The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that Project Astraea, the UK’s new sovereign nuclear warhead, is progressing as part of the Strategic Defence Review 2025 programme.

In a written parliamentary response, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said that “funding for the Astraea programme is included within the £15 billion investment in the sovereign nuclear warhead programme this Parliament,” which also covers sustaining the existing Mk4A warhead and modernising infrastructure at the Atomic Weapons Establishment.

Pollard added that he was withholding the projected cost of Astraea “for the purpose of safeguarding our national security.”

Project Astraea, designated A21/Mk7, s being designed, developed, and manufactured in the UK by the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which was nationalised in 2021. It will replace the current Holbrook warhead used on Trident II D5 missiles carried by the Vanguard-class submarines and their Dreadnought-class successors.

The system is being developed in coordination with the US W93 programme, sharing certain non-nuclear components such as the Mk7 aeroshell under established treaty frameworks to ensure continued compatibility with the Trident system.

The Strategic Defence Review 2025 stated that the sovereign warhead programme will support around 9,000 jobs across the Defence Nuclear Enterprise. Astraea is expected to enter service in the 2030s, when the Holbrook warhead reaches the end of its operational life.

According to official documents, Astraea will incorporate improved safety and performance measures, including insensitive high explosives and technologies developed through the UK–US Joint Technology Demonstrator. It will also be the first British nuclear warhead fielded without live nuclear testing, in line with the UK’s obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

Lisa West
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.

29 COMMENTS

  1. Keir would never agree to it, but Nigel might. Drill a deep hole in South Georgia & do a single full power shot. Huge hoo-ha for a few weeks, but as long as there were no follow up shots, it would soon be forgotten.

  2. ‘Nationalised’ in this case refers to switching from being a government owned and managed organisation to a government owned, privately managed organisation (1993) and then back to a government owned and managed organisation again. What the endless reorganising achieves is open to debate. It did of course create contractual headaches regarding the employment status of the staff.

  3. mankind is an evil breed spending its life looking for more ways to destroy itself still it gives us time something to do.

    • Absolutely. The whole issue of true nuclear “defence” has been covered up for decades and largely spun by the big US arms manufacturers. Those truly in the know have conducted full blown war games with all the armed services and civil defences including the NHS, Fire and Ambulance services and Police, councils and others.
      They found that it was the initial decision of which targets to strike and subsequent targets. Probably nothing new in that, except the reviews afterwards discovered that few if not none of the non nuclear countries were attacked with nuclear weapons.
      The reasons were clear. If you are a nuclear nation, and the situation arises where an exchange takes place, you cannot waste valuable and limited missiles on countries who do not possess nuclear weapons, it would be madness.
      It would be the same in effect of being involved in a street fight with several people, and attacking a person who is on the other side of the road and minding their own business.

      The last thing a nuclear nation wants is to run out of nuclear weapons. Unlike WWI & WW2, there will be no factories making more nuclear bombs, and even if there was, the war itself would be over before replacements could be produced.
      In previous war games the death tolls on both sides have been truly appalling, and those left alive would find “life” a terrible situation. Very little in the way of health treatment, contaminated water and food and a system of leave you alone to die in pain, sickness and fear.
      In short the only people to benefit from this madness is the manufacturers and their shareholders, knowing that the use of such weapons of horror will never be used.

    • Absolutely. The whole issue of true nuclear “defence” has been covered up for decades and largely spun by the big US arms manufacturers. Those truly in the know have conducted full blown war games with all the armed services and civil defences including the NHS, Fire and Ambulance services and Police, councils and others.
      They found that it was the initial decision of which targets to strike and subsequent targets. Probably nothing new in that, except the reviews afterwards discovered that few if not none of the non nuclear countries were attacked with nuclear weapons.
      The reasons were clear. If you are a nuclear nation, and the situation arises where an exchange takes place, you cannot waste valuable and limited missiles on countries who do not possess nuclear weapons, it would be madness.
      It would be the same in effect of being involved in a street fight with several people, and attacking a person who is on the other side of the road and minding their own business.

      The last thing a nuclear nation wants is to run out of nuclear weapons. Unlike WWI & WW2, there will be no factories making more nuclear bombs, and even if there was, the war itself would be over before replacements could be produced.
      In previous war games the death tolls on both sides have been truly appalling, and those left alive would find “life” a terrible situation. Very little in the way of health treatment, contaminated water and food and a system of leave you alone to die in pain, sickness and fear.
      In short the only people to benefit from this madness is the manufacturers and their shareholders, knowing that the use of such weapons of horror will never be used.

      • Yet when Poland got its freedom & published the old Warsaw Pact nuclear war plan, the Russians only planned to drop nukes on those Western European nations that lacked their own nukes. The Russian plan avoided dropping any nukes on Britain or France, as they knew they could retaliate.

      • Not a lot of point giving them up, like Ukraine did. You don’t need dubious stories of secret wargames and greedy manufacturers to see how Russia has treated them. You just read a newspaper.

  4. mankind is an evil breed spending its life looking for more ways to destroy itself still it gives us time something to do. stuff the u. s the less we have to do with the arrogant, gun obsessed, racist,, nation the better.

  5. If there is going to be no real life exploding of said munition then lets hope the lad’s have got their maths right. It would be a shame to fire one in anger simply for it to fizzle over Moscow

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here