an updated version of the combat system and associated systems fitted to USN Virginia class SSN’s, I don’t have much hope that that this bid will be successful. E.g. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1142588/The_AUKUS_nuclear_powered_submarine_pathway_a_partnership_for_the_future.pdf
Exactly Saab C718 design could easily be built in UK and offer a rapid boost in submarine numbers. Especially for North sea, channel, Baltic, Med duties.
Wonder if we could build 4 at C&L while we are waiting for AUKUS.
Would that be the same CL whoa ren’t even building the hull for the new Mersey Ferry ? Outsourced it to Damon NL who build all their hulls in Romania !
Mmm “Easily” I hope that is a joke ? BAe wouldn’t touch it as it would jeopardise the SSN/SSBN/AUKUS build schedule which is presently on Amber. So you you would need to use a yard with zero recent Naval shipbuilding experience, zero recent Submarine building experience and then re equip it and recruit a new inexperienced and untrained workforce from outside the existing BAe one at Barrow. And all that takes time, planning and oodles of Money all to build 4 extra submarines with a completely unique supply chain. And to then operate them in the same waters as Norway,… Read more »
British nuclear subs aren’t really exportable…. They contain designs and nuclear technology from the Americans, which will have strict conditions restricting their use to British subs only. It’s taken the AUKUS agreement to allow those designs/technology to be shared with Australia.
You would be surprised by the amount of info, designs and tech that flows the other way and is also controlled. And not just in the Nuclear bits.
U|K were miles ahead of the US with Pump Jets, Anechoic Tiles and sound supression.
I just wish we hadn’t alowed them to buy Cobham and Ultra.
I’m sure there will be a lot of two way transfers…. We do sometimes underestimate ourselves technology and innovation wise…. And I always despair when I see the Crown Jewels of our tech/industrial sector being snapped up by others who seem to appreciate them more than we do…
What US designs specifically?
I believe it’s fairly common knowledge that a lot of the rector design originates from the US.
We share basic reactor designs and then enhance / fine tune to our requirements. The biggest issue to exports is the NPG and the fuel used.
I’d go for the Saab C718. AIP subs. They are somewhat larger than the Spanish S-80s and offer on paper good endurance. Would be great for North sea, Mediterranean or channel duties freeing up astute for GIUK or far east deployments.
Saab have offered the type to Holland with indigenous construction.
This might be a way to get 4 extra subs into service quickly. Eg before 2030s.
I think a AIP type optimised for UK requirements would be a sensible bridge to Aukus.
You do know we are struggling to recruit and retain submariners don’t you ?
Maybe a low-crewed Scandanavian designed boat would help, not hinder.
Originally they were to be around 2,900 tons and about 73m, but that was some time ago. I’m not sure what bigger than the 81m S-80 class means. The variation in even the recently published surface/submerged displacement figures for the Spanish boat are pretty big, ranging from 2,695/2,965 tons (Sutton) to 3,200/3,426 tons (Wikipedia).
I also haven’t found anything on endurance for the C718s. Can you recommend a good link for the stats, please? It’s not sounding like a purely regional boat and probably capable of GIUK and N. Atlantic work in its own right.
BAE has never built an AIP submarine and the UK have never designed one since the 80’s so not sure why you would think BAE would be primed to build AIP submarines.
It protects the contractor from the financial penalty of ordering 12 nuclear reactors only to have them near delivery and see the contract reduced to 6 and their profit wiped out paying for their disposal.
Not that the UK government would ever do such a thing.
Still torn as to whether the whole SSN/SSBN industry should be stated owned!
Given that even in the US the market is not big enough to provide real competition British nuc sub construction is a natural monopoly. This is a situation that leads to exploitation. But how to nationalise anything when the government is broke? I would like to see parliament pass legislation so that if just for an example we wanted to buy BAE UK operations we would look at the whole companies market value say a p/e of 18.2, then purchase all BAE uk operations with associated IP for 18.2 times the earnings they declare here on them for tax purposes.… Read more »
So you want to buy at a knock down price the UK assets of one the UKs most succesful multi national companies. Its UK listed share price pretty well props up most folks pensions. BA was a formerly Nationalised industry that was sold off in 1987 and by doing so allowed it to expand, buy overseas companies and ear fom overseas markets. It is the largest Defence company in Europe, 1 of the 6th Biggest in the US and earns Billions from overseas taxpayers and then they pay taxes on their earnings in the UK. Do yourself a favour look… Read more »
‘buy at a knock down price’? The only way what I suggested could ever underpay BAE would be if they were fiddling their taxes. Surely that’s not possible?
You can’t negotiate a price with a nationalised supplier. What’s the incentive for this new entity to cut costs when the government foots the bill. Its also politically very hard to drive efficiency, imagine the government wanting to bring in new manufacturing tech and reduce the workforce. That’s going to create some awkward headlines. How does a nationalised company compete internationally? Will the tax payer end up funding foreign projects when they go over budget? You could create another private division but then you just add loads of duplication and costs, so become uncompetitive. Or if they do sign a… Read more »
Spot on and the biggest Shareholders in BAe and RR are our UK Pension funds. So who gets shafted ?
And 0.1 seconds later the US, Australia, Sweden etc nationalise the massive BAe holdings in their countries.
Are you a Communist or something ?
BAE operates under the mask of commercialism. Bae are effectively the construction arm of the MOD in many respects – especially Barrow.
And one the 6 biggest in the US, BAe actaully has the support contract for the USAF ICBM force and most of the refits for its Navy. Listed on the UK stock Market hence props up or pensions and pays its Taxes here.
As a monopoly supplier at Barrow managing that single source procurement is challenging as the project is massive and nuclear.
But T31 has lit a firework behind BAE and BW has given AUKUS a big kick start.
Always good when submarine plans surface!
Pun intended? 😉
It’s good to see the defence industry putting in these clauses, it will help stop the jam tomorrow promises as now it will be expensive to cancel and change their mind. It will also help with the MOD budget as the treasury are on the hook for it so there won’t be the 4 year on off cycles. We have to remember we wouldn’t have 2 carriers if these type of clauses weren’t in place.
Pity they weren’t in place for the type 45 destroyers, we might have ended up with 8 or 12 of them.
Just wish those clauses had been in place for type 26 programme.
Never were more than 8 ordered.
Never ordered more than six T45.
That’s true but at the equivalent stage in devopment it was for 12, but it was reduced and reduced before the actual orders, I expect the same to happen here if no clauses are in.
It is a bit different a nuclear reactor isn’t like a DG set – you can’t just go on the open market and buy one!
The only comparable bits of T45 was SAMPSON and the main drive motors but they are nothing in the scale of complexity.
is it now time for another submarine builder , BAE Systems being the sole builder of submarines here in the uk. she has so many contracts for almost everything, one wonders how she can do all these submarine and ship building with all the other military items, she must be very big, but do we now need another submarine builder, i was told we have another company that used to build subs, can we not invest in this and open another sub builder, just a thought chaps..
Pre WW2 several yards built submarines but in those days it wasnt much different to building other ships, in the nuclear age with the exception of three or so that were outsourced to Cammel Laird in Birkenhead (mostly when it was a subsidiary of Vickers Barrow) they have all been built at Vickers in Barrow (now BAE Systems Submarines). BAE Systems Maritime and Babcock are the two surface ship builders.
The USA, with much larger fleets, only have 2 nuclear submarine builders- Electric Boat ( General Dynamics)and Newport News( part of Huntington Ingalls) I don’t see how we could generate work for more than one. Even that one suffered from loss of skills during years of low/ no production.
We need to plan years ahead to ensure continuous production, which we appear to be doing. But avoiding a famine and feast cycle means the build pace is slow.
There may be opportunities for other companies to produce UUVs
An interesting market duopoly, but at least not a monopoly. 😉 Anticipate further consolidation of marine and aircraft primes in the future. Almost an immutable law of business.
There is no way we can get a second nuclear sub builder in the Uk…. We just do not have the numbers of subs to justify two builders…. We struggle to sustain one builder with the slow order rate and build times…We have 11 subs…. The Americans have two builders, who cooperate in each sub build, from what I understand and they have somewhere in the region of 50 SSN, 14SSBN and 4 SSGN’s, plus significant expansion of numbers planned.
Spot on.
Production of SSN-AUKUS by another builder would eventually lead to Barrow running out of work as it did before the Astutes. The massive current expansion at Barrow would make that even more likely. Given that we can’t afford another class of SSN and don’t need more SSBNs, any extra subs would have to be either SSKs or UUVs. We already have another supplier for UUVs, MSubs on the South coast, currently building the Cetus XLUUV. With experience building manned submersibles and significant links to US sister companies, it’s not impossible they could expand further, but the difference between building a… Read more »
MoD built O-class diesel-electric subs at Chatham dockyard back in the day.
True
But they were a little less advanced and essentially a glorified and enlarged WW2 design.
True. I thought people would like this historic point especially unique in MoD being a builder – Chatham built 6 of the 27 – three other yards built the remainder.
All boats commissioned between 1960 and 1967. Exported to 4 other countries.
Replaced (briefly) by the Upholder class in the RN from 1990.
Sorry but there is no need for a 2nd site as there just isn’t the workload to need one. The last one built elsewhere was by CL in the 60’s, and all through the Cold War Barrow coped with higher numbers than now andd its a lot bigger now. The Boats are now built on a Drum Beat of orders according to the laid out required service levels and OOS dates and that rate can be flexed (over time to increase). Which is what is presently going on to ramp up for the AUKUS Boats as that will require a… Read more »
My main concern about all this is that Australia may back out of the deal af some point going for a reduced number of Virginia’s instead. I think at moment its likely buying 3 + 2(?) Of those before getting the AUKUS sub. There’s speculation around ( The Guardian admittedly that only a reduced number of those might be built for AUS). Hope the contracts are watertight.
Tend to agree. There is a lot of heated debate in Aus around Aukus and it’s affordability. Seems the Aussies might just plumb for the optional 2 extra Virginia class. As long as USN is prepared to sign over 5 of their precious Virginia’s. Currently the USN cannot get enough Virginia class in the water.
America still thinks it is going to be producing 2 Virginias and 1 Columbia a year which is pie in the sky. Even then they don’t want to give Australia 3 boats much less 5. USN maintenance backlog is even worse than ours and their SSN availability rates are low, even americas amazing industrial base has its limits especially given how much the Oil and Gas industry pays for skilled welders and the like. I would be amazed if Australia gets more than 2 Virginias and they will likely be well used Block III in need of maintenance probably at… Read more »
Agree, Australia is a big concern, very easy for another government to come in and cancel it. Hopefully we get al the development money upfront. If they don’t want the reactors hopefully we get the full 15 SSN the government is discussing.
I’d be equally concerned about the UK backing out, we have the next government promising all projects must pass the ‘NATO’ test. We’re yet to see what that is.
Can’t imagine any British government pulling out of the project that’s likely to be the biggest defence export in UK history.
Then the criteria for the NATO test will need to be very creative :). Or its just BS tool to justify some project over others.
I wouldn’t worry about Australia backing out! Several good reasons why the Three counties did a deal. Improve industrial base for subs in all three countries and add a third country repair base with common parts and equipment. Australia’s contribution to the industrial base is $3 Billion to UK and US. RR is a major recipient of those funds from Australia and would be part of the long lead time parts. Part of the agreement is for US technology in the SSNR design – US combat system common in Virginia and Collins boats – PWR3 / S9G common in US… Read more »
As long as “god forbid” when they cancel, compensation will be based on “Open-Book” accounting, I think it is a great idea.
The AUKUS submarine project demonstrates division in Nato, as it excludes France.
It also excludes 27 other NATO countries. NATO is a mutual defence coalition not a unified military. Of course there are divisions between what different member countries will decide to do.
Australia is not in NATO, it choose to cancel a development contract with France that it had every right to do and start another with the UK for a better product.
I don’t see how that has anything to do with NATO.
Good, the French have been nothing but belligerent and antagonistic towards the UK for decades. They deserve to get shafted
I seem to remember India we’re close to signing up for Typhoons at one point before changing under all sort of suspect machinations to Rafale, and wow NATO didn’t collapse or indeed weaken at all, probably because as Jim says it has nothing to do with NATO. I think that’s difficult for those with a mindset tied to a monocultured colonially minded political and military set up, to quite get their head around, ie that people unite through agreement rather than centralised force or threat and indeed that disagreements are actually tolerated. It’s quite healthy actually.
But isn’t China the centralised threat that has been align around for AUKUS.
If you read some of the Ausi papers it was the long lunches, belligerent and antagonistic attitude that P’sd the Ausies off.
That and they drink wine, insist on stupid Acronyms, refuse to speak English and don’t understand cricket.
Allegedly, the Australians make wine too?
And do you think the French would actually drink it during their 2 hour “ticket resto”? None
Mais non, mon ami.
It really is a good idea to do some basic research Frosty before you pass off irrational wishful thinking memes like that. Beginning to think you are Frosty the Snowman with pitiful efforts like that one.
He can’t be Frosty the Snowman he’s melted 🙂
That will be the same France thats been actively trying to undermine NATO for years by setting up its own puppet EU army to shove around. No thanks.
France isn’t a member of 5 eyes, so Naff all to do with them or NATO. Its a Tri- Latteral agreement between 3 members of 5 eyes, which effectively brings Australia into the US/UK Nuclear Mutual Defence agreement.
Many minefields ahead.
The Navy always recognises the lead time for major projects and are always planning the ship/boat to follow the type that is still being built. Bravo. Wish the army did the same.
We would still have a thriving land platforms industry no doubt, like the Germans had we done that instead of having a few specialists as good as they are in the likes of SuperCat. The fact they had to sell off the rights to their innovative vehicles to GD (while retaining the right to build and develop them) to try to progress the Company says it all really about UK support of the sector. The fact that Bae has so much success in Sweden and the US in this sector is doubly galling, while it is very probably easing out… Read more »
Yeah BAE portfolio in land vehicles is quite astounding, it’s amazing they make nothing for the UK. If we had stayed in Boxer and procured CV90 probably would have been very different.
There a lot of BAE bashing going on around the end of MRA4 if you recall that cost them some contracts they really should have got.
It was also used as an excuse to delay T26.
In the early days of MRA.4, BAE advised MoD to build new fuselages but Treasury would not agree. Result – not a pretty sight. The MoD then blames BAE exclusively for the project disaster and apparently boycotts the company and awards Ajax to GDUK.
BAE could have made M777, CV90 recce and CV90 IFV – for the British Army.
Buy some Boxers for the MIV role in the medium-weight wheeled bdes replacing Mastiffs but only when they are time-expired.
All good points Spy. I remember when we had 5 companies making AFVs (VSEL, Alvis, RO plc, VDS, GKN). BAE took them all over and had the inherited ‘DNA’. But no contracts for AFVs were forthcoming from MoD for 20 years – or even major upgrades. AFV business withered on the vine – the modern, huge Leeds tank factory now gone and the similar one in Newcastle is partly sold off and making other things. Army keep some AFVs in service for 50 (Scimitar family) or 60 years (430s), whilst most others are 25-35 years old. The Land Industrial strategy… Read more »
Only recently has it been allowed to…..
SB, please explain!
These non standard clauses will be BAe protecting themselves and the AUKUS deal. The next government have promised all equipment projects pass a NATO test, no way developing an asset with a non NATO member will pass that test. Its debatable that a SSN would even pass a ‘NATO’ test as you don’t need SSN to potter around the North Sea and our side of the Atlantic. Some will point out in the argument against them that our European allies patrol these waters with non nuclear powered subs.
After reading all the comments made up to this point, I see how cancellation clauses would obligate a government to stick to a deal, and buy what the initially agreed on.
There would however, need to be another clause in military contracts, to protect the taxpayer from ever spiralling costs.
But (oh here we go again) what about contracts where ‘kit’ delivered is ‘unusable? The first thing that comes to mind is of course Ajax.
Thats simple to do, you can’t cancel if the supplier is performing but if the not you can cancel. You would need to set the framework criteria now.
Milestones?
Hopefully these take the best bits of astute, Columbia and successor to create the new class.
it would be good if RN standardised on Mk57 VLS which has some growth in it and is mk41 compatible.
We will certainly not be doing that for AUKUS boats as they are both designed solely for surface ships ! So standardising in them would rather defeat the object of building subs. The ones used on SSN’s and SSGN’s are very different, and if I were to make a bet they will be either the VPM as used in the latest Virginia builds or a development of that. The simple reason is that the US are not designing any more TLAM versions (or next generation) for tube launch. So we will be going with whatever they do with SSN(X) for… Read more »
Thanks. Makes sense
so I guess we are looking at a Virginia sized successor type design
should we not buy mk57 instead of mk41 for the surface fleet though given the increase in missile size and placement options. Can’t see it being significantly higher cost and is future proof
Why would we ever do that ? We have bought the MK41 solely for their ability to carry TLAM and maybe it’s successors. Other than Trident we use precisely zero US Naval missiles.
We use mainly European and British missiles and our local supply chains. Interestingly the next FC/ASW is compatible with the MK41. Seems the French agreed on that as it increases the export market opportunities.
Why are you fixated on buying US kit, which we don’t need ?