The UK’s upcoming fleet of submarines, the SSN-AUKUS, promises to push the boundaries of naval warfare when it enters service in the late 2030s.
This new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines, developed in partnership with the U.S and Australia under the AUKUS security pact, is set to replace the UK’s Astute-class and Australia’s Collins-class submarines.
Originally conceived as the UK’s Astute-class replacement programme, named the Submersible Ship Nuclear Replacement (SSNR), the SSN-AUKUS project took on a new dimension in March 2023 when Australia joined the effort.
This expansion incorporated advanced US technology into the design, making the SSN-AUKUS a symbol of trilateral collaboration between the UK, US, and Australia.
From a technical standpoint, the SSN-AUKUS submarines will be a big change in capability. Powered by Rolls-Royce’s state-of-the-art pressurised water reactors (PWR), these submarines will be larger and more versatile than their predecessors. With a displacement of over 10,000 tonnes, they will have significant space for advanced systems, allowing for longer missions and greater operational effectiveness.
Nuclear propulsion system will enable them to operate underwater for extended periods, crucial for long-range operations in contested waters.
One of the key upgrades in the SSN-AUKUS design is the likely incorporation of a vertical launch system (VLS) for land-attack missiles. Unlike previous Royal Navy submarines, which launch missiles via torpedo tubes, the VLS will allow for quicker and more flexible missile launches.
This capability will bring the SSN-AUKUS in line with US submarines, enhancing interoperability between the UK and US navies. This system will also allow the submarines to carry and deploy advanced long-range cruise missiles, adding a new dimension to their offensive potential.
Construction of the SSN-AUKUS submarines will be a monumental task. In the UK, BAE Systems will lead the effort, building the first submarines at their Barrow-in-Furness shipyard, with construction expected to begin in the late 2020s. To support this, the workforce at Barrow will expand from 10,000 to 17,000. Meanwhile, Australia is planning to build five SSN-AUKUS submarines at the Osborne Naval Shipyard, with new facilities being developed to support their construction.
Australia is also acquiring three Virginia-class submarines from the United States as a stopgap measure in case there are delays with the SSN-AUKUS programme.
The SSN-AUKUS submarines will incorporate some of the most advanced technology in the world. These boats will share critical systems with the US Virginia-class submarines, including propulsion plant systems, combat systems, and a common vertical launch system.
This level of integration will ensure seamless cooperation between the UK, US, and Australian navies, allowing for joint operations and the sharing of technical expertise. The submarines will also feature the evolved AN/BYG-1 Combat Management System and be armed with the potent Mk-48 heavyweight torpedoes, ensuring they remain at the cutting edge of undersea warfare.
Beyond their military capabilities, the SSN-AUKUS project is set to have a significant economic impact. In addition to the thousands of jobs being created in the UK, Australia is investing AU$4.6 billion (£2.4 billion) to help expand Rolls-Royce’s Derby facility, which will manufacture key components for the submarines’ nuclear reactors.
With the government increasing the head count at barrow to 17,000 from 10,000 it’s hard to see any other outcome than a massively expanded British SSN fleet of at least 12 boats. We never seemed to have any release of Ben Wallace’s submarine to surface combatant number review but I would be quite happy with 19 escorts if that meant getting 12 or more SSN’s. with radar satellite constellations and long range ballistic anti ship missiles becoming more prevalent submarines will be more important than ever.
I agree re a choice between an SSN and an escort.
I’m more sceptical. I still see an inadequate number of 7 SSN at the end of it after many tens of billions spent.
It’ll be the same with Tempest, if it survives.
Great kit, ever smaller numbers.
Cheaper OTS kit is needed for me, to try and add some mass and to supplement the niche gold standard assets.
I’m more optimistic, I don’t think the government and BAE would go to such lengths of employing so many in Barrow just to build 5 or 8 reactor compartments for Australia and 7 SSN’s for us.
I’m also more optimistic on Tempest now as we have seen a number of computer aided design projects like B21 and now a manned aircraft in the form of Northrops Vanguard be delivered quickly and relatively cheaply.
I think with adaptive manufacturing maturing, computer aided design can finally start to change aircraft development for the better.
The trend has been positive for some time now with the F35 being significantly cheaper than most fourth Gen aircraft to purchase and B21 costing a fraction of B2.
Have a read of my reply to Daniele, I am also optimistic and it’s not just Barrow, RR on Raynesway and SF up the road are both doubling in size, old buildings flattened, new ones being built and recruitment going through the roof.
No one spends £Billions without a very good reason.
They need to spend now to put the industrial muscle back on.
The RN is far to small, whilst as a free democratic nation we need to be able to defend democracy, freedom and the rule of law from the likes of President Xi and Mad Vlad.
12-15 SSNs and 26+ escort warships.
We have the designs, let’s just get them built.
bring back the ‘press. get the hoodiez off the streets.
One factor will be reduced manning if that is possible. Increased automation allows for more hulls if the right ratio is achievable. Fewer crew would also make longer deployments less demanding on personnel resources. I would like to see a significant reduction in crew numbers as this should be possible with advanced technologies making a huge difference to modern living. One other factor could be the means of carrying one or more remote subs using the AUKUS as the mother ship either submerged or surfaced. The UK has made big advances with these vessels and more developments are sure to follow.
Doesn’t the automation have a hard limit on combat ships due to the need for damage control and firefighting parties? You could lose an entire warship due to a flooding event that could have been stopped with enough bods.
no matter how much you automate, you still need watchkeepers, which realistically means 1 in 3 (engineers have to be), if you do make the crew smaller then there are less people for a shutdown alongside watch, this means less time at home when alongside, which leads to unhappy submariners who leave.
I was lucky enough to be given a personal guided tour of the Barrow-in-Furness shipyard a few years ago (before AUKUS was announced), a very impressive facility. But a constant theme was their need for a long-term “drum beat” of a submarine every two years to maximise efficiency, minimise cost, justify investment and retain skills. Assuming a service life of 30 years, for what that’s worth it implies 4 Dreadnought’s and 11 Astute’s & SSN-A’s. I actually doubt if Barrow could do much more than 1 sub per 2 years, it would probably need a second UK submarine yard to increase the rate – a massive and expensive project. In the unlikely event that the MOD wanted an extra couple of SSN-A’s, it might eventually become easier and cheaper to order them from Australia!
Morning M8, Just for once I’m going to keep this short, I’ve carefully read this article and just think it’s speculative and the title should be “what we think” rather than “what we know”. I have also read the official announcements and I can understand why certain conclusions have been made, the original wording is muddy, subject to misinterpretation and very short on firm detail.
So I’m just going to add a couple of known facts, that are in the public domain and are indicative that some of the assumptions are just that.
So I’ll finish off by adding my own headline “SSN(A) 8/10 + 8, what I think”.
PS We will know more facts when the build schedule is announced and not until then.
Thanks for sharing
Thanks for that encouragement mate.
Largely agree w/ your assessment, w/ the exception of Australian production intent. Remember, the 3-5 RAN SSN-As are only the forecasted number through a specified date in the 2050s. This should be considered as the initial phase of a continuous process. During that timeframe, SSN-A2 should be in design, probably as an evolution of USN SSN(X),:which will be a a design evolution of SSN-A. And so the process goes: Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 🤔😉
It’s muddy info out there the 3 of 5 number only refers to the Virginias that RAN hope to acquire as stop gaps. That’s the big that gets complicated as it depends on USN producing boats that so far it can’t.
MY real worry is that we now have 2 major mult national projects- AUKUS and Tempest. The nuclear programmes are already accounting for @40% of the equipment budget. Tempest will need billions to get to production. Everything else will be squeezed, scaled back or delayed.
Other than building reactors for the Australian subs, I’m not clear how the UK benefits from AUKUS.
It spreads the cost of the programme over many more platforms 12-15 RN, 5-9 Aussie and possibly same number of Canadian SSNs means unit price should be reduced to around £1.5-2 billion each Vs £2.5-3 billion per astute class
It’s Numbers in the supply chain of the key and most expensive part of a boat. pure and simple. It’s not just a reactor, it’s the design and most of the propulsion system as an entity, plus the support mechanism. Like any industrial process extra mass reduces the cost base, so what we get is the ability to afford more boats as they are cheaper.
it reduces cost both for the UK and USA, AUS buying reduces it further.
USA want the aft end from the UK, already designed and built in Dreadnought SSBN class, full electric propulsion.
USA i suspect want the UK sonar.
Uk want the VLS/missile tubes and likely the combat system.
the AUKUS sub is very likely to be a Dreadnought SSBN front end with brit sonar and USA weapon systems (adapted for spearfish), middle section will be VLS/missile tubes, with accommodation outboard of tubes (american systems), reactor and aft end will be UK. electric propulsion is a massive step change for power, redundancy and quietness.
USA will build all theirs, UK will build theirs, AUS will eventually build theirs.
some bits will be built in the other countries and shipped.
the only difference between the 3 will be the centre VLS missile section size, how many tubes you have/swimmer delivery/extra stores/extra accommodation.
we may already have the USA combat system on the dreadnought class, if not i suspect it will be in place for boats 3 and 4, mainly to allow training for USA/AUS submariner’s on exchange. i suspect after dreadnought has done some testing any required changes will then be incorporated in the SSN design.
As you essentially end up with one class of submarine the maintenance/stores costs will go down as well.
I don’t believe multi national projects deliver cost savings of the size you suggest. In theory, expanded production runs ought to allow economies of scale. In practice, the complications of multi national development often outweigh them. When applied to what will be no more than a handful of platform, economies of scale are non existent.
I don’t think AUKUS is motivated by industrial benefits. It is a political initiative sending a message to China. It also probably reflects a decision ( never made public) from Wallace’s review of the balance of the fleet between surface and submarine. If UK numbers aren’t increased, the expansion of the Barrow workforce makes little long term sense.
escort every time for me
The expansion of the Barrow workforce seems to be part of the big increase in the nuclear element of the latest 10 year plan +£38b. The prime driver is the acceleration of the Dreadnought programme. But it is hard to see the increased workforce sustained unless we are at least contemplating an increase in SSN numbers.
Whether we need to add complication and cost by adding VLS I’m not sure. It would be far cheaper to add Tomahawk type missiles to surface warships. France has developed Scalp into MdCN which can be launched from surface ships and the torpedo tubes of its submarines.
If RN keeps TLAM from SSN then they have no choice but to go for VLS.
Is there a sub launch version of the FC/ASW as its likely the French will be wanting one? Will they go it alone. Italy might want too.
Hopefully there will be a sub launch version eventually but it’s not been announced.
If anything VLS will reduce cost, at least if we want to retain a land attack capability. I’m pretty certain that tube-launched TLAM hasn’t been in production for some years now, and whatever eventually replaces it (be it from the UK or US) will almost certainly be VLS-launched first and foremost. It also allows more flexibility in the integration of new weapons, again regardless of if they’re bought from the US, another ally (e.g. France), or domestically produced. Plus, we’re pretty much the only country with SSNs that doesn’t have VLS on them yet.
Tube launched Tomahawk is out of production. But we should use FC/ASW. I do not rate Tomahawk against modern defence systems. It is old slow and not that stealthy.
I don’t see why we can’t get back upto 12-15 SSNs, that is what we need for a viable defence and contribution to meet our commitments to NATO and our allies. At the same time slowly increasing our escort fleet upto around 26 should also be achievable.
The government just need to get on with it. Order the vessels now knowing that in 5 years time economically we will be in a better place.
And add a few more P8s and Merlin’s into this mix!
. . . and reinstate the two cancelled E-7s.
I would like to see 12-15 SSNs and 26-30 surface combat ships for the RN, I also agree that it could be done. However I am concerned if all12-15 SSNs were with VLS. This makes them big boats which does not always mean good for everything. If we were to have 15 SSNs I would suggest 6 with four Multi Mission Payload Tubes and the other 9 as pure hunter killer subs (no VLS tubes), possibly with a Flexible Payload Lock and some of the other features designed for the Swedish A-26 Blekinge class.
The Aussies will probably want and need the Multi Mission Payload Tubes, then again they have the Pacific Ocean so the bigger boats makes sense. However the RN will operate in areas that are restricted such as the Med, GIUK Gap, Artic and Norwegian Seas. Restricted areas does not alway mean depth or size but a potential enemy knows that the RN will operate in these areas.
So I see the design for the SSN-A being based on the PWR3 power plant, a 4 MMPT module inserted between the powerplant aft section and the forward command and control section. These two sections dictates beam. The RN would probably use a version of the sonar suite of the Dreadnought class, whilst the RAN would use the US Navy sonar suite. Combat management system would be the same for the USN/RN/RAN. I cannot see the RN using the Mk46 as Spearfish is the better torp.
So it would make sense to me if the design for the future SSN-A was done as a pure hunter killer with a MMPT module insert.
Quentin D63 suggested a few more P-8s to be thrown into the mix, again I would like to see that, but I would accept the MQ-9B Sea Guardian in the STOL version. These would be useful to team up with the P-8 and or to operate of the carriers. If I have done my sums right it looks like 5 MQ-9Bs for 1 P-8.
Money – this government has taken then winter heating benefit from OAPs – do you think they will be spending on defence… pre-election they were all for increasing defence but now all the talk is about cuts.
Bore off.
jobs equals votes and popularity ratings.for anyone on Facebook, there is a save the palliion shipyard group. I think as . much support that can be given will be.
Why ? Pallion is now gone, except for the sheds, all the rest has been built on and I believe the sheds are now going to be film studios,.
Seeming confirmation of mk48 over Spearfish here, as well as US weapons systems, which may well include sonar.
Bit of a pity as sonar and torpedoes seems to be one of the things we are better than the US at, and where we have decent sovereign capability.
If the MoD isn’t careful, we will end up simply building an American design under license instead of a truly joint programme.
That’s certainly the concern and comments from the US navy AUKUS program office that were later retracted indicated all US systems and likely weapons.
Deep 32 shared yesterday that QinetiQ are already developing sonar for it though so hopefully that’s the case.
There was an article in Naval News in July. The first sea lord said that only the reactor and CMS had been selected. They do not want 2024 tech but were keen to meet their timelines… So perhaps there is still opportunities for UK and Aussie kit to be included.
However SL1 said joint RN and RAN crewing as well as alternating crews had been agreed… So I expect that means RN and RAN boats will be identical…
Cheers CR
The First Sea Lord is being naive when he says only the AN/BYG-1 Combat Management System has been chosen as part of the combat system. The US government will ensure that interfacing any British combat system equipment or weapon to that CMS will be massively expensive and take a loooong time.
I don’t think the US government cares enough about 15 sets of systems for submarines to stitch it up. It’s nothing like the scale of the F35 market place.
Will our subs be switching from spearfish to mk48 or just in Aus? Think we should keep spearfish personally
Looks like it , also American combat systems . We are now totally sold to the USA . None of it should be on our subs . The prime minister said we need to be using British kit . If the astute class is as good as it’s claimed then it should be BAEs combat system . The yanks will have as over . Why do we keep allowing this .
If Spearfish is superior why go for the lesser? MOD should be backing UK technology where its better. Why not even co-produce with the US and AUS? Lose a bit to gain with sharing. If Norway can do it with the NSM why can’t the UK do it with Spearfish, Sting Ray and why not try and sell Martlet and Sea Venom too?
Read everything HMG has published on AUKUS. There is some vagueness about how similar UK and Australian boats will be but nothing to suggest we we will switch to mk 48.
What we know is that we need at least 10 boats. The danger is that we end up with 4 or 5.
12-15. 12 SSNs was until 14 years of Tory incompetence listed by the RN itself and the defence select committee to be the minimum needed to meet peacetime taskings.
So reserve, refit, maintenance, training, perisher course, adversary for ASW exercises, NATO tasking, screening the SSBNs routes into and out of port. Direct anti ship warfare, direct anti submarine warfare, protection of the Carrier strike group and no’s with VLS first strike land attack capability from an unforeseen direction.
All those reasons are why we need 12-15.
Exactly, you’re right, and I was being conservative with my figure of at least 10. The trouble always is as Daniele always states is that the new reduced number ( in this case 7 SSN) becomes the new benchmark, and it becomes a political impossibility to go above that number.
12 SSN until 14 years of Tory incompetence.
Just for balance, I recall when they arrived in 2010 there were 7 or 8 left? That number is at Blair and Browns door, regardless what the DSC and RN want.
Still, Labour have “started well” as the PM apparently can not afford to clothe his wife with his wage and is accepting donations/bribes.
Funny how a few years ago they went ballistic at BJ decorating his flat.
Oh, Lammy is partial to flying abroad as well. Scandalous. Get the bus or a pedalo like they expected Tory ministers to use.
All the bloody same…
🙄
You do know they canceled the minister’s helicopter contract
Morning Jim. Of course. I’m referring to Lammy screaming blue murder when a Tory F Sec dared to use a VIP aircraft.
Now he does the same.
It just so happens that VIP, VVIP aircraft are sometimes necessary, be it for security, secure comms, scheduling, entourage numbers, whatever.
Now Labour are in the grown ups seat and what a surprise, they’re using them.
Rightly.
The sheer hypocrisy.
In these tough times of 22 billion black holes I wonder if he’ll give up 1 Carlton Gdns ( if that’s still used ) or Dorneywood?
Course not.
Off topic.
The article suggests that UK boats will have US combat management systems and torpedoes. I’m not sure that is correct. The Australian built versions may well incorporate US systems because interoperability with the USN is more important given the likely areas of operations. But there is no need for the UK to switch to US systems, some of which like the mk 48 are reportedly inferior.
It’s in other article also . The yanks as usual getting their way . We will have nothing sovereign. Bae combat systems should be used . Our own land attack and spearfish also .
Hope the UK parties involved from the PM down are standing up more for UK technology where it’s clearly better even if just for the UK. We’ve sold the sub body to the RAN but how much overall is the UK getting in this three way deal? Will it be less than 33%?
It is but I think it is incorrect.
I hope so .
as it require very little change to use spearfish then that will be what the uk uses, the usa may even buy some spearfish 🙂
The USA won’t buy spearfish , ever
The AUKUS boat is 3000 tons up on 7000 ton astute. Will it be less nimble or tonnage not relevant?
I don’t think the added tonnage is terribly relevant, considering Astute class is already rather large!
They are already slightly limited regardless operations in coastal areas, due their displacement.
Im all for using as much UK tech as possible in AUKUS, but, if it means using highly sophisticated co-developed systems and weapons, procured and shared between three Navy’s, then the benefits of larger procurement and reduced unit cost, come into play.
They should be fantastic SSN’s, using a great deal of Dreadnought design.
It’s been suggested that these will effectively be a more advanced ‘Block 2’ Dreadnought, replacing the D5 missile compartment with a shorter vertical launch missile section.
A good deal of the design work has apparenty already been done and I feel confident we will start moving quickly once we are fully underway.
We can possibly expect mast mounted directed energy weapons among some very impressive capabilities.
The bomb shop will be ‘huge’ at this displacement, 6 tubes and 50 plus weapons, plus the vertical launch tubes, so 70 plus load out perhaps.
Amazing to think they will be approximately twice the size of the old T boats!
We can hope for an RN build of 12, the RAN want 8, or more.
A build of 20 boats across two yards would be fantastic and cost effective.
I can visualise heavily armed convoys, carrying fitted our reactor back ends to Australia in floating dry docks, with front ends coming the other way.
Perhaps a US yard making the centre section??
Even SSK’s are coming in the 2000 to 4000 tonne range today, nothing that’s particularly nimble for shallow costal work.
These type of missions will increasingly be done by USV’s operating from the submarine as a mother ship.
True Jim, AUKUS is going to be a deep water monster….
With the virtual launch capability, and given that we are looking quite a way into the future before first in class is deployed, I wonder to what extent UUV technology might be able to mitigate at least some of issues with such large subs operating too close into the littoral.
There has been talk of the Virginia Class Vertical Payload Module (VPM) also being able to host UUV. I couldn’t quickly find the VPM spec but with each tube able to host 7 Tomahawk and presumably needing extra space for the adapter to enable those Tomahawk be seven-packed into a single tube I would think that the diameter of an individual VPM tube is not insignificant (> 2 metres?) that, together with its respectable length in order to be able to host Tomahawk, could give a VPM-equipped sub (maybe a next generation VPM developed specifically for AUKUS) the ability to deploy and retrieve a reasonably sizeable UUV that could get closer in to shore to do various tasks.
As I understand it underwater high bandwidth real time communication is still a significant issue but as I mentioned earlier in my comment we are looking a few decades into the future so who knows what developments might be expected to get to a deployable state by the time first in class hits the water. At least if the UUV is being deployed from an AUKUS mothership (mothersub) the communication doesn’t need to be very long range which might make the technical challenge somewhat more tractable.
Why do we need tomahawk . France made a naval version of storm shadow . 1000 km range . Itl me more stealthy . We get had over by the yanks time and time again . We should not be buying yanky kit
The references to Tomahawk were purely to explore the likely minimum dimensions of a VPM tube wrt what size of UUV one might be able to host.
Tomahawk are shit , they are ok if you are picking on poor nations with no air defence . Should use the naval version of storm shadow. What happened to buying British . U.K. makes nothing out of buying yanky weapons . France don’t do it . So why are we . Look at the F35 carry on . Still no weapons intergraded and have to buy the yanks weapons .
Tonnage is not that relevant and nor is manuverability for such large vessels. They are more like bombers than nimble fighters.
I realise that Jim but it will have them along with yanky combat systems .we should be sharing weapons with France . The yanks are blocking stormshadow . It gives them control and I don’t like it . France don’t allow that .
Two points
1) why does it share components with the Virgina class as the Astutes are at least on a par with these boats.
2) I expect the boats will be built with considerable automation as I don’t see the problems with recruitment changing if anything they will get worse.
I think the Australian consensus may have been they wanted the astute successor. Because they are in the massive pacific maybe they also want a bigger boat for a longer tours. Is there a design compromise for uk operations ?
Australia choose Astute because they wanted something smaller that is more hunter killer submarine less land attack missile carrier and has a smaller crew. They want a Us combat system because that’s what they currently operate on Collins.
They should but USA subs then cause uk has our own combat systems .
The other reason is that the US cannot supply the all important Reactor compartment and propulsion system. They are really struggling to produce their own, never mind extra ones for export.
And not to put too fine a point on it we have way more experience with Turbo Electric drive than they do. Dreadnought and Columbia will be the 1st of our Boats to use it and they are really struggling to produce theirs.
I know some folks love to knock what we design and build in U.K, but between Rugby, Derby and Barrow we have this tech pretty well nailed.
It’s a bribe to US Congress to get permission for the UK to share reactor technology with Australia and a comfort blanket for Australian media pundits to abate their obsession that everything American mist be the best.
In reality all it means is that they have the updated version of the Virginia’s combat management system.
They might also share a common VLS tube.
Common VLS makes sense but we are perfectly capable of developing our own combat management system or is this only going on the Aussie boats?
Tried to find information on that but nothing definitive. Given that Spearfish has been recently upgraded, I can’t see why we would want to switch to mk 48. We are in the process of integrating Stingray on Poseidon to augment/replace US mk 54 torpedoes.
Why can’t the UK subs have either or both US/UK torpedos?
Agree but the Aussies wanted to go American as that is what they already use and they had to incorporate “American technology” to tick the box. Combat management system was probably the easiest thing for us to give up and it drives the most amount of commonality.
I agree. I am all for commonality where it make sense.
Well they should but yanky subs then, that should not change out specs one bit , the U.K. always bends over for the yanks . France doesn’t
I think it’s a case that we have to keep RN and RAN boats as near identical as possible.
Every change and deviation will add cost and add delays.
We can bomb up with Spearfish mod 2
(probably 3 by then) , the Aussies can bomb up with mk48.
We have a single combat management system that’s written for all the weapon systems employed by both Navies.
There are obvious commonality advantages there, if the RN became involved in a confrontation with China, alongside our Allies, we can bomb up with mk48 from US stocks etc
Interesting point
The reality is it’s all just software and it all runs on a US operating system in a machine where most of the parts come from Taiwan.
And if you really delve into the treaty and look at the timescales what we all end up with will probably by an an amalgam of systems.
How many torpedoes do you need to bomb the Chinese navy , I’m sure the U.K. could cope , it’s one thing we make very good . We already have a combat system so fail to see how is putting our own in adds to the cost
Not really following your post Thomas, are you saying that adding a UK only command and weapons system, won’t add to the cost???
It would, massively. There needs to be a single system ( like F35) that has all the weapons catered for, RAN and RN.
That way you build a single class of hopefully 20 boats, across two ship yards.
Any attempt to make serous alterations between RN and RAN boats ( make no mistake this is a big difference) and we shoot ourselves in the foot, with increasing costs for both customers.
Get this right, 16 or 20 boats of the same standard and the unit costs tumble….
We already have an advanced combat system for the Astutes that would need nothing but an upgrade so why the hell would it make more costs ? Do you think the yanks are giving it to us for free ? USA defence company will make money selling us it . Vat will be paid on it in the USA . There is no Benefit for us using it . The astute is meant to be better so why not use our own, why would it cost more when its developed
assumption one, its a british company, likely to be sperry marine or thales.
assumption two an upgrade is cheap, no its really is not, its very expensive and takes a long time (due to cyber security requirements)
so the USA system would be cheaper due to them having more boats, especially through life of system.
Nope it’s going to be USA combat system . This should not be happening
Usual . The yanks getting what they want .
Oh behave yourself Thomas, you do know RR PRW3 wouldn’t have even happened without US granting access to key technology don’t you?
The US are absolutely ‘key’ partners in our SSN/BN capability, they have been for years.
Adding Australia strengthens and underpins our whole programme, it actually makes Successor SSN affordable in numbers..
We now share key technology between three close allies.
It doesn’t detract, theres ‘massive’ potential
work for Barrow here, everyone is a winner, especially the RN!!
I believe at the moment we could build SSNs even if there was a major break with the USA. If we go with an US CMS how quickly will we lose that?
Would not have happened ? That’s stretching it a bit mate . Where did the USA get the know how for the atom bomb , the yanks have been sniffing round certain U.K. submarine tech for 30 years . Even bought a British company trying to get it . Well now they have it , ok numb nuts what if we want to fire USA tech at Russia and they shit there pants? Cause the blocked storm shadow getting fired into Russia. 🙄 there is a deference from sharing tech to using full combat systems and weapons that may not even be as good , you do know that yes . We are now buying USA combat systems from USA that make money of us 👌
“Numb nuts….”😆
🤣🤣 well you’d need to be numb to think having USA weapons and combat systems on our subs is a great idea cause it saves some pennys
ASAP.
at a reasonable price
Large hull for a start. Capable of carrying large uncrewed systems into the potential battlespace, via mission bays. The Russians already are ahead in that area, China will not be far behind, with the resources that they have to chuck at any project, on a whim.
Case for just having a batch II Dreadnought perhaps. SSGN.
It’s great expanding the Barrow workforce but when the local MP doesn’t know the difference between an SSN, SSBN or her own fat arse, you are not going to get concomitant investment in the Hospital – Furness General is up there for natal deaths (Jonathan), – lack of ANY dentistry, housing, Ofsted ratings, communications and policing.
I’d welcome 12 SSNs, but it will never happen under any Govt. It will certainly not happen under the absolute sho!te MP we have at the moment who has said nothing about this.
I’m not sure the RN will be getting 12 SSN, the figure banded about was 15, but that isn’t 15 for the Royal Navy, the Tories said that the Astute would be replaced on a one for one basis. If that is the case then it will be seven AUKUS subs for the RN and eight for the RAN thereby bring the total number of AUKUS SSN built to fifteen. Now Labour are in office that might change, but I doubt it somehow.
I am a bit more optimistic that other regarding future numbers of submarines for the Royal Navy…. Sometimes you have to take to look somewhere different to get a clue… Rolls Royce maybe a year ago announced the number of reactors they expected to build for the dreadnaughts and future AUKUS submarines… I can not remember where I read it but thought to myself that’ll be 4 for the SSBN’s, couple of test/prototype reactors and 18 between us and the Aussies…
Yep bang on.
I hope the design will be producible in each of the participating countries.
, quick to build, And be priced in a competitive level to allow a substantial sized order to be placed. In the meanwhile the Astutes mustn’t be clogged too heavily. if t the
the ae won’t raise taxes party in power, who are now
cancelling
the winner heating allowance for pensioners could smash the foreign aid and BBC budgets and buy us a few more T31’s.
Just one question m8, do you ever pause and read what you’ve typed before hitting the return key ?
I’m not a navy guy, but the new subs need to be actually operating at sea more that the current astute class.
I doubt the UK sub will use MK48 rather than a variant of spearfish. Also we will probably use the new Anglo/French cruise missile in the VLS. I should imagine that Australia will use the US kit.
This programme sounds like an underwater F35. Will it be American owned and operated under licence by the U.K and Australia as clients (who also do a bit of mental bending)? Is this the end of British advanced technology on, below and above water?
This project came together over anxiety at Chinese intentions in the Pacific region, anxieties that have been much exaggerated; had they been not so, what use is this? Who knows what sort of country China will be in a quarter of a century’s time? Or the U.K.? The U.S.A.? Both polities are tottering unsteadily under the pressure of multiculturalism and mounting antipathy to their foundational values; nearly half of Brits feel their country’s historic identity is worthless according to one recent poll. Australia is itself perhaps further down that path.