In a recent report, experts discuss the necessity for the Royal Navy to expand and modernise its submarine fleet to maintain its strategic edge.
The report, ‘A More Lethal Royal Navy: Sharpening Britain’s Naval Power‘ by William Freer and Dr. Emma Salisbury, outlines the current state of the Royal Navy’s submarine fleet and provides key recommendations to enhance its capabilities.
Nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) are designed for anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare, and carrying cruise missiles to attack land targets. Modern SSNs are known for their stealth, running quietly and remaining submerged for extended periods without surfacing.
The report highlights the strategic importance of regular submarine patrols: “Regular submarine patrols contribute considerably to deterrence, as an adversary fleet cannot be sure of its ability to operate unchallenged within a patrolled area.” This was exemplified during the Falklands War when the entire Argentine fleet returned to port following the sinking of the light cruiser General Belgrano by HMS Conqueror, an SSN.
The Royal Navy’s SSN fleet currently consists of five Astute class submarines, with two more expected, and one Trafalgar class submarine, which has been upgraded to extend its service life through to 2025.
Both classes are equipped with Tomahawk Block IV land-attack cruise missiles and Spearfish heavy torpedoes. The report notes, “The Tomahawks will be upgraded to the Block V version over the next couple of years to extend their striking range and provide more dynamic targeting capabilities.”
The Astute class will be replaced by a new class of SSNs under the AUKUS programme, a collaborative effort with Australia and the United States. The exact number of SSN-AUKUS submarines for the Royal Navy has not been finalised, with suggestions ranging from seven to twelve.
Recommendations
Additional Dreadnought Class Submarine
The report recommends procuring at least one additional Dreadnought class submarine to mitigate potential delays in the AUKUS programme. “This fifth vessel can be operated as a conventionally armed nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSGN) designed to carry a large payload of strike missiles,” the report states. This would enhance the Royal Navy’s conventionally armed submarine force and provide a backup for the SSBN fleet.
Increase SSN-AUKUS Fleet
The report urges the Royal Navy to order twelve SSN-AUKUS submarines. “Order 12 SSN-AUKUS boats and ensure their design has significant land-attack and anti-ship missile capability, including vertical launching systems (VLS),” it recommends. The integration of VLS would amplify the firepower of British submarines, enabling them to launch a greater number of strikes and potentially serve as a platform for future Hypersonic Cruise Missiles (HCMs).
Ensuring Capability Continuity
The report stresses the importance of avoiding a capability gap between the retirement of the Astute class and the introduction of the SSN-AUKUS class. “Care should be taken to ensure that there is no capability gap between the retirement of the Astute class and the entry into service of the AUKUS class,” it advises.
Collaboration and Workforce Maintenance
To support the submarine industry and maintain a skilled workforce, the report highlights the need to keep the industry active. “This would keep the submarine industry’s workforce active, abating the risk of delays to the AUKUS programme from the need to rebuild the workforce,” it explains.
We aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters at the UK Defence Journal. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
To sign up for our newsletter, click here
Won’t happen. But if we did fund another Dreadnought, we’d be better off with a 5th SSBN, allowing two permanently on patrol and so doubling our firepower at sea.
Yes but you wouldn’t have to decide now. Order the 5th now and decide in future if you want an extra SSBN or SSGN.
If the Donald gets elected which looks likely now and the US moves towards fascism and or isolationism then 5 SSBN’s will be vital.
If not the 3 or 4 will be plenty and we can have 1 or 2 SSGN’s.
He was already in power once before and neither happened then so why would this happen this time?
When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
Because he said it this time.
You’re lost in the left wing media hysteria.
I guess we all are just imagining him calling Putin a genius for invading Ukraine, all his threats to withdraw from nato, all the classified documents taken to mar o lago.
Another #45 term means that the CCP can do whatever they want as NATO will be busy Supporting Ukraine without the USA. . The only NATO member to invoke Article 5 was the USA (9/11) when everyone responded. So clearly NATO membership is the USA national interest. Congress passed a law to prevent an Executive Order to exit NATO. . NATO says the 2010 spending agreement is on track so his alleged delinquency by Europe is just to trigger his supporters. Lies. . So it’s in the national interest of the free world and Ukraine that convicted fraudster and rapist… Read more »
He said he didn’t pay hush money to.
Well Donald can only be in power for 5 years at best. But if the US did walk away from European NATO I think you are right Europe would need to up its nuclear deterrence….I suspect you could see Europe abandoning the NPT…as when faced with Russias 1200 warheads and a ropy US..I could see even Germany deciding it needed a deterrent as well as Poland….As well as the UK and France upping deliverable warheads.
So you don’t even listen to Deep32, or GB or anyone else ! The absolute bare minimum number required to operate 1 SSBN as a CASD is 4 and that is a stretch and has been since 1967 when Polaris came online. And if you don’t believe me just look at the state of a Vanguard after having to do a double deployment !
I was unaware of the need to consult Deep32 or GB. Have they conducted an extensive study on the need for 3 boats with a fourth providing a spare, if so please share.
No but HMG the done a number of studies on the viability of different options for our nuclear deterrence and these are summarised in the briefing papers for the different parts of parliaments decision making on the deterrent…it’s literally the most pulled apart and studied part of our defence…from the type of deterrent, to number of subs, type of delivery systems, number of missile bodies and number of warheads 2006 study reviewed all the options..land, sea sub surface, sea surface air…sea sub surface was actually the through life cost cheapest option. 2013 debate on the future of trident 2016 decision… Read more »
Spot on, I seem to remember a Rand report from the naughties I read, it was commissioned by MOD and focussed on the Astute class. But it ended up doing a point by point analysis of the entire Naval Nuclear Industry.
Absolute minimum of SSBN was 4 (5 ideal) and 6 SSN (more would be better).
Sounds odd but it had to be expansive due to industry stability, continuity and the small matter of RN Tasking.
Interestingly I looked at the review of other forces required for supporting the CASD and it was
2 SSNs
1 frigate
6 patrol ASW fix wing
5 merlin
4 mine warfare platforms
so it also takes quite a chunk of conventional forces as well…
A report from 40 years ago then
Nope I’ve dug it out and this one was 2011.
Rand corporation are MODs go to analysts and they have done more recent ones regarding Dreadnought and AUKUS. Try Googling to see if they are in the public domain.
Right, which I why I’m advocating 5 with one or two configured for SSGN role. The report didn’t say you needed 4 for operations, 4 was to provide additional operating margins in case of mishap.
4 x ssbn’s are fine when there are brand new. But as history has shown ( Polaris & trident) as they get older it becomes very difficult to have at least one on patrol at all times for a normal patrol period of approximately 100 days. Just recently 200 day patrols have been the norm !!!!!.
You’d have to decide now so you can create the system to make it an SSGN. It would be a significant modification.
It wouldn’t. The Ohio’s became SSGN very easily.
With a significant amount of money and a unique control system.
I’m concerned that you actually believe what Trump says. 😀
Correct !
argument better put if saying 5th nuclear bomber sub can be produced at GOOD value price. 5 subs gives option of 2nd sub deployed with conventional cruise missiles at heightened crisis.
No it doesn’t they are not mix and match, it requires a massive refit of just about everything from Ballistic to Conventional. Only time it has been done is when the USN due to START conditions either scrapped 4 Ohio class SSBN or converted them.
Have you built a dreadnaught class SSBN before then? How familiar are you with the CMC?
You make sweeping statements all the time but offer nothing to back it up.
Have you? Presumably not or you wouldn’t call it ‘Dreadnaught’.
It is not mix and match.
No and wouldn’t claim to do so as no single person does. The last person who could probably be tagged as being in charge of just about every detail of an RN SSBN programme was probably Sir Rowland Baker. Polaris !
I was just one of the 000’s of bods involved in one part of the myriad complexity of the supply chain that goes into producing bits for them.
I can see the argument why, you essentially have a spare that could be converted back to a boomer if required at relatively short notice by swapping out the vertical tubes and it improves the logistics chain. On the other hand the AUKUS will likely share a lot in common with the Dreadnought, and each will likely have two or four Virginia Payload Tubes carrying 7 VLS missiles each (in 2×2 blocks these are known as the Common Missile Compartment that will house Trident on Dreadnought/Columbia class). So they will have plenty of VLS capacity in the AUKUS fleet already.
Read my reply above !
The common missile compartment and the Virginia payload module are totally different.
They are the same: on the Virginia a single 87” large diameter silo that the same Multiple All-up Round Canisters (MACS) that are used on the Ohio SSGN’s are installed in like revolver drums replacing individual VLS silos previously used. The common missile compartment groups the 87” silos in a 2×2 block with three on the Dreadnought and four on the Columbia.
In 2×2 blocks missile tubes are known as quad packs, not the Common Missile Compartment
Seems like a platinum plated solution. Surely better to build strike capabilities into all future subs & escorts rather than chosing to stick them all on an extra horrendeously expensive Dreadnaughts.
Not that an SSGN based on a dreadnought is a bad idea, but one is platform not really worth while, 2 would be better as you have the likelihood of always having one available…and a capability that is only available 50% of the time is not a capability it’s a gamble.
it would certainly make for a very effective conventional deterrent…being able to hit with 100+ tomahawk type cruise missiles in one attack from one platform..is a significant deterrent and would be a suitable answer to someone doing something we really really don’t like.
Unfortunately to do so with either of the potential tier 1 powers you probably need to be in their littoral. Big submarine launching 100 plus TLAM within 200 miles of an enemy is a very expensive suicide mission.
TLAM range is 1000miles+ that means even to strike 200 miles inland your SSGN can be 800miles away…for a carrier strike to attack the same target would require a strike fighter to undertake a round trip of 2000miles..
infact a TLAM armed SSGN could happily sit safely in the Norwegian Sea under nato aircover and hit any number of strategic targets in Russia.
Yep it could but only on targets near the coast such as the Bases of the Russian Northern Fleet. Just like the US, Russia and China keep as many as their strategic sites as far inland as possible. So hit those you would need to get a lot closer and that makes it dangerous. A lot of our strategic sites are as far away from the sea as possible in our small island, mind you that was when He111 were the possible threat. TBH the whole idea is nonsensical, no one at MOD would be mad enough to try and… Read more »
No the reality of our nations budget is that any money really should be shoved into as many SSNs as possible…I know it’s not possible due to no reactor being ordered but an extra astute was really what was needed and when we build the new SSN we should be looking to get as close to 12 as possible…anything that distracts is problematic.
If we’re global the makes sense but if it’s Europe the either land base TLAM or air launched makes more sense. Dreadnoughts and expensive platform to patrol around the NA and Europe. US army can now launch TLAM from a container truck which could be hidden in Norwegian forests under NATO aircover. Far cheaper.
The place where a Dreadnought with TLAM is going to be most effective is a Pacific war launching high numbers of missiles from places we can’t easily deploy to.
Yes it would make an addition to the deterrent on china…not sure if it would be worth the cost for that…probably better of just investing in more SSNs.
Quite simply the most uniformed bit of garbage I have read in ages. It seems some group is issuing reports that are either stating the blooming obvious such as we need more of X, Y & Z or fantasy land. Let’s start with the idea of a capability gap between Astute going out of service and SSN(A) entering it. Why would that happen ? We can refuel them if required just like the Vanguards. Then let’s consider the whole idea of building a 5th Dreadnought, yes I love the idea as that’s 5 is the optimum minimum number required for… Read more »
Most importantly there won’t be a capability gap between Astute and SSN-A because this time we’ve actually started the programme early enough to deliver something before the previous class are all in the scrapper.
I’m willing to bet we refuel the Astutes anyway. Firstly it is a sensible way to increase overall numbers if the intended RN force level is to rise above 7. Secondly we need to provide at least double the numbers of Reactors, Cores and a lot of other machinery so that RAN can get their SSN(A). Thirdly the great worry about AUKUS is what Mr Tango will think about leasing / selling 3/4 US Virginia boats to Australia if he gets in. Fact is the US isn’t building sufficient boats to meet their own force level, and that doesn’t square… Read more »
They’re not designed to be refuelled and we won’t have the facilities to refuel them. So I’ll bet they won’t.
Not sure why Trump and the Virginias would have any impact on the UK SSN-A boats. They’ll remain on the planned schedule that existed before AUKUS.
That’s the problem the US are not managing to produce sufficient Virginias for that planned schedule. Since FY11 the President has requested and Congress has authorised 2 Virginias pa, but all bar in 1 year industry has only managed 1.2 boats pa. If you just look at the publicly available list of Virginia boats and compare the dates of boats being ordered and delivered it’s getting longer and longer. It started off at 6 years when ordering only 1 pa but now it’s up to 8. So at present more old legacy boats are going OOS than coming in to… Read more »
Astute isn’t Vanguard. Vanguard had PWR2 with a different core that needed refuelling originally. Core H doesn’t, which is what Astute has. The Trump issue doesn’t impact the UK, what the US decide to do wrt leasing Virginias to Aus is an issue for those two nations. The RN SSN-As will be built to the UK programme. I agree the US want more boats that they’re currently going to have but that won’t impact the UK starting our SSN-As. While AUKUS will be a great collaboration, it’s important to remember each nation is building to their own schedule. The US’s… Read more »
A single sub is pointless, we’d need at least 3, ideally 4, to make sure the capability is available when needed.
The question then becomes, for the money it would cost to make another 3 or 4 dreadnoughts, why not increases the SSN-A order instead.
If we assume the minimum Royal Navy order would be 7 (here’s hoping), why not use any extra money to aim for 12 instead?
Aren’t the Aus/UK SSNR-A subs being equipped with 2*7 round VLS and the US subs have 3 VLS? Isn’t that enough if you have a decent quantity of these subs and as a priority rather than focusing on getting a singular arsenal sub?
The SSN(A) design is still in the final concept stage, but as the US isn’t developing future TLAM for anything other than VLS it’s a safe bet.
The most certain thing is it will be as wide as a Dreadnought (over 11m) in order to accommodate a PWR3 and highly likely to have Electric drive rather than traditional gearing.
So yes I’d bet on 2 x 7 for us and no idea about the US, their Virginia Block V is slowing things down quite a lot.
SSN-A is out of the concept phase and is in the detailed design phase.
Interesting thanks for that !
Is the current tube launched TLAM not being manufactured any more? I hope the RN Astute fleet has adequate stocks or can access US stocks of these until SSNR is built. There’s what, 10+ years to go still before that? No FC/ASW talk of being launch able from a sub either though the RN is upping its land attack ability from ship MK41 platforms to complement the Astute’s.
No idea if they are still being produced, but I’d guess they are as the USN still need them. It’s just no more development on new iterations for tube launch.
As for FC/ASW the French will need something to replace McDN or whatever silly acronym they use for their sub launched Storm Shadow derivative.
The only damn nation that gets away with changing everyone else’s acronyms. NATO to OTAN.😡
Given the time needed to build a Dreadnought class submarine and when available yard space and work force will be freed up at Barrow even if ordered this year we would not see this in service till 2040 to 2045. Plus we also need the space and work force for the Astute replacement. Better to increase the strike power through more Type 31 frigates given the speed of their builds and when they could start production would be available early to mid 2030’s.
Would we all like to see an extra bomber, yes, would we all like to see 12 new SSN-A’s, yes. By the way boomer is the Americian term bomber is the RN term for the SSBN’s. What I do not want to see is 12 SSN-A’s stretched with 2-4 Virginia Payload Modules (VPM). What would be a good concept would be 8-9 SSN-A’s in the pure hunter killer role and 4 stretched SSN-A’s with 4 VPM. To be honest 5 stretched SSN-A’s would be better. Technically they would be the same subs one just has a VPM section inserted. Now… Read more »
or you could add more VLS to the Type 31s for the fraction of the price of a SSN.
Would it be that easy to modify Dreadnaught for cruise missiles anyway?
It’s one of the best ideas I’ve seen in a long time for the Royal Navy. In fact it makes so much logical sense I am convinced it will never happen.