The Defence Investment Plan commits the UK to building up to twelve next-generation SSN-AUKUS attack submarines, the same boats Australia will build, with steel to be cut on the first at Barrow next year.
The plan committed the United Kingdom to building “up to 12 next-generation SSN-AUKUS” boats, nuclear-powered but conventionally armed, describing them as the same submarines Australia will also build and saying steel would be cut on the first of them next year.
The class, known in Britain as the SSN-A, will replace the Royal Navy’s seven Astute-class boats from the late 2030s and form the backbone of the country’s hunter-killer submarine force for decades to come.
The submarine sits at the heart of AUKUS, the security partnership between the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia under which the three nations are helping Australia acquire a nuclear-powered submarine fleet of its own, and the SSN-AUKUS design is based on the British successor to the Astute that has been adapted to take in American and Australian technology. Australia plans to build up to five of the same boats at Osborne in South Australia, having also arranged to buy three American Virginia-class submarines to bridge the gap until its own yard is running, which makes the design one of the most significant industrial undertakings the three countries have attempted together.
The British boats will be built by BAE Systems at Barrow-in-Furness, with the nuclear reactors made by Rolls-Royce at its Raynesway site in Derby, the same yards that build the Dreadnought ballistic-missile submarines and that are being expanded to cope with the workload, and the government is aiming in time to complete a new submarine roughly every eighteen months.
At its peak the programme is expected to sustain tens of thousands of jobs across the United Kingdom, and it forms one strand of a wider international approach in the plan that also takes in the £8.6 billion Global Combat Air Programme with Italy and Japan. Alongside the submarines, the plan said the United Kingdom would invest in weapons and sensors for underwater drones as what it called the signature project under the second pillar of AUKUS, the strand of the partnership concerned with advanced technologies such as autonomy, artificial intelligence and undersea systems rather than with the submarines themselves.
Nice to see it confirmed, 12 of these will be a formidable force in anyone’s book.
There are few positives from the DIP but this and GCAP really will be formidable assets for both the Navy and airforce, both make increases in lethality believable for their respective services.
If the Navy had have been funded fully to get these 12 SSN, T32 (realistically what the CCA is going to be), T83, MRSS as intended, plus the newly announced Naval Drones it would be in a very good place for the next couple of decades.
I expect when it comes down to it, funding is increased to 3.5% and requirements are put against capability T83 will be back, either the CCA will morph into it or if they’re already built funding will be made available at a later date for T83 to meet hypersonic defence needs. But the SSN-As have to be planned now so it’s good to see the commitment is holding.
I agree I don’t think we’ve seen the last of the T83.
Have French said anything about the replacement for the Suffren-class as that’s getting near the end of its build run. I wonder if they will end up increasing the number of subs they procure for the replacement, they generally seem to have the same amount of subs as the RN.
Suffren is still really new, as submarines go.
Very much so, I wonder if they will order more before the line closes. That said they already have some huge projects that are already unaffordable (PANG, FCAS successor) so maybe the budget won’t stretch that far
It’s only new because it was over 7 years late . It’s taken around 14/15 years from first steel to IOC for each boat . Its design dates from the same period as the Astute class .
We’ll see. This is a vast expense, I do wonder how the bill is being footed and whether it might be trimmed back considerably in future. If pigs fly and we do get 12, well okay – now that is a true global tier navy, no ifs no buts
I fear it will be 12 in total, so 7 for RN + 5 for RAN. I hope I am wrong and it is 12 RN, but I am not holding my breath,
I think our cynicism will be proven correct in future, but I desperately hope I am wrong
The MoD comment was a combined fleet of 20, 12 for us and 8 for the Aussies, so no it isn’t a joint number.
trouble understanding the urgency when Astute are still being built and there are so many other more urgent needs, such as properly fitting out T31, improving fleet operational rates, GBAD, fixing Ajax, etc…
HMS Astute is already 16 years old, and will be thirty by the time these new submarines are beginning to enter service.
It makes sense for the timeline.
The Astites were built so slowly HMS Astute is 17 years old approaching refueling and actually I would support scrapping her instead. Her design is so different from the other astutes due to changes that were made after the first boat. It would be cheaper and much better value to take her out of service and get on woth finishing the Deadnaughts and buildong Aukus boats.
Astute was never designed for a refuel.. the reactor had 25 years of life and no plan to refuel. So she will probably decommission mid 2030s
Hi Jonathan,
Surprisingly I’m being a bit quiet about this “Non” announcement a I have been down this pathway too often, saying “up to 12” is meaningless, it’s just a political statement made on a bit of paper by a transient unimportant person.
Astute or TB2 was to replace the 13 S & T classes so “up to 12 replacements” were announced, then 3 ordered out of just 8, then just 3 more were ordered and silence……. till finally the 7th was ordered.
As for the Astute “not being designed to be able to be refuelled” well that’s perfectly true as with a “H” core life of 25 years based on the average usage of the previous class it shouldn’t be necessary.
That last bit effects the need to refuel them and TBH non of the Astutes have had a hard life (that’s very much tongue in cheek).
However they use the same PWR2 as the Vanguards and a lot of that compartment design was just leveraged straight over due to commonality and costs.
FYI the Vanguards weren’t designed to be refuelled either (which is why it takes so long), but they have all gone through LOPR (some more than once) so never say never. As far as I’m aware the only country that actually designs their boats from scratch to be refuelled is France and that’s because they use LEU as fuel.
It would be more accurate to say the Astutes shouldn’t need a LOP(R) 🤔
TBH I’d bet it’s even more on the cards now due to the changed needs of RAN and if we do definitely commit to increase our fleet above 7.
US has pulled the plug on new Virginias for RAN, we are committed to deploying a boat to Australia and they need us to be resolute and supportive. IMHO the best way to do that is to plan a LOPR for some of the Astutes to extend their SL whilst AUKUS gets up and running and start to be delivered. That gives us extra mass sooner and it isn’t like we aren’t building the facilities to do precisely that.
Devonport is going through a huge upgrade to give us 2 Nuclear Licensed Dry docks so we will now have Dock 10 plus Dock 9 which is where LOP(R) are carried out, plus 3 Floating Drydocks were confirmed in the DIP for HMNB Clyde !
That’s rather a lot 🧐
In reality the 12 relates to what is needed to fill the hole between Warspite and HMS King George VI launching and the next SSBN design being laid down..
I think one very positive thing in the DIP is the nuclear submarine programme.. it’s very clear they are not going to let the disaster which was the vanguard and asute gap happen again.
Next year when the first steel is cut on the first SSN-AUKUS boat, Barrow will have no less than 6 nuclear boats under construction with 3 types being constructed concurrently.. and next year the design will Start on the dreadnought replacement.
So I honestly think what will dictate if we have 12 is maintenance of the present capability.. if barrow can keep building I think there is a good chance we will get 12.
Also our competetors are going full SSN production and in reality a load of Micky mouse sensor platforms are not going to worry Russia in the same way as 12 SSNs and 4 SSBNs full of nasty death will… I think most sensible people do get that.
I’m not sure we need to LOPR the Asutes to be honest.. for a couple of reasons..
1) I would not LOPR Asute.. everyone knows it’s a problem boat and essentially a class of one.. so it’s probably just best to bin it when it’s Effective Full Power Hours run over what’s safe to keep it commissioned.
2) as you say the Asutes have not been hard used compared to previous generations of SSNs or the poor vanguards.. there is really no reason why they cannot get 30 years out of the fuel in each core due to low EFPHs.
3) the slow build rate an delays on he last few Asutes mean they will pretty much be peers with the first SSN AUKUs boats
So in reality you could see the life’s without LOPR being needed
2040 6 Asute
2043 5 asute
2046 4 Asute
2050 3 Asutes
2052 2 Asutes
2055 1 Asutes
2059 last asute out the door…
So if barrow can get the the new SSN out for 2040 and then in 2044 it could move 8 boats.. produce one every 2 years by 2046 we should be at 4 new SSNs and 4 Asutes.. by 2050 it would be 3 Astutes and 6 new SSNs..for 9 and 2054 could see a high of 8 news SSNs and 2 Asutes..
scrap a £1.6 billion plus sub that isnt even finished? it’s a criminal waste of money
may as well sell/lease it to Australia while they build their subs
No scrap HMS Astute that’s 20 years old and would likely cost more to extend her life than building a new sub. I thought there was technically the possibility to refuel her but it looks like there’s only 5 years or so of life left anyway. So 5 years to build the Dreadnoughts. I doubt we can do it personally, but hopefully AUKUS hangs together and we’re not left without hunter killers.
This is cool. Question though. Will there be enough room for them to be tied up alongside the Astutes? Or will we just rent a space in a private dockyard in France or a Norwegian fjord?
i hear Australia has plenty of free space 😀
🤣🤣
From all accounts the one thing that does keep the Russians up in regards to our military are SSNs. The idea of the UK having 12 SSGNs is concerning to Russia. So as conventional deterrence goes it’s the best thing we can do..
Atlantic bastion is all lovely but its defensive in nature.. Russia more than anything takes hard power projection into account.. so its the new ballistic missile subs, new nuclear warheads, SSNs and long range effectors that matter.
Particularly as the AUKUS subs will have VLS.
Historically, Russia has relied mostly on it’s vast territory and dispersion to protect it’s industrial base, but look what Ukraine are achieving right now using some pretty Heath Robinson capabilities.
Up to Twelve SSGNs really do people really believe this?
More chance of getting a whale up my backside!
pucker up buttercup
‘Up to 12’, so no new announcement as we knew that before but at least they haven’t committed to cutting the numbers yet! I think this is the bare minimum needed for a credible Navy.
Exactly. “Up to 12” is not a confirmation of 12.
Four times as much investment in the underwater fleet as the surface fleet over the next four years £62bn vs £15.74bn
How many times has this been confirmed now?
Why do people keep falling for this tired old “up to” nonsense? “Up to” means precisely nothing. Up to 12 covers the entire range from 0 to 12 but the gullible fall for it time and time again. It’s not an accident that the phrase is so beloved by the advertising industry.
One concern. Still says ‘up to’. One boat would qualify… Now if they said ‘at least’ that would put a minimum number on it.