The Core Production Capability programme, tasked with delivering safe nuclear reactor cores for the UK’s submarine fleet, remains under pressure as highlighted in the latest Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) Annual Report.
Maintaining its Red rating, the programme faces critical challenges in achieving key milestones crucial to sustaining the Continuous At Sea Deterrent (CASD).
According to the report, the programme is fundamental to providing the Royal Navy with the capability to propel the Dreadnought-class submarines and a “modern, safe, and sovereign capability to manufacture further cores” for a future fleet of attack submarines. This capability is also essential for fulfilling the UK’s commitments under the AUKUS defence partnership.
The IPA flagged ongoing delays, stating: “Ongoing challenges associated with achieving the required delivery date for the first Dreadnought submarine nuclear core and the importance of that milestone to sustaining the Continuous at Sea Deterrent.”
The programme is working closely with suppliers to address risks, ensuring core delivery aligns with progress on Dreadnought Boat 1, while also finalising the last reactor core for the Astute-class submarines.
Despite these challenges, the programme’s end date remains set for April 30, 2028, though this timeline is likely to shift. As stated in the report, “This will need to be revised to reflect scope changes later this year as a result of core requirements for AUKUS, [and] the revised scope will likely be approved in mid-2024.”
The cost of the programme has risen significantly, with its Whole Life Cost (WLC) increasing from £3.77 billion to £4.05 billion. This rise is attributed to “inflation cost increases”, which reflect the broader financial pressures on defence projects.
The project remains under scrutiny due to its strategic importance to the Royal Navy and its broader defence obligations. By providing “safe nuclear reactor cores to meet the Royal Navy’s submarine programme, now and for the long term,” the programme supports the sustainability of the UK’s submarine fleet and ensures readiness for future challenges.
However, meeting its objectives requires overcoming significant hurdles, including aligning manufacturing timelines with operational requirements and managing risks related to the Dreadnought programme.
The programme is among several initiatives that highlight the complexities of delivering large-scale defence infrastructure projects. The IPA has reiterated that Red ratings indicate severe delivery risks, requiring significant intervention to ensure successful outcomes.
The Core Production Capability programme’s success is critical not only for the CASD but also for the UK’s defence commitments under AUKUS, particularly as it transitions to a “flexible and adaptable attack submarine fleet.”
Understanding Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) Ratings
The Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) ratings provide an evaluation of the likelihood of a project meeting its objectives in terms of time, cost, and scope. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority uses these ratings to identify challenges and provide recommendations for improvement. The ratings are categorized as follows:
- Green: A Green rating indicates that the project is on track to deliver successfully, with minimal risks identified. Any issues are well understood and manageable within the existing plans.
- Amber: An Amber rating signifies that while successful delivery is feasible, there are significant issues that require focused management attention. These challenges could pose risks to the project’s timeline, budget, or objectives if not addressed effectively.
- Red: A Red rating reflects serious concerns about the project’s ability to meet its objectives. Immediate corrective action is needed to address fundamental issues, as the project is unlikely to succeed without significant changes or interventions.
These ratings offer a snapshot of project performance and help ensure that potential issues are identified and mitigated early, improving the likelihood of successful delivery.
Well it’s good to see we excel at somethings (late programs and over budget). It’s not like you need to be a nuclear physicist! OK bad example but this program has been on going for not years but decades. It’s time to get a grip.
What does this mean for the in service dates for the Dreadnought and SSN-Aukus class subs.
It will not effect CASD schedule, it does reflect the size of the task, concerns and how much it costs to do a task when investment has been starved for decades.
The programme is in a bit of a mess, not helped by very poor organisation at Barrow. A client of mine supplies to programme and informed them that they must be running low on the product they provide. They were told no, but then just days later were phoned asking for a large delivery immediately. They manufacture to order so could only supply on a 30 day basis, with due impact on the build schedule.
That is one item from one supplier. Who knows how bad it really is.
Ummm…err…perhaps it would be somewhat easier to adhere to published schedules if everyone utilized the same calendar…”This will need to be revised to reflect scope changes later this year as a result of core requirements for AUKUS, [and] the revised scope will likely be approved in mid-2024.” 🤔😳🙃😉
Of course, this could be the traditionally understated British manner of announcing a perfected time machine developed under the auspices of AUKUS…but rather doubt it. Nonetheless, have every confidence that you Brits will “muddle through,” would wish for same level of confidence re Uncle Sugar’s current endeavors. 🤞
Yes due to the vital importance of the provision of cores for the PWR3 it is a cause for concern, always has been as it’s a single point of failure and that isn’t going to change.
However it’s an inevitable consequence of what happens when Governments just fundamentally understand how industry works and how they effect. If you look at just about every part of the industry it’s all in the same boat, BAe at Barrow, Babcock at Devonport / Rosyth, Capenhurst, AWRE all vital but all struggling to overcome 35 years of neglect.
The fundamental issue is the result of short sighted, here today and in the Lords tomorrow, protected by the OSA Politicians and Officials made decisions to
Delay, cancel, ignore, fudge, make do and mend and extend everything until they are on their knees.
Then reality sets in, time is pressing and the Penny drops that the entire industry from 1 end of the process to the other needs renewing, expanding and regenerating. It all has to be funded and carried out en masse and ASAP, because we left the key decisions in a drawer for a couple of decades.
RR here on Raynesway is a building site, they are literally throwing money at it all and the pace of change is very impressive, but it means there are issues caused by trying to do everything at the same time.
On the other hand the recruitment and training of the expanded workforce is ongoing, the contracts have been awarded and building is ongoing so it will get there. One happy unforeseen complication is the requirement to be to double the capacity to produce sufficient reactors / cores etc etc so AUKUS can happen.
It’s interesting to see it all going on and consider how the normal hurdles to planning have all been nixed and things just now happen PDQ. There was piling going on during COVID on land still owned by Network Rail (they have their own property management company), their planned new Logistics Warehouses suddenly becomes the site for RRs new Multi Storey Carpark, flood defences all renewed and improved.
I’m just waiting for the new bridge that has to go over the Midland Mainline gets announced !
And whilst this is all going on, deliveries accompanied by MOD Plod still go of up to Barrow. So go figure if the job is getting done 😉
Line 3 should be “Fundamentally don’t understand” . (what happened to being able to Edit 😡).
If I recall correctly wasn’t there a multi-year delay due to the requirement to provide a second replacement PWR2 core for Vanguard?