The UK government has confirmed that the Royal Navy’s next-generation SSNR-class attack submarines will be operational by the late 2030s, replacing the current Astute-class, according to a response from Defence Minister Luke Pollard.
This early commitment to the SSNR timeline comes ahead of the Strategic Defence Review, signalling the project’s priority.
Responding to a question from Conservative MP Mark Francois regarding the expected Initial Operating Capability date, Pollard stated:
“The Royal Navy’s submersible ship nuclear AUKUS submarines will be operational from the late 2030s, replacing the current Astute Class.”
The SSNR/AUKUS clas
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.
I wonder if the massive increase in staff at Barrow will see the Dreadnaught program sped up in delivery. If not I have to ask what the extra 7000 staff going to do for the next 15 years.
the size of the manufacturing areas would need be expanded. all of the space needed is currently taken up with the new’boomers’
This blasted review will screw the UK defence, possibly for years if it is mindless due to the fog of fiscal panic. The last time this fog descended was Under Camron who with the stroke of a pen ripped the Harrier fleet to shreds and signaled the end of the Invincable Class carriers leaving the country exposed. The Government say AUKUS is safe and that is due to it being a three-way decision. However, there are rumours that CH3 will go in preference to buying Leopard 2 and that there will be a slowdown in the Army’s new armour. All… Read more »
Buying Leo2 would cost much, much more than the CH3 program. I’d say 30+% of the CH3 program budget would have been expended getting to prototype! So how many tanks can you buy for £600m? Not many.
Also wouldn’t be British. So would conflict with industrial policy.
The question is likely to be
– do we make more CH3 hulls; or
– do we buy more of something else?
wed have more if we hadn’t given away some of our own sorely needed tanks to the black hole of the Ukrainians constant begging for more and more. equipment from the west. I’ve nothing but admiration for the Ukrainian people, but I think that unless substantial gains are made with what they have, then a slow reduction in hardware would be correct.
MBT’s are becoming a niche capability as the Army configures itself to deploy at Brigade level. I would be surprised if they stick to 148 Chally 3 and don’t try to reduce the order further… No one actually believes the Army would deploy a division anymore, in anything short of general war. The numbers of regulars are forcast to fall below 70,000 in the next few years and without serous investment, will likely continue to shrink toward 60,000 by the early 2030’s. SDSR25 will be interesting, will Labour arrest the decline and restore mass?? I think AUKUS, the dire need… Read more »
I agree but there has been some talk of axing the CH3. If we did buy L2’s cancellation cost would flatten any savings?
If there is a global crisis of a proportion not seen since WW2, then it is probably a good idea to have a defence review.
We are certainly not currently equipped to handle such a thing, and a lot of our fundamental assumptions may now be flawed.
For instance, I am quite confident that in the previous defence review very little consideration was given to the idea of British territory being under geniune threat from conventional weapons.
Given recent events, that thinking is now very outdated and the Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus are now at risk.
I would say that anti air defence should be considered for any base British forces are even temporarely.
Your point makes eminent sense but defence reviews have always led to cutbacks and programme cancellations. Such reviews inevitably slow down the daily processes and delay, plus identify errors and poor admin, which is a good thing yet, that is how the civil service works. If current drone and compact missile systems grow, in ten years the UK mainland could be under threat let alone Cyprus.
As i understood it CR3 was more of a stop gap,there were long term plans beyond it which might have considered Leopard 2 or similar.
as a former government union official, but not a labour supporter I asked the home secretary that places like the the prison officers tree had been cut to the trunk, what would be done if the trees fell over. it won’t surprise you if 5 say that he didn’t have an answer our armed forces are in the same position.
An Israeli and Iranian war plus a Trump victory could radically change the current UK defence policies.
Firstly it’s just HMG stating the obvious and putting our partners minds at rest with the upcoming SDR. Secondly there is no mention of numbers, which is only logical as numbers depend on affordability, that depends on the spec and how that works out cost wise. But general rule of thumb is to keep costs low per hull you need to build at the most efficient build rate possible. So in other words we will not know how many the RN get till the overall numbers for the partners to be built is known. It’s Chicken and Egg time and… Read more »
Yup, unfortunately a lot of Labour, even ministers, still approach it like student politics with shrieking and name calling.
We saw that with the DP World press releases.
In that issue everyone across the political spectrum agreed that what DP World did was wrong.
Solution change the law so it can’t happen again. Don’t insult them. They are Arab autocrats who hate that kind of thing.
I would imagine the SSN-Aukus would also have some variation of a mission bay – a large space that can be used for the operation of UUVs?
Love how these announcements contradict themselves. Mk48 torpedoes in the same sentence as cutting edge of undersea warfare. Would be happier if it said Spearfish.
Should be accelerated to increase boat numbers now (given additional Astutes is not possible).
Haven’t seen any real progress on the second construction facility required either.
I don’t think you will see a 2nd Assembly hall here in UK ! The DDH is perfectly adequate for what we need and can produce faster if funded to do so. The Australians intend to assemble their own with some prefabrication here. Australia already has a very well developed steel industry and can build their own hull sections just as they did for the Collins class. FYI the Swedish sections were initially rejected due to not meeting RAN weld standards 🤔 If I were a betting man I’d say the complete reactor and reactor hull section will be built… Read more »
That’s too late in times of timeframe. Late 2030s is not going to be soon enough.
We need these ships sooner rather than later. First in class needed around 2030-2031 timeframe.
Seems the UK will be stuck with just 7 SSNs for a considerable period of time. If Aukus won’t be ready by late 2030s then there clearly is a requirement and very very strong argument for just getting a couple more astute class added on.
With the Dreadnought program in full flow, where in the U.K. do you suggest can be up to building SSNs within the next 5years and able to deliver shortly after that? As for more Astutes, given the timeframe for long lead items and the and of the production run, how long do you think it would take to get any new batch started let alone built?
I am completely fed up saying this so I’ll try Trump style. THERE CAN BE NO MORE ASTUTES BUILT, NOT NOW NOT EVER. Firstly Barrow is now full on building Dreadnought so no room to build anything more till we are at least half way through building any. Secondly the PWR2 Reactor has been out of production for about 8 years and no more can be built as RR here in Derby are now busy building PWR3 which is much bigger and will not fit in an Astute hull. The facilities have been configured for doing that and the massive… Read more »
Plus people seem to forget that the gestation and construction timeline has been so long for Astute that by the time Agincourt is commissioned it’ll be a 25 year old design!
If we need more subs before late 2030s they can’t be Asutes. They’d have to be AIPs built in a allied country: Japan perhaps. For which we have no money, not enough submariners and a complete lack of political will.
Astute is a closed book, PWR2 is a dated reactor and it’s not possible to produce it anymore.
RR is now in full PRW3 production for Dreadnought and an update of this reactor will also power AUKUS.
One of the many things that should make AUKUS affordable, is the reactor plant should have the kinks fully worked out and a large, well trained, well motivated design and manufacturing workforce will be in place a Barrow.
Try to remember to include the supporting infrastructure in your plans this time…
No choice really with this one. Otherwise just upset the Aussies’ and the U.S.
Needs a speed up really. The U.K. needs more submarines. Australia needs them asap. Canada needs a replacement.
Offering BAE a big contract of say 12 for £20b with delivery aimed for 2032 until 2045. Obviously the money isn’t all at once and may need refining, increased etc but the commitment is there.
Canada has barely started its replacement program and so far has made no major sign of going nuclear and hell their budget will be stretched with the planned SSK’s let alone SSN. But more to the point, again its timeframe issues. the UK’s capacity is focused on the SSBN’s and will be for some time so Barrow is out, the US is hitting its own issues with its Virginia class, and Australia has only started the infrastructure for their SSN’s. How exactly do you suggest the design can be fully finished, and work completely within effectively 7-8 years?
I’d lik5 to know how much they are paying for each boat it could be, that t5 u.k could do a similar thing to increase quite rapidly increase the size of our silent service. these are excellent vessels Already built. and coming second hand would 5 far cheaper than sAy wishing we’d had another couple of astutes.
As an ex-army bod, I am always envious at how the other two services do their long term equipment planning. The RAF seems to be on course for their Future Combat Air System (Tempest) project to continue to run whilst still getting great updates to Typhoon and being at an early stage in operation of F-35B…and the RN is getting its future sub project green-lit well before before full delivery of the Astute programme. If the army was like this, then planning for successors to CR3, Boxer and Ajax would be well underway! On another note, given that future equipment… Read more »
Well thats a good bit of propaganda eh? Solve the Astute at sea problem first before spouting about a future this or that. Honest, another chapter in the comedy of errors.