It does appear that the level of the UK’s role in the sub deal may be being overblown by over enthusiasm from UK sources and contributors here.
The critical part of both the overall agreement and specifically what emerges re: Australian subs is the US-Australia relationship going forward; the UK are the necessary almost-“3rd wheel”.
UK Government Press Release 13th March 2023:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-led-design-chosen-for-aukus-submarine-project
- A new fleet of submarines will be built by the UK and Australia based on the UK’s nuclear-powered submarine design.
- UK’s submarines will be in operation by the late 2030s following massive, trilateral building project which will create thousands of jobs in the UK.
- Next stage of AUKUS submarine project announced by the Prime Minister, Australian Prime Minister Albanese and US President Biden in San Diego.
For those interested in more recent relevant comments, and not old out of context comments, you may see comments 1493, 1510, etc.
And, like, all other contributors comments in this thread going back months, years….
And it appears the UK Astute-replacement program, which (per the guidance, comments by other contributors in this thread) was already going to have more US components etc. than the Astutes (which already had a lot of US involvement/ content - thanks to other contributors for correcting me on an incorrect understanding of more UK-only content) is now a joint Australian, US, UK project which is likely to push it even further into having US-supplied systems etc. (Interesting to see to what extent the UK will fall in line and choose US combat systems etc.rather than paying more and duplicating and installing their own equivalents).
The advantages for the UK is somewhat reduced costs (now shared with Australia, plus US), and providing political cover for choosing to further abandon independent capabilities and placing greater reliance on the US for nuclear submarine technology. The economies of scale by adding Australia also makes this class of sub (likely substantially smaller in size and crew than the next class of US SSN) more economically and politically viable and harder to cancel. Plus relatively token rather widely spaced sub deployments/ rotations to boast a self-image as a Pacific power.
The Australians get proven available US subs in a more reasonable timescale. They also get a more experienced partner, get to have local involvement, and avoid having to be extremely junior partner (little to no local involvement or say) in a full Virgina class buy or having to buy the next US SSN class that’s probably too big and expensive for them.
The US get to support their 2 partners, essentially having them bought dependent on them for nuclear sub technology, and avoid having to include or subsidise either of them to the same extent, for example re: potential involvement in the next new class of larger US SSN subs.