The Dreadnought ballistic missile submarine programme is proceeding according to plan, with the First of Class, HMS Dreadnought, expected to enter service in the early 2030s and within the overall budget.
In May 2022, the Ministry of Defence announced the initiation of the most significant phase of the programme, known as Delivery Phase Three (DP3), which involves contracts worth over £2 billion awarded to BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce Submarines.
This initial investment is within a planned total of nearly £10 billion for the entire delivery phase.
DP3, say the Ministry of Defence, will involve Dreadnought departing from the Barrow-in-Furness shipyard for sea trials and will provide the groundwork for delivering the remaining three Dreadnought Class submarines on time and within budget.
As previously announced, all 12 missile tubes for Dreadnought have been successfully delivered to the BAE Systems Barrow shipyard, and they have now been integrated with the relevant parts of the pressure hull to form the missile compartment unit, a significant milestone in the programme’s delivery.
The MoD say that they are working closely with their United States counterparts to ensure timely missile tube deliveries for the remaining submarines.
Significant progress has been made across various activities in the Dreadnought programme, including the maturation of the whole boat design, the procurement of materials and equipment for the Class, the outfitting of modules for Dreadnought, the fabrication of the steelwork for Boat 2, Valiant, and the concluding investments in the shipyard infrastructure facilities at Barrow.
Rolls-Royce has made significant progress on the Pressurised Water Reactor 3 project, which will provide the nuclear propulsion power plants for all four submarines.
Finally, the MoD say that they are progressing with procuring materials and other activities to support cut steel for Boat 3, Warspite, and later, Boat 4, King George VI.
The above information was mostly gathered from the annual report on the programme. A copy can be found here: ‘The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent’.
I hope all 4 boats an locked into a contract that difficult for the government to get out of, 1 or 2 of these are easy targets for a government wanting refocus spending.
I would say there’s scope for 2 more boats to do conventional strike, Astute’s will never be able to launch hypersonic weapons, US is only including this capabilty on later Virginia class boats. Fantasy fleets I guess 🙂
link
Far from being an easy target, the CASD would take real balls to dismantle, and that’s what axing two boats would mean. I agree, one boat might be a target; I think it was the LibDems who floated that idea, but Vanguard showed why that was a non-starter.
SSN(R) will probably be considering whether hypersonic missile launch from subs is viable for us, and for the direction of attack sub capabilities we await next week’s announcement with bated breath.
There is a rumour going around that we are going to give 2 of the astutes to Australia. Could be the new strategy to get around break clauses.
Yeah Steve, saw that too but I’ve also heard the RAN is buying 3 Virginia Class boats as an interim as they will be getting the Astute replacement (SSN(R)) with us. .
Besides, there is NO way we can afford to have two of the current Astute boats ‘donated’ to the RAN; we are threadbare is it is!
Would the UK then buy back the 2 Aussie Astutes for the RN? It does mean a hybrid sub fleet fircthr RAN of Collins/Astute and then Virginia. All very useful though.
*fircthr?…for the
Hi Quentin, According to Sky news, an official announcement is due on Monday, looks like 3 Virginia with option on +2. The follow on will be a UK design( presumably Astute based) with American technology.
What about our last 2 T class boats. They are still highly capable and alongside say 1-2 loaned Los Angeles sea wolf or Virginia class and the retained Collins class the Australian navy would have a highly capable sub surface fleet able to engage and defeat PLAN task forces.
Until SSNr comes along or we have replaced Astute with SSNr and donated Astute to the Aussies.
Hi David. Official announcement on Monday, looks like 3 Virginia with option on +2. The follow on will be a UK design( presumably Astute based) with American technology.
An interesting observation you make about housing hypersonic weapons. So you say the Astute’s can’t accommodate hypersonic, if so, the Dreadnought hull may be the only way to go? Excuse my ignorance but would a hypersonic ballistic missile be faster than a Trident? If so, are we looking at a significant redesign of the Dreadnought during the fleet’s life?
ballistic missiles are hypersonic…a hypersonic missile is a different beast. When people talk about hypersonic missiles they are generally discussion none ballistic cruise missile.
Thanks for that Jonathan. 😀
But nobody has proved that a Russian or Chinese hypersonic can hit a specific target never mind a moving one!
Well I think they can hit a target…it’s more the size of the target and how many missiles they need. Evidence is that they are seeing 20-60% failure rates and on top of that fusing issues so even the missiles that get where they are going they are hit and Miss around the warhead going bang. They are now estimating from what’s been seen in Ukraine that Russian cruise and ballistic missiles have CEP of 30-70 meters and that big failure rate. So OK for shooting at bases, power stations or towns in large numbers not so much for specific military targets like hardened hangers or ships. Basically they are all pretty much only useful for a large scale attack on a large area or with a nuclear warhead on them.
which is why the west ( with its more advanced missiles with far better CEPs) are still only experimenting with hypersonic missiles…..because the RN and USN want missiles that work within the present kill chain and actually hit…not just a terror weapon.
So let’s say you have a 40% failure rate and a 70m accuracy…..that is pretty much in tune with their artillery then……useless on the battle field: as you say…..that is 1980’s NATO weapons systems accuracy: mind you the NATO ones would have been more reliable!
Problem is that sunshine buckets bring more sunshine buckets into play and if you did start to use sunshine buckets then it would be a bit embarrassing if, say Patriot, shot one down?
It would frankly be very embarrassing as these are Mad Vlad’s wonder weapons so it is almost worth setting it up to happen even with a conventional warhead.
Wonder if a land based Aster could do the trick?! They’re up to Mach 4.5…which is 1/2 way there!
The one isn’t chasing the other?
It is about creating a debris field for the hypersonic to fly into.
The fact it is hypersonic will ensure its own destruction as the kinetic energy from Mach 8 + Mach 4 is pretty much unstoppable.
This is a problem then if they’re upgrading the ABM ability on the T45s and the latest Aster missiles still aren’t fast enough! Maybe all the more reason to put 1-2 MK41s with SM3-6 and make the CAMM as 2*3*6 side silos and even a Dragonfire front and back. Put the later on the T26s and T23 hangars and carriers. We don’t want the fleet to be sitting ducks for these type of missiles.
Aster and CAMM may need to get a bit more zip into them too.
I’d make the point again that these missiles are there to create a debris field that the ku yet IC energy of the hypersonic will then be used against itself in.
They are not chasing the hypersonic just getting in front of it.
SB, I do understand. Whatever ABM method is employed, kinetic, missile based decoy or laser. We need at least one that works and especially if current missiles are too slow. And we hope that we also have the monies pay for all this!
Getting close!
“In aerodynamics, a hypersonic speed is one that exceeds five times the speed of sound, often stated as starting at speeds of Mach 5 and above.”
Thanks Nigel, MBDA should go for a hypersonic Aster’s if it’s only an extra half a Mach!
And what’s that between friends!
Is it also accurate to say that hypersonic missiles are not actually hypersonic below a certain altitude due to atmospheric resistance?
That depends James on what sort of if hypersonic missile you are taking about.
1) boost to glide…these missiles start at around 20,000kph launch a glider that then glides at an altitude of around 40,000m.it then plunges onto its target…if they go very low say 20,000m you are looking at starting glide speeds of more like 6 times the speed of sound. It then dives into its final attack…slowing as it goes.
2) scram jet..due to having very specific air pressure requirements scramjets need to stay at an altitude of around 20,000ms. They cannot fly low like a traditional cruise missile. So again it’s a dive onto the target….in-fact as sensors cannot see out of a missile travelling at hypersonic speeds if it’s trying to hit a moving target it would need to slow down and look before the terminal phase…otherwise you are firing at where a ship was not were it is.
Hypersonic missiles are not really all they are cracked up to be…it’s not as stealthy as some say…massive heat signature and flying 20,000-40,000 meters up in the air. Limited ability to course correct and blind. Personally I think the western policy of lower speed, very low altitude very stealthy, twisty turny missiles is the better way forward.
A Dreadnought hull woud be able to accommodate a hypersonic weapon system. Its basically a ballistic missile to boost a glide vehicle to a hypersonic speeds so you need to house a large missile in the hull. Some will argue a small hypersonic could be accommodated in smaller hull but its unlikely to have a useful range.
You wouldn’t mix conventional hypersonic weapons and nukes on the same boat so you’d need more hulls.
4 Boats is minimum number required to maintain CASD hence why France has 4. Also despite some CND members both main parties have maintaining that as their Policy so it cannot be reduced.
As for contracts, the costs of these boats are way up at the top of curve so very little benefit to reducing numbers.
And it goes way above that level of contractual agreement, it is inter governmental between U.K and US and has been since the Nassau agreement in 1964.
Not everyone is aware that our Boats are primarily tasked as part of NATO nuclear deterrent with a national capability only to be used in extreme circumstances.
In other words we either maintain it properly or it goes.
I guess 3 would be the bare minimum.
Following the 1:3 rule 2 more Dreadnoughts would allow 1 for Nukes and the other for conventional weapons. Of course when only 1 is available it would have to be carrying Nukes but thats what happens anyway.
Might be a bit of a pain in the arse to constantly be changing around the missiles though.
Fir a credible at sea Nuclear deterant you need 4 dedicated SSBN, the UK and France have both looked at this multiple times and it just isn’t feasable. Governements do not spend money unless they absolutely have to. When the UK decided to build Polaris SSBN they wanted 5, but realised that 4 would do, so built 4, When France got into building theirs they actually buil5 but realised that 4 would do nicely so they only built 4 new ones.
Why would you ever want to equip an SSBN with convenntional weapons when the SSN carries conventional strike weapons at far lower costs.
Yes the USN converted the 1st 4 Ohio to SSGN but that was due to specific reasons. Firstly START Treaty reduced the number of SSBN required, secondly the US wanted to increase the number of conventional TLMS the fleet could deploy without waiting decades for the new generation of SSNs. And the Ohios stillm ahd lots of life left in them so a Nor Brainer really.
No one just swaps ICBMS for conventional weapons it requires a massive upgrade / refit and then they don’t ever get swapped out again.
Hence why the 4 SSGN Ohios will never be replaced by more SSBN surrogates. The newer SSNs carry quite a wallop with tube launched or VLS TLMS and are far more dispersed.
The next UK SSN(R) will have US VLMS modules just like the Virginia Block 4 etc.
‘governments do not spend money unless they absolutely have to’
LMFAO!!
Well if your being precise ballistic missiles are hypersonic weapons…they are not hypersonic missiles which are different..but they are hypersonic weapons…which is why an intercontinental ballistic missile is so difficult to intercept.
Yes and exactly why you won’t be able to launch it from the torpedo tube of an Astute. Hypersonic glide weapons need a boost phase so even the strike vls on the Virginia can’t accommodate this.
There is talk that for that very reason the SSNR may be the first UK sub with a tactical vertical launch system..the RN resisted vertical launch as they preferred using space for the bomb room ( better utility)….but with the advent of usable hypersonic missiles it may just change their mind. The thing is the west is probably not deploying a hypersonic missile into a submarine for a decade…so they will be nicely mature in time for SSNR.
Original plan in 2008 was for 3 not 4 SSBN’s. If I could get two more SSN’s and give up an SSBN I would do it in a heart beat.
If not we should seriously consider converting one to an SSGN. It’s only needed as a spare, 3 can easily do the job presuming none sink by accident.
What happens when one is damaged when another is in a deep maintenance period?
Then you need to sweat the other two which is doable but if one of them breaks then no more CASD.
If you have four – yes.
If you have three – NO – unless you can convince the crew to operate a Continuous At 20k Leagues Under The Sea Deterrent.
What has vanguard been doing for the last several years.
What its designed to do, not be known.
Good answer!
We all know exactly what it’s been doing and that’s nothing to do with what it was designed for. It’s not often I want to support Esteban, but seriously!
Four is the number to provide assurance of a continuous deployed deterrent.
How about we just silo some missiles on land? Having a sub always at sea seems a very expensive way of keeping a continuous deterrent. It’s also a single point of failure in the system.
Land based ICBM’s have two very obvious points of failure .
Go on…
Because hunting for a SSBN is an almost impossible task..taking out ICBM silos is not…effectively having ICBM silos encourages a swift first counter force strike…SSBN by their nature make that impossible.
Well that just points to deterrent failure full stop. An attack on your ICBM silo would be considered a first strike and trigger remaining assets to launch. Having 2 or 3 SSBN plus land based seems a much cheaper and more robust system to me. Most other nuclear powers maintain more than one launch system.
The issue is that if you only have 2-3 SSBNs then you would have very large gaps in your patrols…simply put the enemy waits for your SSBNs to all be tied up in port or in refit and launch its counter force strike. Then you’re done…it would also actual probably end up costing a lot more than just having that extra SSBN as you need a whole different missile as well as a whole service of spares, repairs, staffing, training pipelines etc…far better and cheaper to just buy and run another SSBN…Also and this is big there is no point someone doing a first strike counter force on your nations soil…this would be particularly awful for the Uk due to not have a lot of land mass to park ICBM farms in the middle of some wilderness…..
Hi Jim, sorry mate, but you really do need 4 to uphold CASD. Yes I know that they looked at 3, they also looked at having 5, but 4 is the magic number.
With what has happened to Vanguard’s refit, the other 3 boats have been run really hard over the last 7-8 years. At some stage they will have come out of the water for maintenance, only having 3 would have broken CASD for long periods.
There is very little point in having SSBNs if you don’t have a CASD, as the missiles can’t be launched alongside the jetty or when on the surface.
Never knew they couldn’t launch while on surface. That’s a bit of an issue. Is always assumed that subs could launch pier side if needed.
Is that a trident only issue as there used to be people who would say Russia can hit lots of targets from subs home base as a way to make out Russia had lots of missile options.
All they will do when alongside for a missile emergency, is tilt the boat away from the jetty and eject the missile from the tube into the water then deal with whatever was the cause.
If the rocket motor ignites, it throws out some serious heat, it would burn through the bottom of the boat (never a good thing with missiles in the tubes) you need the water when dived as a cooling boundary between the exhaust and boat, which is why the motor doesn’t ignite until the missile broaches the surface.
The expert has spoken. 4 it is.👍
Is there any consideration being given to the RN acquiring some conventional ICBMs for their subs as the UK doesn’t have a bomber fleet anymore? Acquiring some B-21 Raiders would be off the cards as too expensive, the T83 with/without hypersonics is over a decade away, SSNR with VLS is in planning, and we’ve got nothing for subs/ships yet between TLAMs and nukes.
A proverbial Can of Worms -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike
“RN acquiring some conventional ICBMs”
Assuming you mean for use from SSBNs? And when they are launched, how will Russia know if they are nuke armed or conventional?
And how will they likely respond to such a launch if the missile heads in their direction? Possibly by starting WW3 by initiating a launch in return just in case it is a 1st strike?
Launching also compromises the boats location.
No way, Quentin, lets not go there into that minefield.
That is another reason why scrapping Trident and putting CASD on Cruise missiles is also a big no.
Very good points Daniele. I was coming more from the West having the ability to hit very hard conventionally too. Maybe my comments were a bit OTT. But how do we not know the likes of Russia, China, North Korea don’t already have this ability too? They’re not exactly upfront and honest with full disclosure. Agree we don’t want to be too inflammatory or in anyone’s face, but quite frankly, we need be prepared. There’s no point in coming second to these buggers. Going back to a fav of ours, there’s an obvious need for a more substantial GBAD in the UK, hope there’s something in the works there.
Two big issues:
1) you launch a ballistic missile from a SSBN..everyone will know an SSBN has launched a ballistic missile…no one will know who’s it is or where it’s heading..everyone will assume it got a bucket of sunshine in the tip and everyone will assume it’s some form of nuclear counterforce attack against someone…( everyone will think it’s against them) .that is not a situation you want to ever happen.
2) the SSBN that launches it has just given away it’s position and you have just lost your major point of having an SSBN on patrol…it’s hidden so no one can attack it with a counter force operation.
Need 4 minimum for constant at sea deterrent.
Very good news that’s it’s going ok. With no gaps between astute and these that should help keep skills etc. I would prefer the builds to be speeded up so SSNR can get up and running sooner. Would be really interesting to know how much extra cash is needed to speed things up or perhaps it could actually save money.
Depending on the announcement on Monday we will hopefully see which way Australia is going.
If the design work is done then Australia could be building the first in class.
Australia is doing some great work on defence products just now so there’s definitely scope to purchase some products from them to offset the costs for U.K. designed boats.
Increasing the workforce at Barrow from 10k -> 17k means someone somewhere has committed to spending some dosh.
I can’t see BAE hire 7k people for the sake of it.
So I deduce from that that there is an intention to increase the drumbeat rate by 70%, assuming productivity is flat, which would lead to the idea of having 12 subs being vaguely reasonable?
Just a wild guess mind…..
im not sure how many subs we could get if Barrow was allowed to continuity build boats without political pauses. After all there was a very long production gap before we started Astute…if we had gone right into production alongside the last V class boats the RN could have had 3 more hulls by now. So actually in the long run and when you look back at the decades with sustained effort we could probably maintain up to 14-15 boats ( in the long run)…..if we wanted to spend the money and ordered the design and development at the correct time.
In the first run of nuclear boats we built 19 SSN and 4 SSBN. All but 3 were built at Barrow. No reason why we can’t have the same again. US yards knock out one Virginia each year and they hope to get up to 1.5 Virginia’s plus a Columbia ever second year. No reason Barrow could not Kock our a submarine every year.
Apart from the usual teeth sucking approach to project management which, in my experience, specialises in padding out time lines to give ridiculous ‘program recovery capacity’ too cover for general ineptitude.
Of course they don’t all need to be nuke powered. Battery tech is improving and the Swedish stirling air independent engined subs have proved useful, newer builds of these could see decent increases in endurance which is already 2 weeks submerged . Task these with more local patrols freeing up SSN to escort carriers etc.
Money Mate, or rather the lack f it. Way to expensive
Hi SB,
Interesting, so I have been doing a little bit of digging. The northwest Mail is reporting that Monday will see Sunak confirm that the UK has won a significant order from the Australians that will benefit the Barrow yard and wider UK supply chain.
I also found a story on the Cumbria page of BBC NEWS highlighting that BAE Systems have been buying up empty department stores in a shopping centre next to the shipyard. The plan is to convert them into a training facility. The story quotes that BAE is looking to recruit 1200 people which I assume is in the short(ish) term and probably the first part of the major up lift to which you refer. A 70% increase in the workforce will take quite awhile to train and absorb…
As you say none of this will just be “for the sake of it.”
We’ll have to wait for the new boats but at least we know they’ll be coming.
Cheers CR
LINKS
https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/23375862.future-barrow-shipyard-reportedly-secured-aukus-subs-plan/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-64239804
Well the cat is out of the bag as it is no secret here in Derby as a very interesting planning application went into the Council.
RR on Raynesway are expanding the site, renewing the offices adding extra manufaturing capacity and creating more jobs.
And last year the New RR Advanced Nuclear Apprentice Training facilty was opened for an extra 200+ pa.
If you know anyone who wants a nice Engineering Apprenticeship they are being advertised.
That isn’t secret it is on the Panning Portal and Indeed etc
Defence related spending has been going up for a while – BW has finally got the message through that specialist industrial capacity is needed.
How does all that tie into the SMR plans?
I didn’t reply to you earlier because it would be a bit premature. Last nights announcement re the £5 billion uplift to the Defence budget is a bit of a Political Headliner.
Although there is funding to replenish stocks and uplift ammunition production. That is really it for extra direct defence spending.
The real headline should be U.K. spending £3 billion on nuclear Defence industrial infrastructure investment.
Anyone would think that Rishi got told to stump up some cash beforehand to show real commitment. After all the USN can’t build extra Virginias so they are committing to reducing their overall fleet by 3/5.
I suspect that tonight when the AUKUS announcements are made it will all make sense.
Enable BAe Barrow to modernise and enlarge its facilities so they can speed up production and increase capacity. That means Dreadnought may speed up and then we get cracking with the SSN(R)/AUKUS hybrid boats.
As for the planning applications well it is called putting the horse before the cart.😉
The SMR is just that a plan, and without a serious investment it is no more than that.
Which IMHO is one of the biggest, short sighted, idiotic foul ups going.
RR has the plans, scoped out where to build the production plants etc, etc.
But no customer without U.K. Government commitment.
Fingers crossed for Weds budget 🤞🏻maybe someone will realise that to go green you need Electricity and a new grid to distribute it.
Do they take 40 year olds? Could do with a career change.
Starting Salary is 14K 🤣 But if they say no due to age you could retire
on the compo.🤔
You’re still young-ish MS! I’d like a change too at 59! Lol… I think we’d all like a good change for 2023…and it’s March already. Might have to roll this over to 2024 then. 😆 Anyway, good luck to you for a good change!
Hmmm, interesting spot there SB. Agreed.
Glad to see the new renderings show the sexy lines you expect from a British sub instead of the smooth tubes you get elsewhere.
Very important that, no idea what it does though.
Like you said, sexy lines, and we all just love sexy lines!!!😂
One thing we do right in the UK is aesthetics, much prefer our assets look especially the navy. Think the QE class is so much sexier than the Ford class.
And don’t get me started on the Tide class *swoon*
🥵
Really…off to channel five you go.
Except from the front, the flight deck leading edge just looks like a brick wall.
What ever happened to a lovely curved edge ?
Yes and the ski ramp looks very narrow in proportion. And still has only the 3 Phalanx’s…. Lol 😁
Don’t get me started, the SD outfit on the QE’s is pitiful. Add CAMM and some 30mm guns.
I’ll bid you… Dragonfire and 40mm…but happy with yours too. lol 😁
I suspect the reason the 30mm’s havn’t been mounted is Dragonfire or something similar.
But adding CAMM adds mass to a group missile shield against Swarm attacks.
Then again without an uplift in the budget it will be Archery practice on the Flight Deck.
Only in the UK is that an opinion lol.
Do stop crying.
Someone just put in AI engine: Design me a SSBN with edge design style….
Ummm…sexy submarines that sounds like a channel 5 documentary.
In the last words of Adam Faith “Channel 5 is all shit, isn’t it? Christ, the crap they put on there. It’s a waste of space”
We always called channel five documentaries “freak viewing” I think the best one ever was the one about the blokes who loved cars…and I mean loved in the biblical sense.
It deflects sound the way an F117 deflects radar. Many European submarines have similar features, much like European Warships tend to have a sleek lines for RCS reduction.
US submarines are much less advanced in this regard but they have a tendency towards optimisation for land attack and littoral operations. Astute is more optimised towards anti ship and anti submarine work like sea wolf. No doubt if Sea Wolfs had been built later it would have had something similar.
Those lines help it to be be more stealthy according to this article. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/11/new-submarines-compared-columbia-class-dreadnought-class-and-snle-3g/
Too much to wish for increase in production rate?
It will be interesting how they square the circle with Astutes and getting a piece of the Australian action.
The latest scuttlebutt from down under is that AUS will be getting 3-5 Virginia’s with supplied crews, possibly some form of lease deal, then 4-6 SSN(R) local build with Reactor modules built and shipped out from the UK. All still scuttlebutt of course, but the guesswork will be over come next week when the three HoS make their announcement. Long way for AUS to go before any of this will be realised of course.
If true hopefully it will decrease the price of the reactors which I’m guessing are on of the most expensive parts.
You think it will all be laid out next week ? 😎
It will be 10% of all of it, and 50% of the absolute minimum we need to know,
How will the supplied crews work? USA leased crews under AUS strategic and tactical command? I’m not sure if I see that being possible in US politics.
Perhaps crew is to broad a term, qualified and experienced Nuclear Engineers would be a considerable challenge for Aus to supply. Perhaps also certain key posts/positions as opposed to the whole crew. Certainly believe that us can probably supply 65% of the crew when in receipt of the first SSN.
You may well be correct about the supplied detail, probably just really broad brush stuff, with the detail missing for now, but at least a steer as to what direction this is going.
That should say Aus can probably supply…..
I think from the confusing takes I have been reading you have pretty much spelled out the likely scenario. Various Reports talk of US forward basing a couple Virginias from about 2027, Oz buying 3 Virginias (+option for 2 more) from about 2032 and then obtaining what we’re described as ‘updated’ Astutes with some US input late 30s. I think all that together doesn’t quite add up but elements of each aspect has some truth to it. I think forward based Virginias will happen which will have aboard and train Australian crew members, generate support infrastructure and provide intermediate defence while a full time Australian solution enters into service. It’s the buy 3 to 5 Virginias in early thirties that feels odd. So it may be a limited lease agreement of older boats to get them through to their own boats later in the decade and seriously build up their expertise. Their own boats will then be whatever UK or combined design hunter killers that eventually start to replace the Astutes. Whether that is fundamentally a UK design with US tech added, a UK design with Oz design input or a combined UK, Oz, US design is the remaining question. RR were reportedly a few years back studying a Nuclear facility in Australia though they have their new modular reactor business to consider too which they have high hopes for. So yes your take makes sense in bringing those reports together while screening out the less likely bits that quite don’t add up like buying Virginias less than a decade before new boats come on line when the US doesn’t have spare capacity but might be able to spare older boats due for replacement soon but with a short shelf life remaining.
The biggest issue isn’t the boats themselves, yes it will take decades to scope a design and get it into production. But it is doable you just need the resources, space and will power.
The big issue is the reactors, their maintenance, security and eventual disposal.
All US and U.K reactors use HEU hence their service life and lower maintenance costs. But the NPT and Australian laws need Political decisions to modify or work round.
You are essentially giving an extra country with a latent nuclear weapons capability and a lot of it.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see that the reactors are dealt with by a separate special agreement.
For me the absolute sweet spot for a deal would be if we adapted the SSN(R) design to accommodate Australia’s needs and US systems.
If that could be done then block assembly in U.K and Australia from components built in both countries on a combined Drumbeat would be financially beneficial for both countries.
Roll on Monday.
You are right that bits of the rumours don’t add up, it would seem strange to buy one class of boat only to add another within a decade. I suspect that what we might see in the short term, probably before a choice of what to buy is made, is boats from both UK and US forward based in Australia with a significant proportion of the crew drawn from the Australian Navy. That way they get a good insight not only in operating the boats but also the support needed.
If the initial boats are leased and then returned to the US that would be the only logical scenario of using one class as an intro to the world of nuclear subs.
But that also opens up many questions of would the boats be full US spec as I doubt the US is just going to hand all its secrets over on a plate.
TBH, I’m not the only one with those views, several others are also expressing similar opinions.
Having said that, probably well wide of the mark, come Monday, we will probably be told that AUS are buying 15 French Suffern class SSNs!!!😂😂🤣
Ta.
I think Barrow would build all the back ends and AUS some of the front ends.
Getting involved in nuclear fabrication is a whole different level for AUS….
If they go SSNR then the reactor goes in fuelled and they don’t need local nuclear infrastructure which would ease the politics. Disposal is another matter!
Well, you need to factor in maintenance/dockings and possible leaks/breaks/wear and tear issues wrt reactor systems. That all needs fixing, so some form of nuclear infrastructure is still needed I believe. Not sure if it’s a lesser level than what we or the US/France have as we build and re-fuel reactors?
Hi Deep official announcement due Monday morning down under. Looking like 3 Virginia with option on +2. The follow on will be a UK design( presumably Astute based) with American technology.
So I understand mate, several others have been posting pretty much to that effect. Believe that any follow on UK design will be SSN(R) based, with AUS/US input to a degree.
Not at all too much to hope for I feel, Barry.
With the Dreadnoughts evidently as close to OT&OB as we can reasonably expect at this stage, together with their being the basis for SSN(R), that is.
Furthermore, SSN(R) should make considerable sense for the Australians, who I have little doubt will develop the technical and infrastructure needed to assemble same in good time, political objections aside. They had a wake-up call with Collins Class servicability, which they successfully overcame by root and branch confrontation of the numerous issues. Those earlier efficiency lessons ought to stand them in good stead, I reckon.
They’re acutely aware that they’re effectively frontline with regard to China within Asian waters, alongside Japan & South Korea evidently, but with the added requirement of needing to get to and from the potential underwater battle from much further out – both a benefit and disadvantage, arguably.
Lets see what transpires.
Lots of dots to join up in the next few days. Reports say Biden and Sunak will make an announcement in San Diego on the AUKUS SSN deal. Last September Wallace ordered a review to last no longer than 6 months on whether we need more submarines – type tba. And now it seems we will see some increase in defence spending. The Dreadnought program is underway….got to make sense to extend it and build a GP version for us and for Australia.
Australian PM Anthony Albanese will be there too.
Rolls Royce Nuclear Submarines design office in Derby is expanding its office space, applying for planning permission to move into larger offices to better accommodate its 450 office staff and to add 30 new manufacturing jobs.
https://www.business-live.co.uk/commercial-property/rolls-royce-submarines-planning-up-26437875
Interesting, all China’s complaints about nuclear transfer look a bit hypocritical as its just been discovered that Russia has recently been supplying large quantities of highly enriched uranium to China, suspected to be to power the Chinese nuclear submarine program.
There’s their relationship and if this is true, what hypocrisy of “nuclear proportions“ Two very two-faced and in fact “multi-faced” men. Both presuming to create a “new world order” in their image with them at the helm, seriously!? The West and the rest of the freer world need to have the means to stand up to these untrustworthy “dud(e)s”.
With BAE at Barrow increasing workforce from 10-17k something is afoot. I am hoping and praying we are about to hear an acceleration of Dreadnought programme and the consecutive construction of SSNr with aim to get RN back upto 12+ SSN hulls.
Recent USN/ Pentagon simulation indicate Western SSNs are the key weapons platforms, not carriers for defeating an expansionist China and keeping the crud Russian navy at bay and arms reach.
We need to be able to sink their SSNGs and Bellograd (forgive spelling) from the Russian near coastline as well as track and destroy their crazy 500 mt nuclear torpedo Poseidon.
Only having adequate SSNs will allow us to do that. 1 SSNr per year is needed from 2028-2045 then continuous construction thereafter at a slower rate of 1 every 2 years.
Re AuKUS…once SSNr comes online we can donate our Astute class to the Aussies.
In order to get AuKUS up and running now. Can we donate our last 2 T class boats? Triumph underwent a refurb before being placed into reserve, Talent is still operational. Both are still as quiet as a fart in a library and far superior to anything China is fielding currently or forecast.
Total rubbish spin. They’ve rebaselined. Previously reported as 3 years late and over budget which was then increased so not on time and to cost.
Picking up on the Astute story the Aussie’s appear to be going with the U.K. design SSNR with vertical cruise, which is likely to be a joint Aus/UK programme wuth US updates.
I was thinking more Astute following with SSNR but now seems more Virginia then SSNR. Australia wants to train on US tech and weaponry asap then go with the UK SSNR design with a UK/US reactor, US weaponry and some AU tech in the mix. Seems like this announcement will be a big three-way win-win-win.
Fingers crossed. I like win win win😀
Not quite on topic, but with tomorrow’s announcement in mind, would it be ridiculous for Oz to build us some conventional subs, say three Japanese-designed AIPs, while we build them the first two SSN(R)s?
They need to get used to building subs again and a nuclear sub is a big single step. We need the extra subs but can’t afford to create the SSK infrastructure. It seems like a reasonable way to get them started with UK and Japanese help before they segue over to nuclear submarine production. Maybe some of the MSubs people could go over to swap experiences as well as BAE’s. And we can probably start SSNR production early with Australian engineers embedded in Barrow.
Just one of the many possible options. I thought I’d throw it in the mix.
Certainly an idea. I think there might even be a Japanese SSN? The way Japan is taking such an interest in things UK it’s not out of bounds.
Is anyone else really looking forward to the AuKUS announcement tomorrow?
I can’t wait for the Sino-Ruskie axis of evil to start sprouting tosh about threatening peace and security whilst they invade (Russia) or threaten to invade (China) democratic sovereign states.
Regarding CASD, is 4 the minimum required for both an Atlantic and Pacific theatre or does it not matter?
Say China goes to war against Taiwan and threatens Singapore or Australia at the same time Russia starts performing exercises around the Baltic’s and Poland? Is 4 enough at that time?
The Royal Navy CASD doesn’t cover the Pacific,that would be left for the USN.
So, if we got nuked by China and the South East is gone. The USA have got our back?
Great to see the old names coming back Dreadnought, Valiant , Warspite and KGV1etc
Looks like it’s a little under 5% extra p.a. over the next two years for Defence, much of it supposed to be targetted at subs, the rest for Ukraine.
According to the BBC: “Downing Street said £3bn from the extra spending would be earmarked to support the [AUKUS] pact, along with boosting industrial infrastructure and servicing UK submarines. The remaining £1.9bn will be used to replace weapons sent to Ukraine and improve the UK’s munitions infrastructure.”
There’s a “longer term” goal of getting to 2.5% GDP.
If there’s nothing extra for inflation, it’s a significant cut. Let’s hope that’s not the case. We should get more details tomorrow. Given that weapons replacement was previously outside of the defence budget, rolling that in in future is doing a Osborne, redefining the number to look bigger.
Failure to even say when we expect to get to 2.5% is pathetic, given that we were at 2.3% last year.
Yeah, lets have more weapons of mass destruction. How bloody stupid & senile.