The Submarine Delivery Agency (SDA) has detailed progress in its Dreadnought and SSN-A submarine programmes.
HMS Dreadnought, the first of the next-generation strategic deterrent submarines, reached a key milestone with the completion of its largest structural segment, referred to as a “mega unit.”
This substantial section was transported through Barrow-in-Furness to the Devonshire Dock Hall, a prominent feature of the town’s skyline. The SDA emphasised this achievement as evidence of “the ongoing advancement of the Dreadnought programme.”
Progress was also highlighted within the Astute programme, with the SDA reporting a Review Note submitted for final approval in March 2024. The agency stated that “robust performance metrics” have driven improvements, noting that collaboration with BAE Systems continues to stabilise the programme, mitigate risks, and capitalise on opportunities.
However, the report acknowledged the complexities involved, including “the significance of the ‘last of Class’ risk,” which will require focused effort in the final years of the programme.
The SSN-A programme, representing a cornerstone of the AUKUS trilateral pact between the UK, the US, and Australia, also achieved a critical milestone. Entering its detailed design and long lead procurement phase, the programme secured £4 billion in contracts to propel development of the next generation of nuclear-powered attack submarines.
The SDA described this as a “pivotal moment not only for the UK but also for the trilateral AUKUS programme,” reaffirming the collective effort to advance cutting-edge naval capabilities.
Nuclear in core budget is squeezing the life out of conventional defence.
After all the cuts on supposed “sunset” capabilities, even if we start recently with Tornado, and still there isn’t the money.
Add GCAP at 12 billion just to develop the plane, and AUKUS.
If SSN numbers still and up at 7, or even 8 or 10, and the RAF has 100 Tempest, we will still be here screaming numbers are too small.
The MIC meanwhile is laughing all the way to the bank.
The UK (and the rest of ENATO) might actually be capable of acquiring and maintaining a reasonably robust conventional capability w/ a defence budget of 2.5% of GDP. Acquiring and maintaining an additional nuclear deterrent w/ the same budget, w/out continual, substantial, conventional capability compromises, is very probably a fiscal impossibility. The US is struggling to maintain capabilities w/ a 3+% of GDP budget. Reasonably certain that somewhere w/in HMG bureaucracy, realistic requirements budget estimates exist. It would be an invaluable service to the country, if real estimates were officially published, or even leaked to credible press organization(s). Democracy has at least an opportunity to function, when the public is informed of the whole truth re matters of state.
Problem is due to the vagaries of the US political system and an undeniable movement towards isolationism ENATO can no longer rely on the USA to provide strategic assets like nuclear. At the end of the day strategic assets like nuclear and space are more important for defence than tactical assets.
Can’t disagree with you M8, but as the U.K. made a conscious decision in the early 60’s to sacrifice conventional to pay for CASD at any cost then sorry but we are stuffed.
All Mr Public (or semi literate politicians) sees is are 4 Nuclear Submarines and can’t understand why the entire bill is so astronomically high. It’s a bit like a spear the tiny pointy bit will kill you, but behind it is huge muscly, well trained fed and equipped human who eventually needs replacing.
Part of the issue right now is we have reshafted our spear twice, but 3rd time round but the Spearman is knackered, old, needs burying and replacing all at the same time.
New Maintenance facilities, modernised accommodation, new warheads, massive investment to modernise the 60’s production facilities and after 65 years of ducking the issue we are starting to actually safely dispose of the old ones. We just need a long term secure storage facility 🤷🏼♂️
And some muppet decided it all comes out of the Defence Budget, so yes not much left and right now we are pretty well at the Peak of the cost curve and it then it should start to ease back a bit. The one nice thing is the external AUKUS investment may just make the next SSN/SSBN cheaper to build.
Which is why I asked yesterday about any new orders for conventional weapons this decade, and I think you now know why it’s pretty well not happening ! The only short term solution isn’t to cut CASD as it’s too far down the line and we rely on it too much and most of the costs still. Have to be paid. The answer is to boost the budget to a certain amount or 3% of GDP (whichever is large sets), for say 5 years then you can bring it back down a bit each year.
By then the annual drag on the budget will be reducing.
IMHO what’s really made this one worse is that post Vanguard when we should have renewed a lot of the normal conventional kit, 2 things happened they reduced spending OA (Peace dividend) and got stuck in the Sandbox (diverted what was left).
No Politician will make decision to boost spending so ……. Just keep buggering on !
Good summation of why it cost allot to run CASD. However bang for buck it’s the most cost effective. You could have 100 divisions but if you have no nuclear weapons you will last 5 minutes against. Russia. We spend £60 billion a year so £40 billion over a 30 year build and operate period is small potatoes.
When we look at other weapon systems costs like typhoon we don’t factor in life time weapons, fuel, airbase costs etc.
CASD and SSN’s also go hand in hand and are our two main strategic capabilities.
More progress should be made to plan for the dismantling of ALL of the neuclear hulks that are currently littering our dockyards
After 60 years of inactivity it is now actually being done at Rosyth and Devonport, so 🤞🏻 they should get cracking through them. The missing bit is a secure, long term storage site, the Fins have shown the world how it can be done and at a reasonable cost.
It just needs the political will power.
Eskmeals was the suggested site I recall.
The procurement and maintenance of the Stategic deterrent should be in a seperate pot to the conventional armed forces ( I include attack boats in that category).
That is how it was before we had the accounting games of Cameron Osborne to hide the fact we were spending far less than the stated 2%.
Starmer states of our unwavering support for Ukraine. Something I fully agree with but it should not be taken out of the MoD budget.
And yes we need to character on year progression to 3%. I suggest the foreign aid budget is a good target until such times as the economy can support it,
The foreign aid budget is all but gone. First cut to 0.5% and most the money being sent to Ukraine or being used to house asylum seekers in the UK.