The Astute-class submarine programme remains on track to deliver all seven boats despite ongoing challenges, as highlighted in the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) Annual Report 2023-24.
The programme, overseen by the Ministry of Defence (MOD), plays a critical role in sustaining the nation’s submarine manufacturing capability while meeting rigorous performance, cost, and time parameters.
Key Achievements and Challenges
The report confirms that Boats 1 to 5 have already been delivered to the Royal Navy, with Boats 6 and 7 at advanced stages of construction at the BAE Systems shipyard. The project continues to make steady progress, achieving most of its build and commissioning milestones for the financial year.
However, the IPA’s Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) remains at Amber, signaling significant risks that require close management. Two primary concerns are highlighted:
- Potential delays due to productivity rates: Current performance levels at the shipyard may impact timelines.
- In-water phase delays for Boat 6: Challenges in this critical stage could affect the broader schedule.
Financial Considerations
The programme’s Whole Life Cost (WLC) increased from £10.827 billion in 2022/23 to £11.256 billion in 2023/24, primarily due to revised cost estimates accounting for inflation and the delivery pace at the shipyard. Additionally, a budget variance exceeding 5% reflects increased supplier pay settlements and rates, underscoring the rising financial pressures on defence infrastructure projects.
Despite these challenges, the programme remains committed to delivering a class of submarines that are integral to national security.
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.
FWIW Astute class at an average cost of £1.6 billion per boat the Japanese Navy buys approx.. three + conventional subs so it has 22 operational and 2 training, so is one nuclear sub with its additional capabilities sub worth three conventional subs, also think remember reported recently not one of the RN SSN was operational, question which is the better operationally, SSN capability or SSK numbers?
We need SSNs for the type of deployments we do, accompanying a CSG and so on, also very unlikely SSKs would be as cheap for us as they are for Japan
Good question though much of the non operational status was due to lack of land side availability though it’s true the heightened pressure on those facilities was to some degree unexpected sub problems we have become aware of, of late. That said such problems could also apply to conventional subs, the Canadians had considerable problems early on with the Upholders we sold them though they have subsequently done a de ent job.
It’s really important to remember that nuclear boats and electric boats are completely different things and not used in the same way.. 4 electric boats are not the equivalent of 1 nuclear boat it’s like comparing apples and pears.
Electric boats are
local area denial platforms.. they are essentially regional only with a very slow transit speed and underwater endurance.. maybe 6-8knots cruising for 2 weeks.
SSNs are global strategically Mobile 📱 platforms and can cruise at 25-30knots for 6 months..
Electric boats as per their area denial role are essentially defensive in nature. They have to snorkel regularly which means they cannot operate safely under enemy air and radar cover. They are narrow and small platforms which means they have limited shots and very limited sensors ( the size of a submarine is profoundly influential in regards to how good its sensors are… aperture size matters. They are slow so they struggle to move to engage other vessels and if they are driven off they cannot re-engage easily.
Nuclear boats are offensive in nature, they can easily penetrate into air and radar cover, they are large and so carry a lot of weapons, they have the largest and best sensors so can find targets at long distances, they are very fast so they can move to catch and attack any target. If they are driven off they have the speed and endurance to keep coming back.
A Battleship/Frigate contrast, if you will.
my lad is on the ambush and he says it is not a happy place to be and that’s the boat itself is unpopular and evidence of penny pinching is everywhere from the BandQ electric bulbs and the domestic plug sockets he is looking forward to leaving it next month
Good lord..! With crew shortages especially on the subs, skimping on crew facilities such as bulbs and sockets is bonkers… First refit that sort of stuff should be put right. Save pennies lose millions, and if enough experienced crew leave early it could be millions over the lifetime of the project.
Cheers CR
Ambush hasn’t been anywhere for years has it? No wonder they’re unhappy
Comments are interesting. Although we do LRP, do we have to, to defend the UK?
We really must rein in our ambitions and accept our status; that means SSKs, which are affordable in numbers and not SSNs which are unaffordable and cost a fortune to turn into into razor blades.
TheBraidneed to give their heads a wobble.
The hard truth is that with our current commitments and level of ambition we should have something like 8-10 SSN’s for East of Suez and the CSG as well as 4-6 SSK for littoral in the Med/home waters and training.
We already have SSNs and want to maintain an SSBN fleet so SSNs are the more logical one to keep around for economies of scale
I read with despair the limited submarine fleet we now have.
In my time in “boats” during the 70s and 80s, we had SM1 in Gosport, SM2 in Devonport and SM3 and SM10 in Faslane.
We had four bombers, six fleet hunter killers, with the S boats coming on stream, plus over 20 P and O SSKs.
I would argue then we had more “boats” than we have more operational surface fleet.
This is a sad state of affairs for the Royal Navy.
I got it when people look at the cost of an SSN vs an AIP SSK and say why do we.need SSN’s, well as others have said it’s chalk and cheese to compare their capabilities.
I’ll spin my answer and it’s nothing to do with Braid / Shiny toys it’s simply about the capability needed to design, build and support an SSBN based Nuclear deterrent.
Put simply if you don’t build SSN’s then you can’t sustain the industrial capability to build SSBN’s, they have a symbiotic relationship,
The reason we have a problem with the cost, production and support of our SSN’s is as to why there are B&Q bulbs in the new boats. As Mr Reeve’s said it’s
Penny pinching but on massive scale. The decision to not order the Astutes to follow the Vanguards cost Billions to regenerate the industry and then they ordered insufficient numbers to ensure an efficient and cost effective build cycle.
I’m willing to bet that if they had funded 12 Astutes to follow on from Vanguards then the overall cost would be about the same.
It’s one of the reasons AUKUS may just give us the opportunity to be able to afford more SSN(A) than we have at present (my bet is in 10), the boost to industry to provide extra equipment and parts gives the £ magic of “economies of scale”.
And there are 2 separate Governments regulating the build, so it’s way more difficult for UK treasury to carry out short sighted penny pinching.
This comment has nothing to do with subs in particular but I was just looking through a book and saw a photo of battleship row 7th December 1941…. All the eggs in one Basket… Now we have two carriers in one basket, all our subs in another, all our f35s in one and all our typhoons in two……. Doe anyone agree?