The Ministry of Defence has awarded £3.95 billion of funding to BAE Systems for the next phase of the UK’s next-generation nuclear-powered attack submarine programme, known as SSN-AUKUS.
SSN-AUKUS will be the largest, most powerful and most advanced attack submarine the Royal Navy has ever operated and will eventually replace the Astute class, which BAE Systems builds at its site in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria.
BAE Systems say:
“The funding follows the AUKUS announcement in March by the leaders of Australia, the UK and the United States. This will eventually see Australia and the UK operate SSN-AUKUS submarines, which will be based on the UK’s next generation design, incorporating technology from all three nations, including cutting-edge US submarine technologies.
Having started early design work in 2021, the £3.95bn funding will cover development work to 2028, enabling BAE Systems to move into the detailed design phase of the programme and begin to procure long-lead items. Manufacture will start towards the end of the decade with the first SSN-AUKUS boat due to be delivered in the late 2030s. The award will also fund significant infrastructure investment at BAE Systems’ site in Barrow-in-Furness, investment in its supply chain and recruitment of a more than 5,000 people.”
Grant Shapps, Defence Secretary, said:
“This multi-billion-pound investment in the AUKUS submarine programme will help deliver the long term hunter-killer submarine capabilities the UK needs to maintain our strategic advantage and secure our leading place in a contested global order. I’m committed to backing our defence industry, because it’s only with the mission critical support of businesses like BAE Systems that the UK can develop the advanced equipment our Armed Forces need to defend the British people in a more dangerous world.”
Charles Woodburn, BAE Systems’ Chief Executive, said:
“We’re incredibly proud of our role in the delivery of this vitally important, tri-nation submarine programme. This funding reinforces the Government’s support to our UK submarine enterprise and allows us to mature the design, and invest in critical skills and infrastructure to support our long-term national security.”
More than 15 years before one of these are even operational, I’ll be either dead or drawing a pension. So not going to give this much thought. Shapps announces it at the Tory conference like it is an immediate response solution to the uncertain world of now, it means nothing until the day they are operational.
On the bright side, Shapps days are probably already numbered i.e. when you need the PM & ForSec to explain what the Dep PM & DefSec actually meant.
Yep, and it’s all Shapps’s fault obviously. The government has no doubt been waiting for him, nothing to do with Australia or the U.S. This constant harping of a man one month in the job is pathetic. He may prove to be rubbish but if he turns out to be good Defence Secretary you’re going to look awfully silly.
Happy to look silly, it’s called an opinion. If I’m wrong no problem, won’t be the first time. In his previous role he made some bad decisions that affected my industry, I hope he proves better in this role.
Fair enough. I run a business as well so I hope you weren’t too badly affected.
I think it is fairly certain (given his track record) that you will look totally fine… This deal is likely to have been agreed by Ben Wallace and Shapps is just taking the credit. Shapps has not quite had enough time to destroy it all yet.
See my reply to ABC…🙂
Well this is where the defence budget goes. Nuclear boats are not cheap. They do provide a special capability.
So this funding will take the program up to ordering units?
I had hoped for a speeding up of the submarine programs. No budget increases most likely means no increases in anything.
I do wonder with hiring 5000 staff statement. If this was all new staff then some increases would be happening. It perhaps includes all the staff numbers that already work there basically meaning BAE can keep them in post.
Great news. These boats are needed.
Australia needs 8 and they cant wait. RN needs 12 to 15. that’s a lot of boats and absolutely vital the programme moves ahead at pace, achieves the economy of scale and demonstrates a caste iron commitment to see it through to its conclusion. We have to stop the on/off dithering and exquisite kit being ordered in penny packet numbers.
I’m still thinking it’s 15 total. 5-8 for Australia and 7-10 for U.K.
Unlikely. Australia will get Virginias first and I can imagine US wanting to keep its toehold.
More likely to be 4-5 before they are out of date or to hard to support -crew ( as has happened with Collins type)
Correct. Naysayers note, Poland, Japan, and most others do not have this capability or a defence industry which supports such a niche capability to support.
We spend on SSN and SSBN or spend those many billions on more Tanks, Jets, Frigates, men, helicopters, and so in.
What do we choose?
I choose this for its strategic implications as to what it gives the RN.
£4 BILL – the story headline confusingly say $4 bill- is something like 2% of the UK defence budget in next 4 years.
Its a worry if that sort of spending means tanks jet and frigates cant be afforded as well
But again should it be in the Defence Budget?
If it is a strategic ‘never to be used deterent ‘ asset that takes a dispraportionate and maybe even unsustainable amount of money from a decreasing budget (real terms) therefore impacting our standard capabilities- which are what will be actually fighting in any conflict then at some point surely it will become a noose around our own necks.
I agree 100% with you. The nuclear deterrent capital replacement costs, from AWE infrastructure to the boats, is the biggest Elephant in the room with defence.
Operational and running costs are fine, as that is a RN affair.
They way I look at it is would the navy buy a nuclear deterrent from their equipment budget if given the choice? I think no. They would rather have 8 more SSNs/12 escorts/ carrier air wing and so on.
So that makes it a government decision that strategically benefits the U.K. therefore not a defence budget item.
Good thing is when the budgets already at the 2% floor there won’t be future cuts. We still spend $60 billion a year which is a lot of money in anyones book. If the MOD knows the budget it can plan.
One of Sunaks more idiotic moves when he was Chancellor was resisting a long term financial settlement for MoD. Johnson intervened and got a longer deal sorted, apparently.
Jim, we spend far more on debt interest. 2% on this type of kit is nothing. It needs to be 3%, or a big cut in what the government wants the Armed Forces to do.
Spot on you just hit it on the head. UK debt is the absolute killer to any uplift in Defence expenditure or anything else for that matter. This year it is over £120 billion but will fall rapidly next year, previous idiotic chancellors decided to borrow money with interest tied to just above the RPI.
Which is the real reason they need to get inflation back down.
How will it fall rapidly unexpectedly year? Is it due to borrowing rates? I thought the government are still borrowing more as they spend more money than they take in?
The talks of tax cuts just seem bonkers just now while the budget is still overspending. The old trickle down nonsense perhaps is being flogged like an old horse.
Yes it’s all down to the way our debt is structured compared to other countries. For over 20 years the U.K. enjoyed some of the lowest inflation rates in the G20, typically less than 2%. So our Chancellor’s issued bonds based on the RPI + 1% which meant they could borrow at very low interest rates. Just 4 years ago we were spending roughly £30 billion a year on interest which was quite manageable. Unfortunately 3 things happened, COVID (furlough was money borrowed), Russia invaded Ukraine and energy costs went through the roof(the energy help from the Government was more… Read more »
Thanks for the explanation. The public sector pay just drags on. It could be sorted out but no it just keeps on going. Anything under inflation is effectively a pay cut. I understand why workers are unhappy with that. It’s not the first year they have had an under inflation pay offer. Most have been taking a pay cut for years now. What really runs salt in the wound is the MPs salaries and high ranking civil servants rates of increase. To make it fair everyone that gets wages paid by the government should be getting the same rate of… Read more »
Hopefully this funding will be the final pump priming before construction work is awarded. I’m hoping the programme is ready to begin construction in 2028 with a 3-4 year delivery schedule and IOC/ in service date meaning 2031-2032. Then pricing and cost becomes crucial- we know Australia want and need at least 8 boats, the RN needs 12-15- therefore unit price has to be <£3 billion each. Ideally <£2 billion each if possible with economies of scale. Aukus is absolutely vital to returning combat power to the RN and crucially enough SSNs to perform the required taskings, refit/ reserve, training,… Read more »
I would forget about ideas that we will get 12-15 of these boats until we see official requirements. And more importantly, the manning of the submarine service would have to be considerably larger, which is very difficult to achieve.
Hi Mr Bell,
I share your hopes, but I think 6 – 7 years for the lead boat would still be a good result. Remember the delays to HMS Audacious, and she was an Astute boat with upgrade?
Cheers CR
CR, Sorry, some portion of this article does not quite compute. Understand that significant additional funds will be required for detailed design, purchase of long lead equipment for class and new site infrastructure. But 5,000 additional employees at Barrow? Obviously, additional engineering staff will expedite rhe design process, but that would typically be in the hundreds, not necessarily thousands. Astute class completed by 2026. Dreadnought class well underway and reportedly on schedule. Apprentice/journeyman skilled trade workers brought in to prepare for accelerated and larger production of SSN AUKUS? Noted that article did not specifically state 5,000 additional personnel. Alternatively, recruitment… Read more »
The problem with bringing in skilled / journeymen personnel is that they simply don’t exist ! We are recruiting 100’s of extra Apprentices to uplift the workforce and it isn’t just BAe it’s right across the supply chain. Essentially we have to double every single part of the supply chains ability to produce hence 5000 extra bods.
And if you think we have problems the USN wants to uplift it’s force structure from 55/14 to 66/12 in 17 years so production has to increase 250% PDQ.
Agreed, have read estimates that US yards need to recruit an additional 20K workforce in the skilled trades, as well as receive larger than currently funded infrastructure investment. This would seem to be a nearly perfect scenario in which a transnational bidding war for talent could erupt. Presumably collective management is addressing issue. 🤞
On the initial release from our government they indicated their intention to double the UK’s SSN fleet with up to 15 boats. Plus they will have to create up to 8 reactor compartments for Australia. To do that they need to double Barrow so 5,000 additional workers is likely what’s needed. We are still awaiting government review on SSN numbers.
Understand that the Australian purchase requires an increase in personnel at RR in Derby, however, does that also translate into a similar increase for BAES at Barrow? 🤔
Some because they will need to build and install the reactor compartment but most of the increase at barrow should be for more UK boats.
UKDJ article specifically discusses 5K for Barrow. Other articles have stated 5K across BAES, RR and Babcock. Eventually, details will be clarified.
This will just be 5,000 in the design and long lead items. Reactor production, steel, thousands of naval architects turning the outline design into final construction blueprints.
As I understand it Derby will do the powerplants for all the boats, so a big increase. Barrow may have a smaller increase depending on how many boat the UK gets.
👍
Hi Mr Bell, The schedule on this project is a bit unusual in that the build schedule isn’t driven by costs to the same extent as T26, T31 or Astute. It’s being driven by the customer requirement which is 8 for Australia and 7+ for the RN and the uplift in manufacturing capacity required to fulfil those. Monkey spanner mentions an extra 5000 staff, but that isn’t just BAe but across the entire supply chain. The reason for the pace of production is dictated by the rate at which the components can be manufactured and this programme requires an uplift… Read more »
The money allocated for next 4 years , isnt for building boats. They are currently building Dreadnoughts.
Development of the design when BAE is involved is ridiculously expensive but cant be avoided
Australia wont need its first boat till late 2030s-early 2040s as its getting used virginias
The reason it is ridiculously expensive is not down to BAe it’s down to the Politicians. It costs £X to design a ship and that cost is spread over the number built. So in the case of the Astutes it was £X/12, then £X/8 and then £X/7. The design cost is fixed it’s building too few that makes it comparatively expensive. You just need to look at the T26 costs from Batch1 to Batch2 to see how that works. The really great thing about the SSN(R)/AUKUS is that it will be £X/15 minimum which actually makes an 8/10 RN buy… Read more »
At the height of our naval building prowess we only ever built capital ships in batches of 3 to 6. It’s just not possible to build SSN in greater numbers. Even the USA can’t do it with all the money in the world.
Jim it is perfectly possible that the U.K. could triple its SSN numbers and still build SSBN’s. But it would require even more investment at Barrow, Sheffield and here in Derby etc etc to boost the supply chain. Also a further increase in recruitment / training and apprentices and lots more sailors. The US is struggling to get back up to the capacity to build it had in the Cold War due to the peace dividend. They are in the horrid position of trying to replace the Los Angeles and Ohio boats at the same time. There is probably only… Read more »
No it is not possible unless that is a war mobilisation of sorts and finding engineers – including nuclear ones in US and Commonwealth, maybe even France.
Sorry but it is perfectly doable and the uplift in facilities and extra staff that’s going on now provides the means to do so. What limits it is the AUKUS boats and political will power. The UK delivered 23 SSN/SSBN in 28 years (1963 – 1991), then 4 SSBN in 6 (1993 – 1999). We then took an 11 year gap before Astute was delivered so do the Math and all of that was done without efficient ways of working such as 24/7 shifts. The Astutes were delivered at a painfully slow pace due to a number of reasons, but… Read more »
Read this you may find it interesting.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/discover/2023/rr-submarines-to-create-jobs-and-expand-site-in-derby.aspx
It depends how you define build ? If you mean steel for the hulls being cut then no they aren’t building yet.
But if you read the article this phase is finalising the design and ordering “long-lead items” as some have to be ordered well in advance of actual assembly.
Reactors take years to build, but as they will use the existing PWR3 it’s prudent to carry on and ramp up the build volume. Hence the new buildings in Derby and the new Apprentice training centre of excellence.
It’s not just expensive due to BAE. Take 1000 ship/part designers at an average of £50k a year, each using £50k worth of equipment, electricity etc.
then take that and x10 for 10,000 employees.
One way of making costs lower is duel technologies so they can be sold for other uses.
Nuclear submarines is an expensive but vital business.
At a build rate of 1 every 5 years it will take 50 years to build 10, 75 years to build 15. So technically there may be 15 bought. Just not all in service at the same time.
Hopefully a faster build rate than that happens as SSNs are currently the one weapons system everyone fears.
Its certainly very achievable to increase the build rate MS. We were producing the S & T boats at an average rate of one every 2 1/2 years back in the 70’s/80’s.
We are pouring four billions into a programme that has no fixed end date. “The late 2030s” my backside! For this amount of money I want to hear the month it will roll off the production line. Ideally June 2037 or sooner. I also want to know the name of the programme manager who will ensure it meets that date. The person who gets £50m tax free if it meets that date or who gets consigned to retire in a Bognor bedsit if it doesn’t. This is the joint-second highest priority defence programme the UK has, well ahead of Ajax,… Read more »
Sorry but you have Tempest and AUKUS the wrong way round. If Tempest project folds we can buy OTS from US or Europe but AUKUS ! There is no fall back buy, it simply has to work.
AUKUS is the absolute priority, as you say tempest is a nice to have but we already paid to be a joint development partner on F35 and if we need to replace Typhoon with a manned aircraft we can easily do that with F35. SSN’s are our big bazooka, it’s the main thing we can bring to the western alliance that almost no one else can. It’s also the main asset we can send to the pacific quickly under the poles with out major support bases in the region.
For me they are equal. If Tempest fails, fighter manufacturing in this country goes with it. Possibly for good. The most likely cause of failure is government cancellation, precisely because we can buy from the US. AUKUS is unlikey to fail outright, but it could be delayed past our ability to sustain the Astutes. If we must, the fallback for AUKUS would be AIP subs from Japan, and we go non-nuclear to fill the attack sub capability dip. You might rightly say that AIP subs are nowhere near as useful as nuclear, but we are going through a capability dip… Read more »
It’s highly probable tempest will be the last manned fighter ever created so loosing the capability to make manned fighters is not the end of the world.
Buying F35A as manned component while BAE builds a UCAV may be optimal from an industrial stand point.
Jon, who says we can buy the US 6th Gen fighter? Why weren’t we in that programme for NGAD? The US Congress legislated against it selling the F22 due to the advanced technology. Relying on being able to purchase anything of that ilk from the US or FCAS is not only dangerous, it’s fool hardy.
I never meant we could buy USAF NGAD. We couldn’t afford that even if they sold it to us. I meant we could just buy more F-35s for the next 50 years. Not something I want to see, but it’s an argument that could be used to close down Tempest by a future UK government.
Jim AUKUS is not and never will be the absolute priority in U.K defence. It is number 2 and that is largely down to the Political importance it has due to US/Australian involvement. Since 1969 the single overarching, cancel everything else to pay for it if necessary, priority has been the U.K. CASD capability. At present we are replacing the existing Vanguards with Dreadnoughts and simultaneously increasing the number of warheads. I’m more than slightly biased when it comes to UK SSBN and SSN, but other than the SSBN you are right about the ability of a modern SSN especially… Read more »
For me they are equal. If Tempest fails, fighter manufacturing in this country goes with it. Possibly for good. The most likely cause of failure is government cancellation, precisely because we can buy from the US. AUKUS is unlikey to fail outright, but it could be delayed past our ability to sustain the Astutes. If we must, the fallback for AUKUS would be AIP subs from Japan, and we go non-nuclear to fill the attack sub capability dip. You might rightly say that AIP subs are nowhere near as useful as nuclear, but we are going through a capability dip… Read more »
Yet more boats for the royal navy, when will they understand that is boots on the ground with effective armour and artillery to support those troops, lessons must be learnt from the current conflict in Ukraine who funnily enough have no real navy, so what do we plan to purchase, aircraft carriers without aircraft, more frigates and now submarines, is clearly evident to me that we have the wrong people incharge of the armed forces, is time for the army to take charge for the next 10 years to address the medium term spending plans of the mod and to… Read more »
Mmm let’s see we are an Island that is 100% dependant on Sea Trade to feed ourselves. So I guess the last 1000 years of U.K. defence strategy is wrong.
We are an island race and just like Japan that governs our expenditure.
Its odd that the best Secretary of Defence we have had in decades was an Army man and he got it.
and yet here we are sending troops to the Ukraine and to the Balkans – again.
Yep and I think the Army needs to be either a bit bigger or we need to increase the size of the TA/Reserves. But we need a bigger Navy and Airforce more because of where we are.
It’s funny that some folks look at the Ukraine and say the lesson to be learnt is we need a much bigger Army.
The real lesson is that countries shouldn’t disarm when there are lunatics still in this world.
Would Putin have tried anything if Ukraine was still a nuclear power ?
Would Putin have tried anything if Ukraine was still a nuclear power ? Not sure I follow your logic – The Nuclear deterent is – as far as I understand it – ostensibly to stop others from going Nuclear for fear of similar retribution Therefore having Nuclear weapons shoud not deter anyopne from using conventional forces to attack another country. I’m sure if Russia invaded us (for example) we would not use Nuclear weapons unless he did therefore it wouldnt be a consideration. I’m cannot suggest Ukraine would follow that same response of course as I don’t know , but… Read more »
And yet, it is the defence the PRC use for things like the Three Gorges Dam, that would become prime targets if they invaded a country that could hit them.
Boots on the ground did what in the last two decades? where are you putting these boots on the ground with massed artillery in a fight with China?
If Russia is attacking us it won’t be armoured divisions poring through Poland it will be submarines in the Atlantic.
Will you mass your artillery in Shetland to stop them?
Our needs are not remotely similar to Ukraine’s, we’re an island with good relations with every nearby country, Ukraine shares a 2000km border with their enemy. Are we expecting the French to invade through the channel tunnel?
The army should be lowest priority of the three, they wouldn’t have any meaningful role to play in defending the UK from attack. It takes years to build an air force, decades to build a navy, but you could build a half decent infantry in a year.
Every time we need a big army 1914 or 1939 that’s exactly what we did. Ukraine just did it as well.
The army didn’t win the battle of Britain or stop U-boats from raiding ships, they had their role to play but it was the RAF and navy who kept the home island safe.
True but hardly the whole picture. Whilst the navy and air force enabled the process, the defeat of Germany was achieved by land armies in both world wars. We have carriers as part of expeditionary capability, decided on by the 1997 defence review and retained in every subsequent review.To deliver this, we need well equipped ground ground forces of sufficient size. If all we want to do is defend the UK, we could have a very different force mix and assets. No carriers or LPDs, no fleet tankers or FSS, no SSNs( conventional subs good enough). Instead, lots of air… Read more »
WIth the discussions about the extra 5,000 people to be recruited and some people struggling to understand the size of that number (as am I) I’m wondering what type of shift pattern Barrow runs right now. Might this seemingly very large recruitment campaign indicate an extension of working hours, maybe even to 24/7 working, to accommodate the volume of building that is going to need to be done when Barrow is presumably going to be working on Dreadnaught, UK AUKUS and RAN reactor compartments possibly simultaneously? If 24/7 is considered crazy I will note as a keen SpaceX Starship watcher… Read more »
5000 recruits it means with families and the support expansion necessary that there will be need 7000-10000 more apartments.
Western world is absolutely not culturally equipped to that change today.
100 years ago would be okay
Get used to it because it is happening and right now. The investment to uplift in infrastructure and recruitment / training is happening right now and houses are being built.
Central Government sets the Housing Targets for each individual council and they adjust them as required. Then the developers get involved and the councils bend over backwards to accommodate them.
“Manufacture will start towards the end of the decade with the first Aukus boat due to be delivered in the late 2030s.” So if there are no unforseen delays in the programme, 10 years to manufacture the first boat after another 7 years of design work.How different is this boat going to be from Astute that it requires such an extended timescale? If it is judged that we need a larger SSN fleet because of the deteriorating international situation, do we not need them now, rather than in 17 years time.
It will be completely different design from Astute, it’s based on dreadnaught design in the way astute was based on vanguard.
IT’s dreadnaught production holding it off not design work but they won’t want to mature a design until closer to production time.
It will be more like 5 years to take the basic design into final construction blueprints and order the items that normally take 7-8 years to produce like reactors and stockpiles of specialist steels so they will be ready when the actual construction is in progress. They will then be laid down around Q4 2027/Q1 2028 and construction of hulls will take about 4-5 years if they are going fast rather than purposely dragging their heels like they do on the Astutes to keep the workforce employed with likely up to an extra couple years on the first in class… Read more »
4 Billion… 4 Billion pound notes for ‘development work up to 2028’. At which point, they will probably then get further zillions, to bring their cunning plan to fruition.
So nothing that the owners/taxpayers of this country, will get to see for many many years yet.
If I took a huge amount of money from anyone, to spend years in development with nothing to show for it… Is it just me, or does anyone else find this obscene beyond words?