Nuclear submarines HMS Talent and Trenchant were decommissioned at Devonport Naval Base today – leaving only 5 attack submarines in Royal Navy service.

The Royal Navy say here that HMS Triumph remains in service, but the Trafalgar class has been replaced by the seven state-of-the-art Astute-class submarines.

“Four Astutes have been commissioned, soon to be joined by number five, HMS Anson, which has completed successful diving checks. Like the T-boats before them, they are deployed around the globe daily: HMS Astute sailed to the Pacific and back with the Carrier Strike Group last year; HMS Ambush launched furtive raids by Royal Marines in Norway’s fjords as part of wider UK/NATO operations in the Arctic this spring; and newly-commissioned HMS Audacious has been on patrol in the Mediterranean having reached full operating capability on 4 April.”

Commodore James Perks, Commodore Submarine Service, was quoted as saying:

“The Trafalgar Class developed a world class reputation and defended UK interests unstintingly across the world’s oceans.  The Astute submarines have now taken up the baton, continuing to protect the UK from threats with deeply professional submarine crews. As we look back with appreciation at the service provided by HMS Talent and HMS Trenchant, we can also look forward with excitement to the future. 

We have some of the best attack submarines in the world in the Astute class and developments in submarine training mean that we will continue to have the best men and women sailing and fighting them, protecting our nation far into the future.”

You can read more on this here.

For more in-depth information on the attack submarine fleet, I recommend you visit the excellent NavyLookout here.

HMS Talent retired. Royal Navy down to just 5 attack submarines

 

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

224 COMMENTS

    • There’s a good chance if you are under 25!
      They have a plan now so we will soon not be able to state that every nuclear sub the RN ever commissioned still exists.

    • I hope they keep them out of Scotland. Don’t want the boats getting given to a possible independent Scotland no matter how small they chance is. Is there somewhere in the rest of the U.K. the subs at Rosyth can be moved to aswell. Sooner the better incase Nicola gets her way. 😂😂😂

      • Exhibit them in St Magaret’s Loch, a short walk from Holyrood. They’ll be a super tourist attraction for any visiting Chinese or Russian holidaymakers.

      • When I was based up in cochrane and the polaris boats would come in for maintenance no one batted an eyelid never saw any CND at the Dockyard gates even though in one of the basins was the old Dreadnought Sub decomissioned covered in Gull crap

      • There’s 14 decommissioned nuclear subs in Devonport and 7 in Rosyth at the moment. I agree no more assets or money should be spent north of the border on subs and ships while the SNP are in power.

  2. If all goes well, the last non-acoustic detection technology tested in the Trafalgar class was successfully completed?

    And 10 years later comes the Dreadnoughts class, which sets the new standard for submarines.

  3. Right so we don’t have anti-ship missiles because the anti-ship role is covered by the SSN’s. Yet we only have five SSN’s of which only a couple are going to be available at any time to protect the carriers and stalk Russian Subs in the High North whilst also ’tilting to the Pacific’ and protecting overseas territories so dispersed that “the sun doesn’t set on them”.

    • The navy have known this was happening for a while so all 5 should be available until the next one comes along. We knew this was going to happen years ago but it has been a sad decline. Hopefully when the Government says where’s the nearest navy vessel to a crisis they will get told 8000 miles away. (You forgot to build them).

      • I think HMS Anson will be ready around the end of the year, with HMS Triumph hopefully out of refit sometime next year.
        Agamemnon possibly by early 2024 and Agincourt before end of 2026 would be my guess.

        • Fingers crossed, it would be good to to see the A boats out. I wonder if they will keep the 2024 decommissioning date for Triumph, as she’s just coming out of refit and Trenchant managed 36years..so Triumphs a spring chicken at 31, if she lasts as long as Triumph see could tick over until Agincourt is ready for commissioning. It would keep a steady 6-7 boats once Anson is ready.

          • Yes it might, it would depend largely on how much of her core life remains, as her refit doesn’t include a re-fuelling?
            Unfortunately it is what it is, so we will just have to wait and see, never a good state to be in really.

    • Worth reading in full while China seems to be increasing its submarine fleet.

      “Last December Kishida announced the government was exploring options to give Japan the capability to strike enemy bases. Since then, calls have intensified from within Japan’s ruling party to develop “counterattack capabilities” in coordination with the US. The move would stretch the limits of the country’s pacifist constitution but expand Tokyo’s ability to retaliate against mobile and submarine-launched attacks.”

      “However, the war in Ukraine seems to be shifting attitudes. A recent poll conducted by Asahi Shimbun and the University of Tokyo showed 64% of 3,000 people surveyed were in favor of Japan strengthening its defensive capabilities — the highest percentage since the survey started in 2003.”

      https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/21/asia/japan-us-alliance-quad-summit-defense-hnk-dst-intl/index.html

      China’s New Submarine Is Unlike Anything In Western Navies

      The U.S. Navy only operates nuclear-powered submarines. China meanwhile never stopped operating conventional submarines even though they are less capable. This has advantages and disadvantages. But a new submarine pushes this difference further. It is much smaller than those used by other leading navies.

      https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/chinas-new-submarine-is-unlike-any-fielded-by-western-navies/

      People’s Liberation Army Navy Submarine Force
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy_Submarine_Force

      • I think the British government would be delusional if it thought it could take on the PLA. Even if every single asset was deployed near China it would be struggle just to try and contain them.
        If they really are the enemy every single ship will have to have a full suite of antiship, anti air missiles, torpedoes and currently they do not have this. Even with every allied navy ship the PLA probably still win in a numbers game.
        Now this all assumes that the Chinese training and operating standards are the same as the wests. I do not know the answer to this.

  4. Does one laugh or cry, the more our beloved war leader boasts about protecting our allies, standing up to tyranny, tugging the Bears tail and sending British military into potential danger zones with inadequate resorces, the more capability is being retired with little to no indication of new and replacement material, even that generously given and rapidly being expended in Ukraine. Now this news though I had thought Talent was due for decommissioning in Jan tbh. Am I being too cynical if I claim this is more about bluster and gaining approval ratings than any rational understanding of the true state of affairs of British military preparedness. Is it safe rattling all in the expectation it will never have to be used, with Boris’s record on foresight that doesn’t fill me with optimism. He will be ordering long gone imaginary regiments to defend the coastline next.

      • Yes link that to an Army of 80.000 soon to be less an Airforce of 10 squadrons a Tank force of 132 servicable units . Its a sorry joke
        One would scream with lauphter if it wasnt so serious

        • Of course they won’t, they have to go through the same refit schedule as surface vessels. But availability and smart manning will mean these boats achieve a higher availability rate compared to the Trafalgar class.

      • Be thankful the full 7 A boats were ordered.

        Sadly it isn’t the kind of thing it is easy to make loads more of or train more crews. Although an increase curve should be defined and planned now. I do see a need for crewed SSN / SSBN in the long term.

        4 SSBN is fine when taken as a part of NATO. But we really could do with 12 SSN so 4-6 are deployable are any one time.

        • The full 7 boats! Sounds like you think thats a lot. We had 28 attack subs in 1982. We should have well over a dozen now.

          • I think 7 is too few.

            But given cuts elsewhere like T42 -> T45 we were lucky to get the 7….

          • Yes I remember that the original no of Type 45,s to be ordered was 12 then cut to 8 then cut to 6 the then Labour Gov stated w”Well they have prooved to be more capable then we thought” one wanted to pull the pistol out right then the sheer stupiity of that statement was byond parody
            THe lack of numbers infects all of our equipment and our capabilitys . Yes we spend over the 2% but its the nuclear deterreant that swallows a big proportion of spend from Aldermaston to TRident missiles

          • Thank god Comrade Corbyn never won the 2017 election we’d of had Trident silos full of allotments ooh fresh veg

          • The shame is I think the man is quit honest and genuine and really does care about peace and people. Trouble is in the real world the wolves are always waiting and no nation will stay free if it cannot defenced itself, I genuinely don’t think he understands that, which is why although I think Boris is an incompetent, verbose and a pseudologist, he was a better choice than Corbin.

          • As I would say ” the lesser of two weevils ” they are all insects that seem too nibble at this countries moral fibres

          • We had to big a pause in construction to have more than 7 now. Hopefully when the new SSBNs are finished we could have a few more. But looking at it our very best construction speed is around 9 years a boat with 3 building so we are not really getting beyond a drumbeat of 1 nuclear boat every 3 years if they last 35-36 years that 12 boats max or 4 SSBNs and 8 SSNs so we may stretch an extra boat in the next build cycle but that would be our lot.

            There many actually be some value in looking at a conventional fleer as well Battery technology is very different now to what it was and we do have some level of north see, Baltic and Icelandic gap work that would be within the purview of a conventional boat. It would free up the Nuclear boats todo what they do best, strategic mobility and being anywhere very fast and for a very long time.

          • You are quite correct. Nuclear powered boats are required for the longer patrols around the world.
            However, for local patrols around the UK where submerged endurance is not required, but where the potentially better noise signature of an SSK would come in handy, we should have a diesel electric or similarly powered fleet available

    • All too true. What we have might be good but it’s spread so thin its debatable whether it’s much use having it at all.

      Replacements in building or planned are no bloody use if the shit hits the fan now or in the near future. And that shit is a damn sight closer to the fan than it’s been in decades.

      • The “Best ship killer is an SSN” brigade forget that it is also the best platform for killing other subs, obtaining covert intelligence, infiltrating marine SF teams…. Talk about over-stretched!

        • Yeah, they use the sorry excuse every time to cover the airforce and surface fleets zero anti ship capability, don’t worry a sub can do it.

          Yeah? One of the 2 or 3 available that’s protecting the trident, gathering intel anywhere on the globe, supporting special forces, escorting the carrier, patrolling the route Russian subs take into the Atlantic, firing cruise missiles (another lack of ability for the surface fleet.

          These subs must be good if they can each be in 3 places simultaneously!

        • The best platform for killing a sub is a Merlin, the sub cannot shoot back and its only hope is to evade contact which means it not doing what it needed to.

          At present Russia has changed how it operates is SSN fleet. They are all being refitted with long range Missiles and will likely sit in the high north in protected seas and not come out to play only to fire missiles.

          We do have overstretch at present but we will be up to 7 again and these will all be new boats.

          As for anti ship platforms we do have a need for air launched anti ship missiles for f35 and typhoon. But our escorts do have plenty of options, people forget the lethality of a navel gun, CAMM also will make a respectable Anti shipping missile, 100kgs travelling at mach3-4 delivers the same energy as a 6 inch shell as well as missile armed medium rotor. As for range, that’s very overrated, both the needs of ROE and the simple physics of achieving a kill chain mean that engagement ranges are always generally gong to be in the 20miles range. No warships going to be broadcasting on the EM spectrum in a wartime situation so it’s actually a real challenge to find each other, even if a ship is using active sensors radar horizons are only around the 17-20 mile mark depending on radar hight. That why ships us their rotors as their eyes so you many as well have you anti shipping missiles on your rotor.

          Aircraft on the other hand are the place to have your heavyweight anti ship missiles, larger radar horizons mean a kill chain with a greater range and they can take advantage of the range benefit of heavyweight ASM…..that’s are big weakness we need to sort out.

          • Not much our ships can do about submarines staying “Up North”, we need a sub for that.
            I don’t give much for our chances of sinking a Russian warship with gunfire when they will have to brave an onslaught of anti-ship missiles just to get in range.

          • A hail of useless missiles none of which are as sophisticated as a Harpoon?

            If you look at the tech difference on the battlefield and extrapolate that to the naval theatre and then look at the sinking of the Russian cruiser/flagship…

            It is one thing popping off cruise missiles against civilian centres and another attacking military targets with AAW defences. Why do you think the Russians fire their cruise missiles at unimportant and in defended locations?

          • Is it, what’s the range a ship can actually get a kill chain. Set up….. it’s going to likely be at relatively close range as the Radar horizon for most ships will be around 17-20 miles. Even if they are broadcasting and if the are in a war zone they will not be generally be so finding another ship if very very difficult.

            A five inch navel gun has an effective range of 20NM which is beyond your radar horizon.

            it fires a shell at 720ms or 1600miles an hour…faster than any western Anti ship missile, it fires 20 round in a minute. So that’s 20 70lb shells at 720ms….

            shells are not susceptible to soft kill and are almost in impossible to intercept in numbers. And a ship can carry many hundreds.

            Thats before you get to hypervolocity Shells that will travel at Mach 3 out to about 50NM.

            ships do not fire off heavyweight anti ship missiles at each other from a hundred miles away…that’s a fantasy from a Clancy book ( although I don’t think he even did that) it has never happened, Ships they need to find each other, identify each other while at the same time hiding from each other, that means most ship to ship engagements will be close and once one ship has a kill chain very short. That why the RN always likes to us SSNs or aircraft.

          • The amount of people on this site that just cannot get their heads around the kill chain concept of finding, tracking, and engaging and radar/horizon limitations beggers belief.

          • Yes it’s almost as if in their hearts they really believe the earth is flat and cannot quite get their heads around the fact that if it’s below the horizon you can’t see it and therefore can’t kill it no matter what the range of your missiles.

            What I find interesting is this belief that the navy with Arguably the most combat experience of any modern navy does not know what’s import or what’s not and if it thought for an instant heavyweight anti ship missiles on escorts was a Must have they would not immediately get an interim solution.

          • Yes, exactly mate. Who would ever think the RN knows what it’s talking about. And it isn’t about the money. As you say, if surface vessel heavy weight anti ship missiles was an absolute must have bit of kit, we would simply spend less on something else to get them. Yes, other Navy’s have them, other Navy’s also haven’t fired any at anyone with success or have the range of capabilities we have. id spend the money on putting TLAM on escorts instead.

        • God job NATO has plenty of SSN’s. It isn’t the RN submarine service v the rest of the world. How many operational boats do you think the Russians have? not many.

          • But Robert its not Russia necessarily we should be worried about. Yes Putin is a homicidal maniac and unhinged but his forces are spent. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that Russia’s military are essentially useless. Sure there is a nuclear and cruise missile threat but the real danger is China.
            The RN should be getting match fit and ready to contribute as a coallition of democratic states to face the inevitable expansionistic tendency of President Xi when he deems China’s moment has come. Scrapping SSNs and reducing the RN frontline strength now is a terrible idea.
            Lets scrap Ajax buy a cheaper off the shelf cv90 derivative and use the money saved and any refund to buy more type 26s.

          • The RN is match fit and always has been. We operate as part of NATO,and as recent global deployments have demonstrated, the RN has global support and reach few can match. We always want more, and the recent drop in SSN’s is necessary to prepare for more Astutes and putting the money towards new kit instead keeping the old going. Astute is genuinely world class, and even just 2-3 boats would keep most Navy’s in port.

          • With numbers so small Robert, thank god Astute is so very capable.

            As you say, the threat of a single Astute
            ‘out there’ is enough to make most Navies sweat, it’s one of the finest SSN’s on the planet, with the finest crew, it’s enormous war load of 38 Spearfish 2 will be enough to gut most opponents.

            A single Astute among the Chinese fleet in the Pacific, would cause enormous damage, all on its own.

          • Astute has some overwhelming capabilities. And working alongside side our partners, especially the US Navy submarine force with decades of experience, and interoperability they could take on any threat across the globe, including China, that has zero combat experience.

          • And they just keep on building.

            China’s New Submarine Is Unlike Anything In Western Navies

            The U.S. Navy only operates nuclear-powered submarines. China meanwhile never stopped operating conventional submarines even though they are less capable. This has advantages and disadvantages. But a new submarine pushes this difference further. It is much smaller than those used by other leading navies.

            https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/chinas-new-submarine-is-unlike-any-fielded-by-western-navies/

            People’s Liberation Army Navy Submarine Force

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy_Submarine_Force

          • I agree with you Mr Bell.

            When you look through various political and military publications, you can see that a Chinese naval base in Equatorial Guineais a fait accompli. The Chinese also have eyes on a further eight potential ports on Africa’s west coast and two in South America.

            Worryingly, analysts are talking of one under construction at Port Belgrano, Argentina. A major fishing port, capable of being a temporary home for up to 500 Chinese boats has already been completed in Montevideo. They have invested $78bn in the Argentina, securing 2/5 of it’s meat and cereal production. China is building a new facility that could be used by the military in Port Belgrano. If you add the new Argentinian and Uruguayan ports for Chinese fishing fleets, how long before there’s an incident fishing around the Falklands?

            Then, consider the US Coastguard was refused docking and refuelling permission when one of their Cutters tried visiting Port Belgrano. This is because the Argentines are favouring Bejing over Washington.

          • Glad others are aware of the huge risk China currently poses. I have to add, it’s not just military pressure but also societal. At every level of Chinese culture they are on a war footing with the west, and have been for years. It amazes me the Naivety western governments have had towards this threat.
            Although we will be working with the yanks and others, I do think it important that we can stand up to China on our own to a certain degree. That’s one of the observations from Ukraine. Currently I do not believe that we are able to do this to a significant degree.

          • Dont worry the UK foreign aid budget funds anti smoking campaigns in China, that is surely enough to alter the attitude of Chinese citizens towards the west!

          • I think the wests response to the Ukraine conflict will be making China think very carefully about any advances on Taiwan. As Russia has demonstrated exactly how NOT to invade a neighbouring country. The US Navy single handedly could wipe out Chinese submarines. As they have about as much combat experience as a Russia conscription soldier pulled off the street.

          • I don’t see the need for SSK’s. Another expense project we don’t have the money for. If the money was available (and the manning) better to build another couple of Astutes.

          • Robert, plenty of other navies operate SSKs (often with Air Independent Propulsion). The point is that you can buy a lot more of them than nuclear-powered Astute SSNs.

            I do see the need for more attack subs and SSKs are better VfM; their disadvantages are not so great.

          • Yes, but SSK’s are not ideal for the RN’s global operations. With a vastly larger defence budget then maybe, but even the RN would probably rather just have more nuclear boat’s.

    • Stop panicking. If you’d not been asleep for the last 20 years you’d know that there is a replacement for these, it’s called the Astute programme 🤦🏻‍♂️

        • Because the last Astute’s are being built at the moment. They encountered issues early on in the programme, partly with it being such a gap since the previous submarines resulting in skill loss and in the introduction of CAD. In the end they had to bring in a PM from Electric Boat in the USA.
          But the upside is that the Dreadnought programme follows straight afterwards so there won’t be a gap in submarine building and so no skill loss this time.

          The existing Trafalgar class boats are retired because safety standards dictate they have a finite life. While the RN can make estimates of when they will reach their safety limits, it’s never going to be exact.

          • A pm… ‘A’ as in one? There were circa 50 reported in the local news.

            7 is too few, however, sfa can be done about it.

          • Actually the yank from Electric Boat ended up being the Astute Programme Director. But I can easily imagine there being 50 project-managers given the complexity involved.

            I’d agree 7 is too few, but there’s no opportunity to build more as the Dreadnought programme is going to occupy all build capacity for the next few years. Thankfully design for the Astute successor is already starting to begin, so that will probably start once all the Dreadnoughts are built.

  5. May be RN only has 6-sets of SSN crew, so that their crew was now handling HMS Anson? 6-set of crew for a fleet of 7 SSN, ITSELF, is “understandable”, although I agree need 7-sets.

    • Need 12 imo.
      If you’re right though, we can’t scrape together another 98 submariners?? If that’s true, I may go take a bath with my toaster as there really is no hope. 🤦🏻‍♂️

      • Don’t do that stu…have sone toast instead it will all seem better with some hot buttered toast and tea.

      • Used to have 12 SSNs. Then some bean counters said 10 were enough, then later another said no, we’ve determined 8 were enough….

        • Considering a Trafalger would cost circa 475 million in todays money and the astutes are coming in at around a billion its no wonder the bean counters have it the way it is.

          Simple reality is we dont have the money to replace like for like numbers.

    • HMS Anson will already have at least 90% of its crew onboard if not all of them. She isn’t far from being commissioned, I suspect will join the fleet within the next year or less.
      The final two SMs will be at roughly 40% and 20% of their manning, will be mostly engineers. The rest of the crew won’t join untill the last 18 months of the build, so it’s not a lack of manpower.
      Talent is over 32 years old, I imagine that it was her ‘core life’ or rather lack of it that prompted the MOD to retire her earlier then planned. The age of the remaining T boats was the reason why they were never going to be deployed with the CSG last year. At this age, their systems are prone to breakdown and very expensive to repair. It is unfortunately not cost effective at this stage in there life to keep them running, hence the decommissioning.

      • Thanks. These two SSNs (HMS Talent and Trenchant) have been NOT active since early 2021. So, if your “the last 18month” is valid (reasonable, I agree), I think at least one of the crew team is now forming the core of that of HMS Anson.

        But another one, where have they gone? If they are redundant now, its good news because it means RN has 7-sets of SSN crew team. 5 active, 1 on Anson in trial, and 1 more.

        • Hi Donald, it doesn’t quite work like that with SMs, like I said Anson will already be almost fully crewed. Trenchant and Talent might not have been active since last year, but will have retained most of their crew regardless – for safety reasons. They most likely will have lost some, perhaps 15-20% of the crew, but the majority still remain, and will do for a few months yet, as the manpower is still needed for all manner of activities until they get moved and settled into 5 basin, where the systems deactivation starts.

          As the crew slowly starts to leave, they may go to all manner of places, some will go to shore jobs, others will go to SM.s to relieve those who are due shore service/courses. I imagine some will go to form Vanguards crew, as she will be due out or refit soon all being well.

          If and when Vanguard comes out of refit, the next V boat going into refit will loose their 2nd crew which should go to Vanguard as she resumes her 2 crew patrol cycle once they have completed work up.

          SSN’s don’t crew change en mass like a 2 crew SSBN, as they don’t have 2 crews, the people get spread around where they are needed – courses,shore side jobs or indeed another SM etc.

          • Thanks. As HMS Talent’s commanding officer has been Lt Cdr for some period, I though her crew level has been kept very low for a while.

            Anyway, I understand it is not a crew team, but the total number of crew shall be shared among SSN/SSBN fleets. Two more Astutes (in addition to Anson) are coming within 2-3 years. An equivalent crew number of one of them will be provided by disbanding HMS Triumph, but from where the 2nd one can be provided… Not sure. Let’s hope after all Astute be commissioned, RN are manning/operating all 7 SSNs.

      • Spot on.

        It is very dangerous when things break x00m down……

        RN, rightly, doesn’t want a repeat of the Argentinian subs demise….

  6. wonder if these will go to Australia as a temporary solution until new subs can be built for them?

    • Unlikely they have been expensive and time consuming to keep running sad as it is their time has gone past

        • I’m by no means an expert, just relaying info, but I’ve read on Navy Lookout that apparently they do. Not sure if it’s the actual hull or the pipe-work inside the boat.

          • Both I should imagine as there is no point in having a super strong hull if critical pipes break and endanger the boat.

            The design engineers have to balance the subs displacement against dive strength and fatigue life – this is true of any seriously stressed structure. Hence aircraft and subs, for example, will have a ‘life expectency’ and you go beyond that only at great expense (re-lifing) or you take a serious gamble with safety.

            I suspect that the early decommissioning is either because someone highlighted the number of dive cycles had hit the limits or perhaps ‘donald_of_toyko’ above is right and the RN is short of crews or a combination of both…

            Cheers CR

          • Probably better with a simulator. The Royal Navy don’t use any old subs for training.
            You wouldn’t teach someone how to operate machinery on 30 year old tech

          • Reactor core life and system vulnerability are far bigger issues with SMs of this age (32 yo). It’s v expensive to keep these older SMs running. There are enormous safety issues that need to be resolved for them to keep going, sometimes it’s just not cost effective I’m afraid.

        • Yes as diving brutal on the steel, all the compression then expansion. I understand the pressure hull will weaken after a time.

          • I have to get my Scuba tanks changed every so often and they’ve never been deeper than 109m, so I would imagine a sub would have severe metal fatigue.

          • I imagine your Scuba tanks aren’t made of the same quality steel or have the thickness of the steel used in the construction of SM pressure hulls!!!
            Metal fatigue is lower down the list of issues which effectively retire our older SMs. It’s normally core life- or lack of it and system ware and tear due to age which are the prime drivers for this.

          • I was using the steel & aluminium determination as a practical point of metal fatigue in something far less important.

          • Yes mate, my first sentence was a bit tongue in cheek by way of a reply, wasn’t meant to offend.

        • Yes, they do have a fatigue life cycle.

          Try getting an empty coke can and crushing and straightening it out: sooner or later you get a split in the can. OK it is not quite the same, because you are not creating the metal but stressing the welds.

          This is why it is so important the welds are indistinguishable from the metal.

  7. High quality I’m sure but in such low numbers. We really need a second manufacturing site so we can build more Astute class boats whilst Dreadnought is under construction. Followed by more emphasis in our education sector on practical skills and military recruitment.

    • 2nd manufacturing base isn’t needed. Look how long they take (6-7 years!) when USN bang out a Virginia class in 2-3. They only have 2 facilities themselves. Inefficiency or deliberately slowed to “save money” or “secure jobs”? If you look for it, you can find photos of 3 in build at once in the hall. We’re just slow.
      Agree with your assessment on education though. This is what happens when we listen to the “experts” from universities telling us ‘everyone should go to university’.

      • Actually Stu, the experts in universities were screaming that only 10% of people should go to university otherwise you’d dilute both universities and the technical trades. However, the Blair government decided that university education levels were a good metric of advanced societies – so set a target of 50%.

        • Really!?! Well thank you for the info. Must have heard it from the USA.
          I’ll add it to the long list of crappy decision Blair inflicted upon us.

        • True enough. I did an apprenticeship then went to uni, the practical skills are so useful in life… Apprenticeships are grossly under rated.

          Cheers CR

          • True, at least 50% on my law degree had issues with basic English & common sense. Around 30% had dropped out by the end of year 1.

        • Another advantage to the Government was that it was a one shot hit that kept school leavers, who might have become unemployed, in further education for a few years. The unemployment figures being politically sensitive at that time. Then the scheme further reduced Government costs by making the students pay.

          • Is the collar chafing yet johnskie? Any condemnation of Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine yet?

      • Well, if we could make the existing site larger so we can manufacture more on one site then that will be fine. But looking at Google maps I don’t think the Barrow site can be expanded in any significant way.

        And it wouldn’t surprise me if construction was slow to save £ in the short term. There is also the argument we had a skills gap before we started on Astute and so construction was slow due to re-learning skills.

        I suppose my basic point is we don’t have enough, but we can’t build more with interfering with Dreadnought, so we need somewhere else to build.

        • They can build 3 at once (see pic) & one in the fitting out basin. The Devonshire dock hall is 6 acres. It’s massive! It can be seen from 20 miles away. That’s only part of the facilities as elsewhere on site they construct individual sections too.
          Astute took 6 years and Ambush 8. They’ve been continuously in production for 21 years. Think the skills gap should’ve been closed by now.
          I agree, we don’t have enough. Disagree we can’t make them quicker. Look at Virginia build times (from laying down to launch & commission). Looks to me that we choose not to build them faster.

          https://www.theengineer.co.uk/media/1zddcdit/pic_artful-audacious-and-anson-under-construction-in-the-ddh4-copy.jpg

          • That’s only two. The third is only a piece waiting for the space to be made available.

            They can house the blocks for multiples at a time, but only have the space to assemble two in the hall – just like the hall constructed for Type 31. I bet they could just cram three in, but it would severely compromise access and construction activities.

            The space in the middle of the shed is used for lining the submarines up with the door to the basin. They move a completed hull into the space, move the sections of the next hull into the space and continue from there. The completed hull is then moved into the basin for trials and the cycle repeats.

          • Fair one. Makes sense & I’ll assume it’s correct.
            I’ll stand by my assertion that we choose to build slow. If we can still build 2 at once, we could take 3 yr each and be launching a new SSN every 18 months (not suggesting we should). Yet we take 3 x as long as a Virginia.

          • That’s a good point. It’s the same for many projects, sadly. They yards could crank them out faster, but we would rather save a penny to spend a pound. The slow build proves advantageous in preserving skills, but proves a hinderance when we see the assets they’re meant to be replacing decommissioned without an immediate replacement ready, or money thrown into keeping older things going for them to be decommissioned at a later date anyway (see the Type 23s and Trafalgar class for examples of that!).

            Ideally, we would see the old asset decommissioned and replacement commissioned on the same day. The closest we have got recently is the new patrol ships for Gibraltar: Scimitar/Sabre were decommissioned at the end of the financial year, with Cutlass at least being active at the time (and commissioned in early May), and Dagger being delivered to Gibraltar in early April.

          • We launched and commissioned the T- boats at roughly 18-24 month intervals, so yes the remaining 3 Astute’s could be pushed out quicker given the right amount of technical manpower to finish the job. As you know that will only create issues further along the line- boom and bust all over again!
            I do however think that we now have the opportunity to slowly increase the build rate from Dreadnought onwards, cutting the time down to one unit per 2-3 years perhaps. Not our decision of course, so probably wont happen!!! 😂

          • 😆
            Annoyingly, as Lusty points out above, we save a penny to spend a pound: if we committed to 12 x SSN + 4 x SSBN (a not ridiculous number), that’s 16 total, build one every 2 years = 32 years of build… that’s about the lifecycle of a sub. So you finish #16, start on replacing #1.
            Same with surface ships, commit to 28 or 30 escorts, 30 year life, new one every year please.
            I’ll bet a pint that if we commit to that, the price per unit would fall to a point where we might sell them to others AND we get a lot more bang for our bucks.
            Problem is, political will, inefficient procurement process and schedule, annual budgets (not 5-10 years). We can avoid a lot of boom & bust if we can stop thinking short term.

          • Totally agree with you there, 12/4 mix is arguably the correct number of SMs that we need for all our tasking, while somewhere between 25-30 escorts seems to hit our requirement sweet spot so to speak.

            We have been kicking the procurement can down the road for several decades now, resulting in the mess that we are now in, from a SSN perspective the situation wont be getting better any time soon. In fact unless we speed up production at Barrow, we will once again be in the same position when SSN(R) arrives.

            SSN(R) 1st of class isn’t currently due in service until 2040/42ish. Unfortunately by then, the first three Astutes will be out of ‘core life’ (25 yrs). Their reactors are not meant to be re-fuelled, so, one of two things will need to happen if we don’t want to go down to 4 SSN’s by then. Either we re-fuel them – not a good idea, look at Vanguard! Or, we increase our build rate of Dreadnought et al, and get SSN(R) hull 1 in commission by 2035ish. Sometimes you have to stop kicking a can down the road and pay what’s required up front!!!

          • Yes. And do the recycling work here in the UK as well. Have a permanent production line for just one size of vessel per yard. It will be much harder for someone in the future to reduce the fleet by closing a yard because that will remove capability for an entire vessel size.

          • I think we should. Build 4 boats in 6 years, then do some recycling for 3 years and repeat. After 27 years we’ll have 12 boats, each with a 27 year life.

          • Except, many trades went to BNFL… A relative did the wiring on the Trident missile tubes – went up North for a 6 figure salary.

            The business parks in Ulverston are awash with engineers.

            Difficult time re employment.

  9. It’s not as if the World is in crisis at the moment, so what the heck, decommission two subs in one day why don’t you. I know these old girls are held together with string and masking tape but the timing is unfortunate. At this moment, the UK must maintain its military assets until such time the Ukrainian war stabilises and the Russian threat is fully recognised and contained and we ain’t there yet.

  12. What was once the UK’s pride and Joy the Royal Navy has been reduced to a joke by are political elite with just 5 SSNs but only 2 or 3 available due to shortage of crew, 2 state of the art Aircraft Carriers but no aircraft. Air defence Destroyers that brakes down as soon as you put your foot down for a turn of speed. the rest of the fleet being retired at an ever increasing rate with replacements 10 years away if at all.

    • UK actually only has four operational submarines the fifth one is at least a year away from being operational.

    • The aircraft carriers do have available aircraft and a T45 made a full deployment with the aircraft carriers last year.

      If we demand top end kit it comes with a huge price tag, the budget does not exist to keep the numbers as we once had them.

      • Yes we have aircraft just not enough to put one carrier to sea with a full compliment let alone 2, of the 2 T45s deployed last year only 1 compleated the deployment the other spent 3/4 of the deployment alongside being repaired and out of 6 T45s 4 have spent more time along side than at sea.
        The UK has the 4th largest defence budget in the world but it dose not equate to the 4th largest defence department, what it dose equate to is the largest misappropriated and misused defence spending in the world with funding disappearing into black holes like Ajax and the T45 PIP upgrades to name the first 2 that come to mind.
        As far as the budget goes we need more to be spent on defence but we also need a wiser approach on how the money is spent. the deliberate slow build rate of our Submarines and Frigates is one example we could knock them out at twice the speed saving billions in labour costs which could be put to extending the build programs so we get more vessels at sea in the same time frame.

        • Sadly the budget has to pay for the Trident program which consumes a huge amount to keep that going.

          Dont disagree that the money should be better spent, ive said for years those who are responsible for spending it should be accountable like in the private sector.

          The aircraft and carrier debate can go on forever, we have done the right thing and not bought early block F35’s to then waste an unknown sum later having to upgrade the aircraft so I will disagree with the status of the carriers. We only ever planned to have 1 fully capable carrier at a time and it is slowly getting up to that point, only the US or France have something that could challenge it.

          Yes correct 1 T45 did break, complex machines do from time to time, however you said they break down at any attempt to use them, 1 of them proved that point wrong. If im not mistaken the fault on the one that broke was not a direct result of the previous propulsion issue.

          • The SSBN/Trident should in reality have its own budget as it is a stand alone project under the nuclear deterrent programme.
            We already had a good understanding of the costs of the F35’s before the Carriers came into service and the government has stated on a number of occasions that they want to run both carriers at the same time. So to compensate for the lack of F35s available they have a number of choices 1. get the RAF the cheaper version of F35A’s and have the F35B’s dedicated to the FAA. or 2. get the “loyal wingman” concept up and running ASAP so that each F35 can deploy with 2 or 3 drones there-by doubling or tripling the assets on board, the RN should also be looking at a number of Ospreys for each of the carrier to help with COD and troop transport as the far out range the Merlin’s and have a bigger payload.
            The T45 fiasco is a joke the RN had a good understanding of the problems before the HMS Daring entered the water in 2008 and was confirmed in her testing and yet they were forced by the then government to accept into service a faulty ship and to compound the problem instead of fixing the the 5 others still under construction they were forced to accept them as well.
            The PIP program is not fixing the problem it is giving more power to the deisel auxiliary engines by taking out the 2 engines and putting in 3 bigger ones so when the main engines brake down the auxiliary’s can handle the demand instead of cutting out as they do at the moment.

          • Osprey isnt going to happen, its horrendously expensive to operate and has been beset with problems since its inception, im sure alot of those issues are sorted but is no guarantee that they are all fixed.

            F35A is also probably in the pipe dream/fantasy fleet section im afraid with Tempest development, latest Tranche Typhoon would be a much more sensible option.

            Correct the carriers got built and reasonably on time aswell, however the F35 program got beset with delays. Yes they will have the ability to operate both but as has been widely discussed POW is going more down a different path in operational terms. The idea still being 1 will be available at all times and the plan was never to have 2 carriers with full operational air wings, that still stands.

            The wingman concept is as you say, a ‘concept’ so as much as I agree this is the way forward as a force multiplier its still a fair way off being operational. Hopefully we can get a couple of different drone types which have good capabilities on the carriers sooner than later.

          • If money was available for osprey COD I would prefer the money got spent on RFA ships. Argus is going out of service, repair ship not replaced etc etc

  13. Here’s one from the “left field” Do these subs with the leaking toilets etc not have at least 6 months life left in them ? How long would be take to train 200 or so Ukrainians to use them even if armed with old fashion torpedoes. Might put the wind up that ,Russian black sea fleet ? And if the Russians sink them we will not have to worry about decommissioning ! Could you imagine the outcry in the woke media, if a British city was told sorry we are closing down the main hospital so you cannot get sick for another year when we open the brand new one!

    • Well I would imagine the timeframe for most of the senoir officers and rates would take years of training and experience if not decades for some. As for your nuclear engineers well…….

      your not training the crew of a nuclear powered submarine in 6 months, they are after all some of the most complex machines built by man.

    • They wouldn’t be able to get to the Black Sea. The Montreux Convention prohibits the transit of warships and submarines if, as in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, any one member is involved in a war. The Turks classified Russia’s invasion as a ‘war’ at the end of February. This stopped any transit of the Bosphorus straits by any warship or submarine in line with the 1934 convention.

        • Turkey classified it as a war on 28th February. This allowed them to close the Bosphorus to military traffic from Ukraine and Russia.

          • Its closed to all military traffic apart from Turkey’s own. But strangely Russian merchant ships are still allowed through carrying shipments to and from Syria as well as arms exports.

          • Collar and lead, collar and lead! Putins lap dog! And, many of us are still asking, any condemnation of Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine? No balls call every time you ignore it!

          • Haha, he missed the memo on read the room and adjust comments accordingly. He’s like a neo nazi that goes into a synagogue and starts telling them how great hitler was🙈

      • See comment by Ianbuk. I do not know if this is correct. But I will give you a history lesson. Many military historians will say that in 1939 the German army was smaller than the French/British army but was better equipped. But what enabled the Germans to break through was the British respected Belgiums neutrality, but the Germans did not. Had we not got that army back we would have probably been finished. In modern warfare there is two rules only to obey, with modern weapons you target the military only and you treat prisoners the way you would wish to be treated if you was a pow. You cannot fight the likes of Hitler or Putin within the rules or laws. If you do you risk defeat or greater cost. After 1940 Britains defeat changed their attitude, let’s not have to learn that lesson once again.

        • Other than the tank tactics and some of the tank designs themselves the majority of the German army still relied on Horse’s for logistics.

          They had some advantages in equipment but also still relied on some very old tech solutions at the same time!

          • Spot on. The German infantry division was horse drawn for most of the wrong and made up the bulk of the Wermacht.

            Their strengths were blitzkrieg, their commanders, drugged up troops, and the 88.

            At the start if the war their PZ1s, 2s were tiny with their 38Ts. It was the tactics that set them apart.

            Later in the war, some of the equipment was superb.

  14. Can any of the people with inside knowledge answer a question please?

    If given sufficient funding and skilled manpower, is there the physical space at Babcock’s current facility to build additional Astute’s while meeting the Dreadnought requirements?

    • I have no inside knowledge. As an outsider, I would say this seems like a crazy idea. The investment that has gone into the Barrow facility is huge, not just DDH but its contents, all that cutting edge technology and the superskilled operatives. Difficult and very costly to replicate. Pointless.

      The Astute build-rate is not set by the builders; it’s set by HMG on the grounds of stringing out the cost to the Treasury whilst appearing to maintain a drumbeat. I bet BAE could knock one out every 2 – 3 years if asked. It’s a mature design now, and – despite the knockers here – BAE have become world-class manufacturers in this field. .

      • It was not an idea, it was a simple question. Is there sufficient space in the current facility to build additional Astute class boats alongside the Dreadnoughts?

        {Edit} Ah, I see why you were confused! My bad, I meant Barrow not Babcock’s 🙄

      • I think its doable. 2 dreadnoughts in build at a time alongside an astute class. We could get the numbers back upto 9 SSNs again that way.

    • Couldn’t agree more. Leave the SSN’ number as planned, build 6-8 SSK’s for green water operation. The RN had one of, if not the best SSK’s in the Oberon class.

      • Adding avnew SSK classic would be nice but likely costs, crewing, infrastructure for this could be problematic. If affordable maybe two more Astutes, especially if Australia chooses this design and wants construction to start as soon as. And a few more P-8s would be handy.

    • Why does the Royal Navy need 17 SSN’s? I think the most we ever had was about 12..

      After a quick google search, it appears that Russia has 17SSN’s (unsure of their actual state of readiness) divided between all its fleets.

      the Uk has or will have 7, the French 6 giving 13 SSN’s from the European side, with somewhere in the low 50’s from the USA…. The USA is trying to increase its SSN numbers in the longterm, so another one or two would be nice for the Royal Navy,

      • “Why does the Royal Navy need 17 SSN’s? I think the most we ever had was about 12..”

        It had around that number in the Cold war.
        Blair’s 1997/8 SDSR cut from 12 to 10.

        • Hey Bud – might have been a few more operational in the late 80’s

          Valiant/Churchill class. 5
          Swiftsure class: 6
          Trafalgar class: 6 ( +1 in build)
          Not to mention a healthy number of Oberon class Diesels (about 10?)

          As for Blair, don’t get me started. As if 1997/98 wasn’t enough, he managed to surpass himself again with the 2003 cuts. Cameron can all also shoulder his share of the blame.

          Hope your pima summer weather is shaping up better than our crappy Auckland weather today!

          • Hi K mate.

            Yes, in the teens easily with SSN alone.

            That number seems unaffordable now unless we got rid of surface fleet, but 10 to 12 is the number needed to enable the RN to properly carry out it’s commitments with a sensible margin.

            It is!!! I’m night turn at the moment so in my fav place in the hot Surrey sun, my garden.

            Take care my friend.

  18. The Brits need more subs and ones that can carry more land attack missiles. The current subs only really carry a small token of TLAMs leaving the heavy lifting to the USN and their subs.

  19. This has been a long time coming. We all saw the reduction in forces peace by piece for 30 years. When I was a youngster astute was getting ready and I stupidly thought it was a replacement for the swifture class(remember them!) and another new sub would replace trafalgar class.
    The forces are half the size they were as the government spend half the amount of gdp over compared to 40 years ago.
    It’s the short term saving over long term loss that’s really hitting now. Saved £10m pushing back this and that project, costs £200m over next 10 years but hey who cares. Not the people in charge as they are long gone. The amount required to uplift the forces 20% over 5 years and 20% increase in all equipment is probably triple what has been saved through the last 10 years with cutting this and not replacing that.

  22. What terrible timing. Surely they could have delayed this by a year or two and seen what happened with Ukraine. Russia is annoyed with us for supplying weapons to Ukraine and is threatening to retaliate. For sure they can’t do a conventional miltiary action against us, but they can puts subs into the channel etc to threaten us. Just seems sensible to wait the dust settles a bit before cutting any capability.

  23. What a joke. 5 SSNs left in service. The Tory cuts cuts cuts keep on coming. Meanwhile China is adding to their fleet at a rate equivalent to the entire RN being built in approximately every 2 years. We need to be awake to this reality not asleep at the wheel allowing cuts like this.
    I know I know astute class in build etc but they arent actually in service yet so not matter how anyone on this site replies this is a cut, albeit temporary.
    At a time when defence committee and RN themselves admit 7 SSNs isnt enough we go down to just 5.

    • Talent decommissioning early before Anson came into service wasn’t part of the plan. Unfortunately with such old hulls, Talent is 32 yo, things don’t always go to plan. This is what happens when you don’t have enough assets to start with, we will be playing catch up until both Anson and Triumph are in service, with the remaining 4 having to take up the slack and they will be run hard.

  24. I really, really hope our politicians see the light and boost the defence budget to 3% GDP.
    We have entered a new cold war and need to accept the fact. Security is the first duty of govt. Everything else is secondary. We cannot defend ourselves properly in this new age.
    I would love to see us form a formal CANZUK group to boost security. This would be the best way to face China in the future who have already started threatening Australia, and are working on dismantling the commonwealth and our overseas territories. Their support for Argentina over the Falklands should be the wake up call we need. They are at war with us, except they pretend not to be and so do we while at the same time we sell them our chip fabs and tech companies! It is a total disgrace.

    • With the cost of borrowing going up, inflation the way it is and the real possibility of recession sadly I doubt it will happen.

  25. A sad reflection on the current state of the Royal Navy. Seriously weakened over many years with long delays in procurement resulting in capability gaps and lack of investment in numbers and offensive equipment on vessels that do finally get built.

    • Unfortunately Paul, it’s a vicious circle.

      30 years of defence cuts with the RN taking a disproportionate share of the axe, while governments from John Major through to Cameron
      (the cuts king) felt the RN was larger than was required in the post Cold War period..

      So, cuts across the board, coupled with sharply rising costs of high tech complex defence contracts and only ordered in small numbers, all added together, equal a perfect storm!

      It’s going to take 3% GDP and a serious effort to rebuild the RN ( and our other services) over the next 20 years.

      Luckily, we have the basics to build on, the Carriers are the foundation, upcoming ships, Type 26 and 31 show great potential and we can always order more of both.

      Type 45 replacement needs to be brought forward to initially suppliment the 45 and eventually replace.

      We need at least 9 top end large Air Defence Destroyers, if not Cruiser size ships.

      Next gen SSN will be a very capable boat and coming off the back of Dreadnought, should hopefully progress well.

      We obviously require a fleet of 12 SSN’s, I would prefer 16, in order to operate 2 or 3 permanently in the Pacific.

      Then the amphibious fleet requires refresh, so that needs careful consideration too.

      On top of this, the RFA needs to be scaled up to match the RN.

      • “ through to Cameron
        (the cuts king) “

        Not often I disagree with you on mate, but on RAF/RN/Mod alone, not so much army personnel as Afghan and Iraq wars were on I would suggest the previous rabble in Downing Street were worse )

        Labour:

        12 SSN to “8” vowed by Hoon.
        35 Frigates and Destroyers to 23.
        RFA numbers cut.
        23 Fast Jet Squadrons ( including JFH ) to 12. TWELVE!

        I still read here often of the “Tory cutting Harriers” when actually 3,4,800,801,899 Sqns and RAF Cottesmore were all cut or closed under Labour. No1 Sqn RAF with GR7’s remained when Cam moron came to power, it was an “easy” cut to make.

        19 Mechanized Brigade to ” 19 Light” basically allowed cuts to Tanks, SPG, tracked armoured vehicles.
        4th Armoured to 4th “Mechanized” both mechanized and Armoured Bdes were similar but differed in some areas which allowed more cuts to Tanks.
        As said above personnel cuts were prevented by the needs of the Middle East wars.
        Lots of other cuts I either cannot be bothered to list or am now forgetting as it has been so long or the cuts all merge in a haze!

        When the Tories came to power:

        12 Fast Jet Sqns to 8.
        23 Escorts to 19, now 17.
        8 SSN now will be 7.
        Ark Royal and Illustrious. ( both replaced )
        Dilligence, Largs Bay, the 3 Forts, plus other vessels like MCMV now.

        BIG cuts to army numbers that has seen us reduce from 8 deployable all arms brigades ( including 3 Cdo ) to firstly 7 post 2010 review and 4 now!
        I can write a detailed list if required.

        I would argue the damage was already done and the Tories just finished the job.

        To sum up, THEY’RE ALL BLOODY USELESS!

        • Spot on as ever Daniele, absolutely right, They are all bloody useless….

          It will require 3% GDP and decades to repair the damage….

        • DM, A well outlined summary of a very state of affairs.

          Your quote :”I would argue the damage was already done and the Tories just finished the job.” = couldn’t agree more

        • I did some ‘shower time’ thinking last night.

          From a RN perspective, I would argue the worst cuts in 2010 were:

          1). Cutting personnel. It might sound like an ‘easy’ thing to accommodate, but it left us without crews or with significant gaps in understanding and learning. Never underestimate the benefit of training combined with the experience and knowledge of old hands.

          2). RFA cuts. Perhaps the most foolish cut in terms of the surface fleet. The loss of Fort George has placed a heavy burden on her surviving sister and made her a single point of failure for the RN’s ambitions for the next few decades. The loss of Largs was regrettable for a nation that engages globally. Her humanitarian capacity and ability to support numerous operations (including autonomous trials) were vital, but sadly.. eh.

          We also saw a degree of faff surrounding RFA replacements, without a firm commitment to tanker/solid support replacements. I guess keeping three forts forced the government to later campaign for three replacements to save some face, but the capability was lost, and the navy still has to make do without! The Tides were a good decision, but we’re still living with the legacy of 2010 here.

          3). The loss of T22 without immediate replacement AND faffing around with T26. Escorts are vital, and the loss of additional hulls has come back to bite us now. Yes, all governments cut escort numbers, but this should have been managed by foresight. I would have reduced the T26 order to say.. 9 or 10, but ordered a class of general purpose frigates to replace the remaining T23 and T22 hulls. Call it Tesco Value +, with a few more fancy bits added, but a cost-effective option to provide work to two yards to immediately follow the carrier project.

          4). Carrier faff. Messing around with the planned configuration of QE added time and money to the project. It also messed with our F35 order AND forced us to throw even more money at Lusty/Ocean to keep them going.

          5). A failure to recognise the potential for troubles around submarines, or rectify issues that had been raised. We have seen delays to construction, which has seen the delivery of hulls delayed, older hulls extended in service and goodness knows what else. Perhaps they could have built 8 if they had invested money, helped upgrade facilities and ensured they were constructed at a faster pace. It’s not like the delays were unknown, and the failures surrounding the project has negatively impacted Dreadnought and future programmes.

          6). A silent one, but the loss of Merlin airframes. Joined-up thinking should have seen the 12 that were cut used as Crowsnest, with the older Sea Kings going.

          7). The loss of Ark/Lusty/Harriers. This ranks lower for me. We lost a key capability, but fortunately.. we got away with it. It was particularly ironic given Camoron’s visit to Libya, but that could use land bases. The biggest loss was the fact that the RN lost a vital training aid and the experience of operating jets at sea. Of course, we still had Lusty/Ocean/Argus for rotary operations, but a carrier is something else!

          8). Bulwark/Albion. Regrettable but manageable. At least the assets were retained, but we of course saw an impact on the RM and the UK’s capacity to provide humanitarian aid and engage with allies.

          9). Loss of ro-ro ships. A minor inconvenience, given that the two that were released hardly ever carried cargo for the MoD. In a conflict, we would still be able to yoink ro-ro capacity, so it was a manageable loss.

          10). Loss of MCM/survey ships. This continued a trend. Ten years later, it makes some sense.. but at the time, the replacement technology just wasn’t there yet. Small ships provide a good bit of PR for the UK, and we lost some of that buy cutting these ships. With autonomous technology, it makes sense to trim some of the fat, but I would like to see a class of say.. 6-8 autonomous vessels support ships and like-for-like replacements for the Echo class, as I believe survey and pollution monitoring will become ever more crucial as the world continues to change.

          The current government is making a lot of good noises, but what we really need now is a solid commitment to their promises. MCM/T32/Flag Ship/FSS/Autonomous Support/Survey ships all need action, not just words!

          • As usual a more thorough and thought out post adding to my general outline.

            What has happened to MROSS mate? And are Echo and Enterprise laid up like I read here?

          • You always add quality to proceedings!

            I have no idea what’s happened to MROSS. Scott was extended in service, so I imagine it has slipped. With that said, it was meant to be available by 2024, so there’s still time to potentially procure/build one.

            I will also note that the plan to have a ‘support ship’ in place for autonomous vessels has also slipped (March 2022 was the plan.. bet it was a typo!) and there have been no further comments.

            Echo is currently laid up, while Enterprise remains active. This could be due to any number of reasons, including preserving the hull life (they have been extremely active covering for frigates and patrol ships), a lack of need, or crewing constraints. As MROSS is meant to have a crew of ~15 and Scott has seen her service life extended, some of Echo’s crew might have been shunted around to help keep her active, or shunted over to allow Enterprise to remain at sea/active for longer.

            I’d be surprised if she didn’t return to sea. They’re a capable class. They’ll be extremely useful in supporting autonomous vessels AND assisting with survey and MCM work in the Black Sea when everything cools down.

          • I didn’t know Scott was extended I’m pleased about that. Considering one if it’s strategic roles it’s nuts getting rid of it.

            Agree about E and E, useful assets, which was why I was surprised one was laid up.

          • As am I. I believe she will soldier on until March 2023. She’s currently in Falmouth, having spent a lot of time in Gibraltar recently.

            The survey ships actually contribute money! Madness to cut them.

          • 4) was this not as result of problems at the time with the F35B development programme and it looked possible that variant would be dropped by the US

          • Possibly. There was a real worry that the B model wouldn’t be financially viable. I can’t recall all the details, but I’m sure someone can.

            The other side was that the Tories obviously wanted to appeal to our allies, and cats/traps would have offered an uplift in capability, although there are also constraints. The trouble was that nobody had really planned for it. Yes, the carriers have room for the conversion, but it requires planning. The conversion would have added time and money to the programme. I believe PoW was to be converted first (adapted while in build), meaning that QE really would have been ‘a carrier without aircraft’, or, at least, the world’s most expensive helicopter carrier.

            It was an embarrassment. Like a lot of medalling, it resulted in expensive studies and delays to orders. Ironically, ten years later, they’re once again talking about adding catapults to the carriers. My money’s on a small-scale conversion or a bespoke portable ramp, akin to what’s used by the banshee drones.

          • Great summary – thanks Lusty. I’m liking your idea around point 3, seems really sensible.

          • Thanks! It appears it’s coming to fruition now with Type 31/32, but it will still take years to materialise! As for my typos.. stay off the rum, Lusty…

  26. So we have 5 subs in the inventory. Based on the rule of 3, maybe 2 are available for tasking; one of those will be protecting the SSBN bomber, which leaves one to cover the ‘Seven Seas’.

      • I hope this cunning plan works out. Quite a challenge for minimum of 4 out of 5 subs to be guaranteed available at all times.

  27. The MOD and government are a disgrace. We have so few submarines, at least commision replacements before decommissioning.

    • So you would keep and send to sea submarines that were potentially unsafe? Didn’t work well for the ARA Sam Juan

      • Well exactly, no point sending one out to sink or at best case throwing insane amounts of money at them just to keep them running when the money is badly needed elsewhere.

        Replacements arent exactly easy to produce either, exceptionally complex machines which take a long time to build.

  29. Great as Putin kicks off we will be left with a tiny navy and a minimal on paper force. Not only that Bo Jo is shutting the last naval base in the U.K facing Russia on the Eastern Seaboard of the U.K, M.O.D Caledonia at Rosyth utter genius. So the Royal Navy only has to travel a few hundred miles more to intercept any Russian ships or have land based back up , accommodation, stores and staff at hand. Anyone would think he’s been taking pointers from Vlad on how to run a Navy?

  30. There’s probably as many decommissioned nuclear submarines at devonport dockyard as there is at rosyth.

  31. Two British nuclear submarines decommissioned in one dayCould the two submarines have continued in service longer?
    Is the decommissioning a cost saving move?

  34. That means that at best we’ll have three subs on patrol, more likely two on a regular basis. Totally unacceptable. Money squandered on aircraft carriers while we decimate the real teeth of the navy most feared by our enemies. We should have 12 SSNs

  35. Stabilty today instabilty tomorrow as one looks at the world today.
    Unfortunately the advancement of Rasputins navy has dictated why the Royal Navy needs to uprate the fleet.Whether you disagree with nuclear weaponry or not, it is needed.Should the inevitable should occur God forbid let it never happen, but there is
    need to hold
    Previous goverments pruned the services to the bone, as the likes of Russia and China has built up over the years.
    The Royal Navy is finally going to receive new surface ships and submarines which is long overdue
    I would like to see more subs built, but all down to budgets

  37. the decomissioning of further nuclear fleet boats to add to the already disturbing numbers of etired submarines,(there will now be over 20 of them), and leaving such a small number in the fleet inventory is awful, more bad news(when is it otherwise)? my son was on torbay when it was retired, and everyone down to the dockyard cat were of the opinion that the boat was good for at least 5 more years service yet again, as happened to the swiftsure class we are left with nothing like good enough number of boats while the fleet waits for the ever slower to be built and far more expensive successor class, in this case astute.everytime a boat is retired it ads to the already mind boggling number of former boats(now to number over 20). to be disposed of

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here