The UK’s nuclear deterrent programme reached another milestone on Monday as steel was cut for HMS King George VI, the fourth and final Dreadnought-class submarine.
The ceremony at BAE Systems in Barrow-in-Furness was led by Defence Secretary John Healey MP, marking the start of construction on a vessel expected to enter service in the early 2030s as part of the UK’s continuous at-sea deterrent.
“Submarine building is a vital UK industry, sustaining thousands of jobs and apprenticeships up and down the country, all while continuing to keep the country safe around the clock,” said Healey. “Barrow is an outstanding example of security and growth working hand-in-hand – adding a new attack submarine to the Royal Navy’s fleet, building the next generation of nuclear-armed submarines, and simultaneously supporting thousands of skilled local jobs and apprenticeships.”
The event coincided with the commissioning of HMS Agamemnon, the Royal Navy’s newest Astute-class attack submarine, by King Charles III. The King also formally conferred the title of Royal Port on Barrow, recognising the town’s role as the hub of UK submarine construction.
Chief of Defence Nuclear Madelaine McTernan CB described the cutting of steel as “a significant milestone marking positive progress in this extraordinary programme.” She added: “Delivering these submarines is a truly national endeavour with a vast UK supply chain, culminating in the build at the Royal Port of Barrow.”
Once complete, the four-boat Dreadnought fleet will replace the Vanguard-class submarines that currently provide the UK’s nuclear deterrent. Designed to carry Trident missiles, they will be the most advanced submarines ever operated by the Royal Navy.
The Ministry of Defence said Britain’s defence nuclear sector supports over 47,000 jobs nationwide, a figure projected to rise to 65,000 by 2030. Barrow alone now employs more than 13,500 people in submarine work, including around 1,800 apprentices and 500 graduates training at BAE’s Submarines Academy for Skills and Knowledge.
Charles Woodburn, Chief Executive of BAE Systems, said: “This is a proud day for Barrow and everyone involved in the wider UK submarine enterprise who are working collaboratively to deliver the Dreadnought and Astute class submarines.”
Hopefully we take the last chance and get one more Dreadnaught class before the SSN A build starts. If we are to get on to the expedited build program they envisage for the SSN A program then we should have a mature design soon with first steel being cut in two years from now.
That doesn’t seem likely.
Meanwhile we could easily get HMS Bommy mick Bomb face ordered and give ourselves and Europe a much better more flexible deterrent with the ability to have three European SSBN’s at sea permanently.
If Mad Vlad and Xi do something nice in the interim like dying of old age and the world suddenly becomes peaceful again we can easily convert the boat to an SSGN.
We cannot easily convert the boat to SSGN, it’s a totally different method of operation besides the fact we have no weapons to fill it
Soong see a new amphibious assault ship than another nuke
There is of cource the the small issue of the Damage to Achilles, noone is saying anything about but its odd that the 7th and final boat in a class is being delayed ! Achilles Heal time.
I would hav eloved them to order a 5th SSBN but its now pretty well out of the question and there seems to be one golden and unbreakable rule in UK Political and Indistrial thinking at present “The UK cannot be the fall guy for AUKUS pillar 1 failing”, there is just nothing more important than that !
AUKUS pillar 1 certainly seems to bother the CCP more than anything and it now appears even MAGA don’t want to f**k it up so I would certainly agree than we need to ensure the UK is not the one to drop the ball.
That being said I fully expect Australia to pull out long before they get any SSN A in their fleet. Their politics is even more fractious than ours and their media is even worse. It’s pretty clear the Rupert Murdoch media and the Australian left are dead set on killing AUKUS. That’s too powerful an alliance to keep in check over decades and all it takes it’s one Rishi Sunak style opportunist PM to come in to office for 5 minutes and cancel it much like HS2 in the UK.
Once cancelled it will be impossible to restart.
Hold on Jim, the Australian government will decide on the country’s defence not the media here. They’ve just made quite a commitment with getting the 11 Mogami’s and there’re regular statements by the PM and deputy PM/Defence minister on their commitment to defence, investment, alliances and ship and sub building including a recent announcement i believe to the upgrade of the Henderson shipyard in WA. Personally I’d like to see a mixed, SSN snd SSK fleet, one more littoral close regional and the SSN can go out further.
You obviously saw the shift from 2026 to 2028 for Achillies commissioning too! Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out a potential culprit for that delay does it!
Wouldn’t be at all surprised if that date slips further right either.
Good news, I do wonder if it’s a good to just crack on and build an extra 2 at the end of the production line and simply eqiup the commoner missile compartment with Cruise missiles.
1) it would give the RN two SSGNs, with significant abilities to provide a massive conventional deterrent, to complement the SSN fleet up to 9 boats
2) they could be shifted to ballistic missiles if the CASD needed upgrading to two boats out at a time.
3) they would make it harder for an enemy to track and attack the CASD boats as they would be essentially more targets to track
4) if for any reason the CASD is struggling ( say two boats get critical faults) they can be shifted to ballistic missile boats.
Essentially you get support for your SSN fleet quicker, a massive conventional deterrent and a more secure CASD with growth potential…sort of win win to be honest.
Given the allergy that this government have for buying defence equipment, so far, their record is abysmal, I won’t hold my breath on them finding the cash for 2 extra subs.
I’m one who remains sceptical the 12 SSN ever happen for the RN, despite ABCs regular explanations on the industrial groundwork being laid.
Sadly I agree with you.. the entire west apart from a couple of nations boarding Russia seem to be sleepwalking into a big problem ( and I include the U.S. on that).
Each Euro country should be setting aside 1% of gdp to pay uk, france & usa full development & build costs of their ssbn’s & probably ssn’s who protect them.
Ridiculous countries are sitting under a free umbrella with lovely health care & transport systems while we pay 200bn lifetime costs.
Australia, Japan, korea & any friendly democracy going is overdue being put in an ssn build program.
Again, for effect, ridiculous!
As for our cv’s v22 osprey aew & (c2 greyhound equivalent) intra-task ship resupply & inter theatre f135 engine resupply. QE & POW big enough for 2×3 ospreys each
The numbers just don’t justify the spend.
We do not under any circumstances want Ospreys, far better things to spend money on and the US would get rid of them if they could find an alternative. The best thing g about Ospreys is they learned an awful lot about how not to do things for Gen 2 hybrids.
You may have noticed that the UK, France and the USA have pretty small armies relative to their size while those countries that live under the free nuclear umbrella as you say tend to have large armies and conscription.
We all do our bit and the naval powers supply the nuclear strike capability that keeps us all safe while the continental countries supply the bulk of the men on the ground.
Not even remotely in the same ballpark on costs. The US, UK and France spend a combined 100bn a year on CASD. That doesn’t include any other nuclear forces.
A full up division of conscripts might run 300 million a year in a western country, max.
FYI The only Strategic Nuclear assets actually declared and assigned to NATO are the 4 UK SSBN’s, France has never joined us on that one and nor has the USA.
Good point, hard to see other European nations paying for someone else’s deterrent.
Well, this is part of the discussion between en France and poland: how much poland is willing to pay for nuclear ombrella?
No it’s not, France has made it very clear it has no desire to extend its deterrent and certainly not to Poland.
What was all the reported official chat about some months back? Russia certainly reacted to it.
It is; Macron Said clearly France is willing to broaden the nuclear umbrella but the condition is more missiles/means to be cofunded by the very countries it protect not by having less ressources to protect French territory. The polish Foreign Minister was on LCI few weeks ago and explained where the discussions are and that France should take into account the funds spent by poland on ground forces (funny interview the). Also, the rafales currently above poland are nuclear capable. So it is very much in motion.
Can’t past a link but many sources in French press.
This government has increased defence expenditure compared to the last administration and committed to 3.5% + 1.5.%. It all in the SDR mentioned up to 12 SSNs. Yes I will believe it when I see it but their track record is marginally better so far compared to the last lot.
Hi SD.
Have they, where? I understand that no new money was due until 2027.
3.5% plus 1.5% has been covered before and is full of as much as they can find to shove into it that does not include core spending on conventional forces. They might make hay over it, and Jim points out often enough that this is “allowed in NATO rules” but the fact remains it is a HUGE dose of smoke and mirrors.
Sunak also committed to this….in a future government, just like this lot “when conditions allow” into the 2030s.
Headline making nonsense with no basis in reality, or actual need to spend considerable extra sums now, but on anothers watch.
An old, old government trick.
12 SSN, yep, me too, believe it when I see it. I highly doubt it.
Maybe their record is marginally better, given the small time frame, maybe….lots of industrial stimulus at least, and I have my own views on that as to their true motives.
14 months on the job and just three months after their defence review, how much would you have expected them to buy yet?
What do you think Reform will do with defence defence spending?
Ahh, the Reform attack lines at what might or might not happen.
Jim, I would not worry, you think the establishment won’t try to do a dirty on them, and Nigel, first chance they get?
Whether the public notice, is another matter, many are sick to the back teeth with the Labour and Tory, me included.
I just hope that “doing a dirty on them” does not include Charlie Kirk style, where an oh so tolerant liberal killed another for political beliefs that they disagreed with.
As JK Rowling said recently.
‘If you want opponents dead, you’re not a liberal – you’re a terrorist’.
She said: ‘If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you’re illiberal.
‘If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you’re a fundamentalist.
‘If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you’re a totalitarian.
‘If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you’re a terrorist’.
Cheers.
What reform attack lines are you on about, is it not legitimate to ask what the defence policy is of the party currently polling number one and claiming to be the next British government?
Also what’s triggering you to rant that the British government or a political element of it might attempt an assassination of an MP. There is zero evidence to suggest such a thing has ever or will ever happen in the UK.
Hi Jim
No triggers from me.
The subject was Labour and their performance on defence so far, Reform had not even entered my mind!
Until you included them by mentioning them!
Agree, on assassination there is no evidence for that, an I hope it remains so. Though it would not surprise me one bit, judging that there were calls on Social Media in this country the other week for Farage to be killed, as Kirk was.
Interestingly, where was the police response to that?
Zilch.
No surprises there!
Well if your position is Labour is bad on defence then the automatic question is who is better?
There is zero chance of anyone else other than Labour or Reform being the next government.
I’m willing to give labour to the end of the year and see what they come up with but I certainly don’t believe any other party is exhibiting any better defence policy than them at present.
Wow, that means Trump is a illiberal, fundamentalist, totalitarian, terrorist…
She got it pretty much spot-on! 🤷🏻♂️
When a young mind grows up in a cult and you suddenly escape its clutches I would say it’s not the sudden enlightenment of ‘liberal’ thoughts that is the predominant cause of their deeply conflicted mindset that results in confused aggressive striking out, it’s the warped effects of that cult for the most part that’s the cause. It’s not clear what the nature of his upbringing was as yet but equally trying to blame his actions on his sudden jerk to apparent liberalism is naive at best. Let’s wait as Jimmy Kimmel was trying to point out before we jump to conclusions and exploit a tragic event to pre-conceived prejudiced conclusions. Why do I say this well my brother as a teen was both a Maoist and a Scientologist and when he decided earning big money was rather gratifying he overnight transformed into a rather distasteful dirty exploitative capitalist. Both, plus our troubled childhood (indeed to a great degree that was the instigator of his need for a ‘cause’ any cause) shaped his later actions which did not end well with highs and lows and psychological trauma. One thing is for sure don’t make guns easily available when minds are warped like that and realistic answers are in short supply. So let’s keep an open mind eh rather than blame whoever is wearing the wrong colour football shirt.
going from there website, apart from increasing spending t o2.5% of GDP and giving personal a pay rise and a justice bill and reforming procurement policy, not a lot
And that pay rise came from existing budget BTW! So just shuffling existing, cutting something else, and then Healey grandstanding at the Labour conference….
Oh yes, people noticed.
The points, I posted were from Reforms defence polices on there website.
Ah, thank you, my bad. That trad very much like Labour’s statements so far.
Hi Danielle, do you have a list that you could post of significant equipment (platforms only) across all three services either delivered or at least ordered by the current Government?
Hi Graham, I believe it would be a one line list, 12 F35A and 15 F35B ! However that was just the already scheduled and funded Tranche 2 F35 buy from the previous Spending plan (and they altered that from 27 F35B and saved 3/4 hundred million £ by doing so).
The big issue is both Governments since February 2022 have talked big and done virtually nothing so I think it’s 14 Archer SPG and a boost in missile orders.
We await the DIP which is supposed to be the physical equipment spending plan to follow the SDR, it will be sometime after 26/11/25 when “Rachel from accounts” has presented her sums.
So far all the money seems to have gone into industrial stimulus and future concept packages.. not actually delivering any hardware.. it’s just been a continuation of previous orders or commitments. So at present nothing.. but we have some foundation stones laid down which could be amazing but only if they actually move to orders in a timely way.
The most impactful
1) are Patria, which I think will be huge for mass around updating the armies AFVs.
2) The new 2,000 km precision deep strike capability, which could be a massive conventional deterrent to Russia.
3) nightfall tactical ballistic missile.. Im honestly not sure where this one fits, but I have a sneaking suspicion someone in HMG wants to develop a sovereign nuclear ballistic missile capability. I think that because of:
4) brakestop another 600km effector.. but any type that can be manufactured quickly..
5) 4 billion pound drone investment fund to move ( that is why tekever is building a new factory, they got a 19 million for new RAF AR3 drones and a commitment to buy a load for Ukraine.. )
6) 1 billion DEW fund to keep the lasers for T45 on track for 27.
7) 1 billion for the armies ASGAD digital networking and targeting system ( which has been tested with a first deployment).
Then there is the vague 6 billion for 7000 long range Weapons, which link to all the long range effector programs..
But as yet no heavy metal has been ordered
Hi J
While all these are announced and positive, no real hardware or orders for any placed AFAIK beyond a few lasers for an extortionate amount of money.
Agree on Patria. IF they end up ordering it, which I think is inevitable from what insiders have said, it will be massive for the army mass wise.
As long as they don’t fiddle with it too much.
The government is 14 months in and no new orders are due until the autumn defence investment plan which is due out shortly.
I think it will not be before the budget which is 26/11/25 !
Yes it all comes down to the heavy metal orders in the end
If we see firm orders for say
1) 1500-2000 Patria 6×6
2) 500 long range precision strike
3) 500 night fall
4)2000+ brake stop
5) a few thousand drones
We will be at a good starting point
My biggest worry is we seem to be creating the potential to buy a lot of strategic range land weapons but I cannot see any development of the structure or doctrine to use it.
Which is why for me it is all cobblers.
Yes I’m sort of getting to that point as well.. I will give the benefit of the doubt until we see the equipment plan.. then have a meltdown 😂
Hi Graham.
Third try at posting, my replies here are getting denied by a spam filter? Never seen this?
Any one else having this issue?
I tried to use the contact form to tell UKDJ that I was being blocked, and, that also fell foul of the spam block!
I don’t have a list I made, but 53 Jackal E, 14 Archer SPG, which may have actually been under the previous now, I forget, and 12 Sky Sabre launchers.
I do not include the second F35 tranche, as that was long funded and announced and this government fiddled with the type, and saved money, by switching 12 of them to A, which allowed Starmer to GRANDSTAND at the NATO conference. Where other ENATO nations are actually buying real equipment and spending real extra money, we talk, procrastinate, and warn others.
But…hey ho, unlike all of them bar France we have a nuclear deterrent to point to.
They’re not going to make major purchases until they publish the Defence Investment Plan, which will detail the new purchases.
Which makes sense if you think about it. 🤷🏻♂️
Here here, sir.
Soong see a new amphibious assault ship than another nuke. as for 12 New SSN starmer is odds on for yet another of his U URNS on that one .
This Boat has taken 13 years to Roll out of the Shed. Its not Commissioned by any stretch but has just had a Rollout moment.
I remember the Spanish Navy used to take as long as this in the ’50s and early ’60s to produce its 1930s style Destroyers.
Whoever is responsible for this risible effort should be ashamed. Besides we still are stripping one of the Astutes for spares.
Labour is a lot worse than you think. Have they ordered anything yet? All talk.
What about designing SSN-AUKUS to allow a hull modification for extra missiles? The most recent MoD images of dreadnought show the tubes not actually having that much of an impact on the hull shape, so if SSN-R had, say a quad pack of 4 VPM tubes as standard (making it not much longer than the Astutes, hopefully) then 2 or 3 later in the class could have a hull insert for 6 more and then be able to carry up to 70 tomahawk or 10 hypersonic missiles.
A tube doesn’t exist that can take both cruise missiles and Trident, so any conversion between the two would probably be more money than it is worth. Better to get SSN-R finished ASAP so the Dreadnought replacement can begin before we run into any trouble.
The US already wants this. UK and Aus do not, on cost grounds. The US is already turning the block 5 Virginia into a hybrid SSGN. The logic is you can’t always have an SSGN on station ready to respond, its better if all boats have some of the capability.
I honestly think one of the key ways the USN can counter the build up of the PLAN is with SSGN construction. Sitting back with plaforms that can sit in the second island chain and impact on the tiawan strait with 100+ cruise missiles without getting tangled with PLAN SSKs sitting in the first island chain will be pretty important in any Sino China war..
I think 9 SSBNs with 160 warheads each is perfectly adequate as a sub based second strike force.. that is 2-3 on patrol and 320-480 warheads…add in 300 minute men and 100 nuclear capable bombers you have a force that can easy kill China and Russia.. but in the end the US cannot use it’s nuclear weapons without dying as well.. so cut the 14 nuclear capable SSBNs to 9 and convert another 6 to SSGNs.. for a force of 10 that would immediately take the pressure off the shrinking SSN fleet and honestly think 6 more SSGNs with 700 cruise missiles that the US could use without risking nuclear death is a more reliable deterrent to China going to war that excessive numbers of SSBNs.
Hi Jonathan, Not often I say this but I disagree with you on this one ! The 4 present SSGN Ohios are a happy expedient as a result of the START treaty. They either converted the 4 boats or scrapped them, it was a sensible and cost effective solution to repurpose them and they are a hell of a big conventional stick. But are they really much of a threat to a peer one power with a layered missile defence system and hardened facilities ?
Despite their huge budget the truth is the US is really struggling to fund its Triad replacement, like everyone else they kicked the cans down the road whilst singing “Give peace a chance”, so they are cutting replacement numbers across the board.
The 12 Columbia class will replace 14 Ohios, in terms of deterrent thats down to 192 (16 x 12) missiles rather than 336 (24 x 14) that’s a massive cut in numbers. They spent a small fortune calculating the absolute minimum number of boats to support a 2 ocean SSBN fleet each with 3 at sea and that’s a credible 2nd strike force.
Besides which they each cost 2 to 2.5 times more than an SSN are huge, single purpose and not really a cost effective way to deliver conventional TLAM (unless you have free ones going spare).
It’s actually far better to distribute the TLAM throughout a fleet of (🤞🏻) 60 SSNs and it doesn’t impact their primary mission
which is to defend US SSBNs and hunt enemy ones.
This is where the west if it was really focused could be more effective, the west has 5 SSBNs on patrol in the Atlantic focused on Russia and 3 on patrol in the pacific focused on Russia and china. So it’s quite possible for the US, Uk and France to work as a 3 boat tripartite deterrent in that Atlantic which is plentiful.. because the U.S. still has 4 boats pointed at Russia as well as the UK boat and french boat… that is as much second strike as anyone needs…
So all in all the US could drop its Ohio fleet as it’s essentially doing that anyway with drop in future numbers of Columbia class and total missiles, as you noted.
For me that’s an opportunity.. use those excess ohios as SSGNs. Because if it had the ability to but 3 Ohio class SSGNs in the second island chain it gives the USN a strike capability of 350 tomahawks into the the strait of Taiwan and that is quite a deterrent.. Because china thinks it can target and remove most USN assets in the first island chain.. but it could do very little at preset ( and for about 5-10 years ) about some Ohio SSGN… it would cover the USN during its LA crisis period while its SSN fleet plummets to about 43 ( with 33% off those off sick) I would not suggest they do a new build that would be silly.. but new SSGNs from repurposed ohios to focus their deterrent towards Chinese actions instead of over egging MAD seems sensible… giving them a mass of sub surface launched cruise missiles until they get their SSN fleet numbers back up in about 2040.
Evening J,
Not sure where you got your info ref US SSBN numbers at sea from, but you are totally wrong fella.
The US currently has 6 SSBNs allocated to the Atlantic fleet and 8 to the Pacific fleet. Your 3 boats at sea in each ocean doesn’t actually work I’m afraid. I suspect that they actually have 3 at sea across both fleets, ie 1 in the Atlantic and 2 in the Pacific on any given day. I imagine if push comes to shove they would be able to put an extra one to sea in each ocean.
Blimey 14 boats for 3 on patrol, shows you how effective the RN is with 4.. you would imagine the larger number would give you greater efficiency.
Well, yes and no. 4 actually works OK, so long as you have all the support/infrastructure in place all the time.
I imagine that at any given period the US has 3 boats in various stages of refit, which leaves 11. So 4 at sea at ant time is probably just doable for a short period, 3 at sea is a better long term fit. Obviously all depends on how the US perceive the threat to themselves. Bearing in mind that those SSBNs are just a third of their nuclear deterrent triangle.
I may be wrong but I suspect that the SSN(A) will have 2 VPM per boat so 14 TLMs (or even its successor).
You obviously saw the shift from 2026 to 2028 for Achillies commissioning too! Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out a potential culprit for that delay does it!
Wouldn’t be at all surprised if that date slips further right either.
I’ve seen speculation anywhere between 2 and 4 (Navy Lookout seem to think 3 in a row behind the fin), but if it’s less then even more reason to have some of the boats built with a missile extension so that they can be used in the Pacific.
And if STRATUS can be integrated with submarine launch then that would be a massive bonus. I suppose surfacing to use them like normal vls is out of the question?
We don’t need them for the Pacific theatre, it’s not our AOOs. We would be better of building 12 boats to place the Astutes and fitting them and our ships with whatever replaces Tomahawk – FC/ASM or whatever its called now.
If our current stocks of Tomahawk (approx 60ish) are anything to go by, we wouldn’t have enough missiles to fit one converted SSBN out. Never mind anything for the rest of the fleet.
Does anyone know how long it normally takes before another hull is started?
14ft.
Dreadnaught first steel was cut in 2016.
So four bots in 9 years that’s roughly three years apart for each announcement of an SSBN.
First steel on SSN A needs to be cut in 2028 or we will end up with another gap.
Which is not very long TBH
In the U.K post Cold War there is no such thing as normal, it’s completely abnormal and 100% reliant upon the funding available and the timescale that is delivered over. To give you an example of that just take a look at the Astutes HMG funded the long lead items for boats 6 / 7 in 2012 ordered number 6 to start construction in 2013 but then delayed the contract for no 7 to 2018.
That was because they were dithering about ordering no 7 at all, what swung it was BAe, RR and the rest of the supply chain just told them that if they didn’t then the resulting gap in work would probably destroy the industry.
The cost of regenerating the industry after the Dreanought to Astute fiasco was £Billions and the resultant delays cost even more.
FYI Modern boats are larger and far more sophisticated than S / T class SSN which could be churned out pretty well 1 pa, so 18 months would be very good going !
>extra 2 at the end of the production line
Why? It seems a very costly and inefficient way of getting maybe 48 cruise missiles to sea in 20 years time. A Dreadnought takes 2.5 times more manhours to build than an Astute, costs a pile more to money to maintain and run, and even in a SSGN config is far less versatile than SSN AUKUS will be. Two extra Dreadnought’s would also push back delivery of the first RN AUKUS from the late 2030’s to the mid 2040’s, and reduce the buy from 12 to 7 boats – a significant loss of capability as the RN knows all too after painfully downsizing from 12 S/T’s to just 5 (eventually 7) A’s. And the delay would really annoy the Australian’s, who would then be faced with the enormous challenge of building the lead AUKUS submarine.
Serial production creates efficiency and speed, changing over to a new design takes a long time and the first boat always takes a few years more and takes an extra year or so to go through first in class trials.. so it’s likely the extra D class boats would come out before you would get your first Aukus SSN.
It would be 84 cruise missiles on a Conventional armed D class as each trident tube would likely fit 7 cruise missiles. So about twice the load of the new SSN.
It’s also the extras that matter we would have the security of 2 extra ballistic missile submarines, that would give huge advantages if the UK needed to change nuclear posture.
Even if its 84 cruise missiles (12 tubes x 6 missiles = 72), I struggle to find a more expensive way of getting those to sea
>it’s likely the extra D class boats would come out before you would get your first Aukus SSN.
Zero chance. You need to order long lead items such as the reactor at least 5 years before starting construction of the submarines hull. Also the Devonshire Dock Hall can only accommodate the assembly of the hulls of three submarines at a time. Lets optimistically assume that Valiant leaves the DDH in 2031/32 and her spot is taken by a hypothetical SSBN-13, Warspite follows in 2034 and is replaced by SSBN-14, and finally KG VI is replaced by the first RN AUKUS boat in 2036. Construction time for the Astute’s is 12+ years, even if that is somehow reduced to 8 years for the first SSN-A, the in-service date is still 2044.
More efficient if all AUKUS boats have SSGN capability. The Virginia payload module allows for 28 cruise missiles per boat. x12 that’s finally some magazine depth in that capability.
I’m glad someone realises why no sane Navy has ever built an SSBN solely to use it as an SSGN, not even China is that fiscally daft. I’d quite happily go for 10 SSN(A) with a couple of VPM each, massivly flexible and Ivan wouldn’t have just one direction to looking.
Hi Rodney, it’s the council on Geo strategy in their paper “ A more lethal Royal Navy: Sharpening Britain’s naval power” that suggested this as an a patch to manage issues with the RN their suggestion was 5-6 Dreadnoughts and 12 SSN-AUKUS. But there main concern was they considered the risk of delay in the SSN AUKUS design as significant and the mitigation for that was to build 1-2 more dreadnoughts armed SSGNs so derisking SSN AUKUS..
From my perspective an extra 1 is required as a minimum and it has nothing to do with more missiles
We should be launching a new dreadnought every 5 yrs to avoid asking service personnel to go on extended deployments in very old ships that do not aid in retention and are probably traceable now, thus losing their key method of defence (invisibility).
The costs lost in expensive Life Extension Programmes allied to lack of availability as the ships get older is doing nothing for Morale or force retention.
We need to have new ships rolling into the fleet every single year – this is doable with the right planning.
Politicians couldn’t hack 6 months under the waves in a rusting asset 5-10 yrs past its out of service date, yet expect others to do just that in awful working conditions.
of course if we did stick to the documented lifecycle – 4 would be fine – but we haven’t done that with any of the CASD ships yet, so 5 is the minimum imho
There are reasons we build an entire Class of SSBNs and then the next class of SSNs rather than space them out.
Money, size and technology.
Each modern RN SSBN class has been a generational change in capability which has then been leveraged into the following SSN class. So Vanguard introduced the PWR2 which then went into the Astutes, Dreadnought introduces the PWR3 and SSN(A) will use it as well. Doing that results in long production runs of components and lowers the cost overall, interrupting an SSN build cycle to build a much larger SSBN is just really inefficient and costly (which is why no one does it).
As for 5 SSBN that number has been the optimal one for both the RN and MN since the year dot When Polaris was started we were projecting to build 5 but when the Chancellor heard that they could get away with just 4 guess what happened.
As for the delays resulting in Lifex well it Historical and 100% Political and this one goes right back to John Major / Tony Blair who didn’t order the PWR2 Astutes to follow the Vanguards.
I understand your comment, but think capabilities have moved on with rockets that can land themselves being developed at rapid pace.
Whilst I am not advocating that speed I do think we schedule 2 SSNs and 1 SSBN every 5 years, minor improvements could be worked in as you go along and a major iteration could be planned if new technology made it possible for a step change.
Given current pace, they are almost bespoke as it is, 80% commonality between ships is good enough for me if it means we don’t have mass obsolescence of an entire class as I suspect we have now.
We should at least look at it and merge as many requirements as possible between the SSN and SSBN fleets to get economies of scale where possible. We have to make these things easier to work in, easier to maintain and crucially get them out of service on time.
I wouldn’t go on one of the current SSBNs. They are a Kursk waiting to happen to us..
I believe that SSNA will lean heavily on the Dreadnought design. Possibly in a broad brush sense, a cut down version of Dreadnought with 2-3 VPM for Tomahawk type missiles instead of the 12 x Trident tubes.
A smaller/cut down version will be instantly more manoeuvrable and faster then the SSBN.
Unfortunately the core life will be the same as for the Dreadnoughts, but, due to the way SSN/GNs operate, they won’t have a life as long as a SSBN.
I agree, they will use many of the same systems, why wouldn’t they tbf. Which for me reinforces having 2 production lines going full time.
SSBN 1 every 5 yrs
SSNA 1 every 2 yrs for UK, more if we need to build for other nations
Over a 25 yr life span that is 5 and 12.5 ships, hardly going to break the bank for the worlds 5th richest economy and its premier weapons system.
The cost will be more but not too much more as we deliberately slow builds down due to HMT inefficiency. BAES has shown that it can speed up and deliver, time to reward that with. Proper contract that allows them to reinvest in Barrow.
As a ex sundowner, I would be delighted if we had 5 SSBNs and some 10-12 SSGNs. Agree that the build rate/finances could work given the drive. Unfortunately don’t think it’s even a starter for 10. 4 SSBNs, then some 10-16 SSGNs depending on how many AUS decide to have. Personally I think that we will get at least 8 10 is good, 12 beyond expectations. If AUS go for 4-6 then marvellous. Believe that the PWR3 reactors are designed for a 40 year un refueled life.
If that’s the case then we could expect to see a follow on SSBN design on completion of however many SSNAs we build – XLUUVs notwithstanding.
Should say sundodger not sundowner.
I agree with your assessment and logic, realistically this could be the last set of manned submarines we build, although for something as critical as CASD I hope not.
I think there is potential here, not least if we also develop a SMR industry as well, that would surely bring reactor costs down and aukus really does help as well
Interestingly it seems the Chinese are moving away from that SSN run then SSBN run, that was what they did before Type 91 SSN, type 92 SSBN, type 93 SSN type 94 SSBN, type 93 A SSN, type 94A SSBN… type 93b SSN, but the new yard build has a seprate SSBN facility ( 4 bays ) and SSN facility (12 bays) with the older dual purpose bays still running ( 4 bays). All indications are they have moved on to simultaneously building the new type 95 SSN and type 95 SSBN… all the while still it seems build a serial production run of type 93B SSNs… I suppose when you have 20 bays and the biggest shipbuilding industry in the world you can build how you fancy.
The fact they have three nuclear boats types likely in serial production is interesting.. especially a many of the previous boats have each essentially been a 1 off ( it’s believed none of the T93As are the same).
How far along is Dreadnought?
She should be in the water in 2029 and in service around 2031
This must mean at the moment that there are four Dreadnoughts and an Astute all in build simultaneously and under one roof? That’s a whole lot of stuff going on and making sure the right bits and pieces go to the right sub. Jam packed at Barrow!
Yes and no. The Devonshire Dock Hall can only assemble three submarines concurrently. For the last six years one spot has been taken is taken by the final Astute – Achilles. Dreadnought has been in another since about late 2021, whilst Warspite has probably filled the last slot since late 2024. Equipment, material and hull sections for a submarine can be in storage around the Barrow yard for years (even a decade in the case of some Astute’s) before its assembly finally starts in the DDH.
If only they had ordered Ajax / Agincourt / Achilles in 2015 /16 certain events may have been avoided. And when you say “only assemble” that’s a bit tongue in cheek isn’t it ? The US may have 2 yards but last I heard HHI and Groton were only 2 aside 😜
Damn the DDH is impressive !
Yes and no. The Devonshire Dock Hall can only assemble three submarines concurrently. For the last six years one spot has been taken by the final Astute – Achilles. Dreadnought has been in another since about late 2021, whilst Warspite has probably filled the last slot since late 2024. Equipment, material and hull sections for a submarine can be in storage around the Barrow yard for years (even a decade in the case of some Astute’s) before its assembly finally starts in the DDH.
Let’s bring steel making for subs back to the UK.
Why?
We make steel for US and French subs, why should we not also buy steel from them?
How do you expect us to build all the grades required on our own if even the USA can’t do it?
Should we make all the microprocessors as well? How about the platinum catalysts in the electrolysis plant, surely we should make all that. What about the spun glass fibre in the optronics mast?
Why not? Better jobs than call centres or warehousing.
The USA can’t because it farmed out its manufacturing overseas. Its trying to reverse that trend sharpish.
We certainly don’t need to produce all the steel for the increasing drum beat of boats and ships being produced but if we could provide one more boat’s worth per year, same for the ships then we’d help off-set our balance of payments; improve resilience in the supply chain by having more near shore suppliers and possibly offset the cost of reshoring by increased competition.
As for platinum, possibly – we have known deposits and already have refining capacity so if the economic conditions tightened it might be worth it.
We already do manufacture microprocessors in Wales, its presently owned by Vishay of the USA. Moreover the trend is to try and bring fabrication near shore. The USA is pushing especially heavily to do this. Intel was going to build a plant in Poland until the slow down in global trade hit. Having the world’s semiconductor hub next to China isn’t a recipe for long term resilience.
As for spun fibre – I’m certain we do already build fibre optic cables, having specified some in the past, from the likes of Prysmian – who are a world leader in cable design.
I do not subscribe to the idea of fully globalised supply chains or the “ideal” of fully expressed division of labour because it forms intrinsic dependencies between nations that may not always be favourable, may not be fully open or free and creates potential bottle necks and single points of failure in the supply chain. Moreover, it tends towards the creation of monopolies and benefits obtained by improved efficiency are possibly offset by reduced competition and a narrowing of intellectual and creative diversity.
Guess you’ve not heard of Sheffield Forgemasters 🤦🏻♂️
If you’re responding to me, Yes I have – I often used to drive past it. Quoting: “UK steel production has declined significantly since its 1970s peak, driven by factors like Chinese steel gluts, high UK energy costs, and the closure of traditional blast furnaces. For example, production fell to 7.6 million tonnes in 2016, a level not seen since 1933, and continued to fall to 5.6 million tonnes in 2023. This decline has made the UK reliant on imports, with domestic steel meeting only a fraction of the nation’s demand”
Once again quoting: “While Forgemasters is a critical supplier for specific parts, the MoD has clarified that not all steel for submarines comes from the company. Some highly specialized steel, such as that needed for pressure hulls, is currently imported because the domestic capability to produce it has diminished.”
As noted above, I don’t necessarily believe we need to provide all our own steel but if we are going to increase defence spending then those increases should proportionally find their way into UK industry expenditure. 🤦🏻♂️
So what’s the point in increasing the amount of home-produced steel in our submarines if it’s not to 100% 🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Anyway, the steel is easy and cheep. There’s no way to replace all the foreign parts that are used internally, including microprocessors*. Trying to do so just inflates the cost of each boat resulting in a reduction in the size of the SSN fleet.
Brilliant move. 👏🏻
*Newport Vishay will be making silicon carbide semiconductors for EVs.
I’m going to say something controversial, and I’d like it if someone with more knowledge on the subject might contest this with valid points.
Trident is hamstrung by reliance on the US for servicing at a minimum, probably more. I understand that steps are taken to extend the timeline where this becomes relevant, however it is ultimately reliant upon the US for it’s functionality.
The USA is currently demonstrating a terrifying degree of complacency and incompetence, the likes of which we’ve never seen before. To such an extent that we cannot be certian they will not invade NATO territory in the short term, much less guess what they may do next.
Conclusion – The UK’s nuclear deterrence is currently, and destined to remain fundementally flawed by reliance upon an increasingly hostile actor. An actor that Europe is de-risking against, and one that the world is rapidly (and justifiably) taking a more adversarial posture towards. Should the UK continue down this path, it may find itself very much under the thumb of an authoritarian, dictator-like leadership for it’s ultimate protection.
The Trident missiles can last a significant amount of time without any maintenance, a number of former senior naval figures have come forward confirming that. It’s certainly multi year and may be a decade or more. There is also maintenance that can be and is done in the UK. The hard limit on the life of the missile is the length of time the propellant last and that will be twenty years or more.
So the US would have to cut UK access for many years to degrade the system. The warheads require more maintenance but that we do ourselves.
Jay, Trump won’t be in the White House forever, much as he would want to be. A new President will be elected in a lttle over three years time. But I agree that all maintenance of a strategic weapon system should be done in UK ideally.
So you think Trump will allow an election, and that Vance will certify the election of a Democrat to the presidency…
And when the election happens. Will you finally stop fear mongering?
Wow, you didn’t bother to read my post, you don’t know US election procedure, and you’ve oblivious to the attempted coup on Jan 6th 2021… 🤷🏻♂️
The result of the election has to be certified by the vice-president. In January 2021 Trump tried to pressure his VP, Mike Pence into not certifying the result because he claimed without evidence that the election had been “stolen”. Fortunately for the USA, Pence placed his loyalty to the constitution above loyalty to Trump.
If the next presidential does occur, will Vance be as honourable and impartial as Pence?…
There was no attempted coup. I read wider than just CNN and the BBC.
The point of the VP verifying or otherwise is to provide time to ensure the process has been completed and fully audited properly. It’s not just a rubber stamping procedure.
The point is to try and minimise legal challenges and ambiguity. Which duly came and which were litigated for years afterwards. In the immediate aftermath Trumps team attempted to got to court over 70 times but the courts refused to even hear the cases in c.80pc of the cases.
In fact cases about illegal voting were brought by local legislators for years, mainly against the state executives for not following state constitutions. In the wake of the chaos many state have enacted laws to prevent non residents and non-citizens from voting in their elections.
Clearly they couldn’t have stopped the election verification for years but a request for a few weeks wasn’t totally unreasonable but would have been highly unusual.
In the end the role of VP has now been changed to clarify verification is now only ceremonial.
One should also remember that Trump was the sitting president at the time. Any coup would have been against him and that was what he was fearful of. And like Hilary Clinton in 2016 who claimed repeatedly the election was illegitimate and stolen, Trump felt the same and wanted time to ensure this wasn’t the case.
There was no attempted coup.
There’s always one swivel-eyed flat-earther who’ll deny what happened despite everyone knowing what the truth is.
Trump attempted to stage a coup to block the election results by various methods, from legal cases to an insurrection. His minions attempted to manufacture evidence that there was vote rigging, and in every case across the country the judiciary saw through this and dismissed the cases as being without merit. Those news companies that supported these false claims have been forced to pay out hundreds of millions in libel damages.
When the legal route failed, he attempted a coup against Biden, the president-elect, by encouraging his supporters to storm the Capitol building to prevent the certification of the results.
Even Mike Pence, who was on Trumps 2021 election ticket to be re-elected as VP, knew the election was fair and that Trump was attempting a coup. Despite the fact Pence stood to gain by retaining the vice-presidency, he stood up for what was right and dismissed Trump’s lies that the election had been rigged.
So this is how it works. You don’t like a difference of opinion so you fall back on ad hominems.
There was no insurrection. You are regurgitating media lies. These were investigated and disproven. Read the time line form your self.
Perhaps Pence was noble, or maybe he was a coward? We don’t know. If he’d held back the election for a month and allowed the courts to investigate properly they could have done a thorough assessment, rather than just dismissing on technicalities. That way the situation would have been clarified and the electorate could have had confidence in the outcome.
What you said about media organisations being prosecuted is true and it’s true the Dominion voting machines were withdrawn by certain states beause of voting irregularities in later elections that were supposed to be impossible.
The idea that the vote was so clean cut is nonsense. We had record turn out at the last election and yet, the 20m votes than Biden won in 2016 were nowhere to be seen in 2020.
It is true that in 2020 across various states thousands of votes were cast by immigrants with no legal rights to vote.
It is true that a number of people cast votes multiple times in multiple states.
It is true that a number of counties following recounts had a different outcome.
The question is, would these have been enough to change the outcome. Maybe maybe not. But the sense that the election hadnt been conducted in accordance with states’ own constitutions, that there may have been something wrong with the voting machines, that legal challenges were being dismissed without proper consideration, that people who had no legal rights to vote were voting…all these fed into a narrative or sense that the election wasn’t fair and that courts who were supposed to be the guardians of these were deliberately turning a blind eye. That sense of disenfranchisement was what January 6th was about. A demand that the institutions of state perform their duties openly, fairly and in accordance with their own constitutions.
And this sense continued through the election and poisoned the political system. It hasn’t been helped by the fact that the DoJ is now releasing old evidence that strongly implicates former administrations in the fabrication of the Russian Collision affair.
Maybe we are fruit loops and maybe Keir Starmer and the courts are acting in a perfectly fair and balanced fashion towards all people irrespective of race or creed.
History will decide.
So this is how it works. You don’t like facts so you lie, and lie, and continue to lie again. Every single statement in your previous response is untrue, as anyone with at least half-a-brain and access to the internet can see.
You really think the readers on this website are so stupid/ gullible, as to believe your lies?
This is fascinating to me. It’s so easy to point the finger, isn’t it? Why bother with a nuclear deterrence at all? It’s all just a product of fear mongering after all.
You can’t seriously be suggesting that the current political landscape doesn’t warrant further discussion around our security – can you?
We are not fear mongering – you are just complacent.
What are you talking about? We are referring to the US election not the threat from Russia.
Easy mistake, given that the discussion was originally around the incompetence of the US administration in relation to the UK’s nuclear deterrence.
Russia however, wasn’t mentioned once.
Agreed, no worries. A little grace goes along way. Have a good afternoon.
Hi Graham. I hope you’re right, but I think it’s naive to think the USA is still the credible, dependable force it once was, only with a “different” kind of leader. We’ve become somewhat numb to it, but take a step back and look at the man whom they have not only tolerated as their leader, but actively rallied behind and championed.
Fools exist in every country, the problem starts when you elect one to head the country. This isn’t a Trump problem, he just represents a much deeper decay within their society. It’s now obvious to me that their motives and values no longer align with those of Europe.
Thus, our position of co-operation (read, reliance) with the USA of today for our most valuable and important security asset, is untenable.
A couple of the comments are starting to sound Trumpian (school bully / extortionist). It will be cheaper for most of the EU members to develop their own crude A-Bomb (most EU members have the capability to do so) individually or together, with basic delivery systems such as updated V-1s like Ukraine’s Flamengo or basic ballistic missile like the old Soviet Scuds (note that a lot of the old Soviet bloke currents in the EU were building Scuds when the Soviet Union collapsed), that can deliver the weapon to Western Russia (if that is the perceived enemy the 1% of GDP levy is meant to protect them from). Remember Atomic weapons do not have to be accurate so lots of savings on complex precision guidance systems if you are a “poor” EU member on whom the levy is to be exacted.
With regards to a 5th or 6th Boomer, I think it is fine if they is to be kept in its designated role. However if the intent is to eventually convert them into SSGN, then I think the cheaper and better option is to design a batch 2 of the SSN-A ( last 4 of the proposed 12) with Vertical launch tubes like the current Korean KSS-3 being offered Canada. 4 tubes than can each pack 2 missiles of various varieties that be sub-sonic, trans-sonic, supersonic, or hypersonic. Load out can be a mix of all these types of missiles.
Just my 2 cents on the matter.
I thought the proposed SSNR’s already had 2-3 vls as part of their design?
They do, septi-packed for Tomahawk size weapons. Its worth fitting them even if they are not always in use.
If the new SSNs are already planned with vertical launch tubes then my argument against building additional SSBN to later convert to SSGNs on the basis of cost is validated. Thanks for updating me on the matter.
When the nuclear deterrent was passed from RAF to RN in the Sixties I understand that a study concluded that 5 boats would be ideal but 4 was workable. HMT will cling on to that very dated study so as not to advance money for a 5th or 6th ‘bomber’.
They also looked very hard in the 1980’s at building just three Vanguard’s on the basis that they would be far more reliable and have much greater availability than the proceeding Resolution class (how often have we heard that!). But operational analysis showed that if one boat had an accident, major fault or anything else that unexpectedly took it out out of the patrol for more than a few months, a CASD couldn’t be maintained! Obviously even with 4 Vanguards, maintaining a CASD has been a very close run thing for the last three years. I’m actually not sure a fifth Vanguard would help a lot, the big problem has been the lack of shoreside maintenance facilities at Faslane and Devonport.
I read the first steel was cut for Dreadnaught, first in the class in 2016 and a projected in service early 2030 more likely 2035 with the way MOD builds always slip.
I understand these are complex machines but nearly 20 years from first steel cut to in service seems extremely excessive. The design was already on the way pre 2016 so it’s more than likely a 25 to 30 year design and build process
Am I the only one thinking WTF
Over to you “Dave”.
Steel cutting and manufacturing of some long-lead items can occur years before the keel is actually laid, which is when construction actually starts.