HMS Astute has returned to sea, marking the end of a 100-day period with no British attack submarines at sea, since HMS Triumph, the last such submarine, was operational.
Following its own 307-day maintenance and upgrade period, HMS Astute’s return signifies a crucial step in restoring the Royal Navy’s submarine operational capacity.
As HMS Astute begins to reenter service, it is likely undertaking a series of trials and necessary tasks to bring the crew and vessel up to full operational standards. This phase is critical for ensuring that both the submarine and its crew are adequately prepared for their duties after a significant period of downtime.
This period of inactivity highlights the Royal Navy’s challenges in maintaining its submarine fleet’s operational readiness due to a maintenance backlog. HMS Anson, another Astute-class submarine, completed its post-trials operations on April 20th and was the last of the Astute-class to be at sea prior to HMS Astute’s return.
Please note, readers, that the Vanguard fleet, carrying the Continuous At Sea Deterrent, continues to meet its obligations. The Astute-class submarines are particularly vital for intelligence operations and maintaining a strategic underwater presence.
According to the data, the inactivity is largely due to ongoing maintenance and refitting operations. Efforts are underway to resolve this through projects for new floating dry docks aimed at addressing the maintenance bottleneck.
A Royal Navy spokesperson added, “To maintain operational security, we do not comment on the details of submarine operations. The Royal Navy has delivered the UK’s continuous at sea deterrent without fail for the last 55 years. British waters are always fully protected with a range of assets including warships, patrol aircraft, and submarines.”
— Sheila Weir (@SheilaLWeir) October 7, 2024
If you’re reading this story and thinking about reporting this story based on the information in ours, please include a link back.
what an appalling statistics this makes mine, and doubt everybody else’s blood boil.
To be fair Anson could have, and probably still can, put to sea at any point. Also I suspect that there is not much wrong with many of the other Astutes. If push comes to shove I suspect many of them would put to sea and manage to fullfil thie primary role.
It would be good to see the dry dock back in working order and reducing the backlog of repairs – it’s annoying but my blood is not boiling just yet.
I agree, it’s unlikely there is anything wrong with most of the boats, better having them in dock and near home with Russia kicking off and lack of maintenance facilities. The US has identical issues at the moment.
Mind you as many claim it’s their exclusive job to actually sink surface ships rather than our own surface ships then it is rather important as many as possible actually are at sea, or at least ready to.
To my mind their main job is ASW. If we need to do sea denial with them then the capability is there.
We have multiple other ASW options out there though.
How many ASuW options do we have?
Other than 4.5 inch on destroyers and frigates I genuinely can’t think of another. Paveway IV maybe?
Obviously the most important mission of the RNs submarines is to protect the deterrent, but the primary means of destroying enemy ships is still by submarines or aircraft. That the UK can currently guarantee neither is a sign of how bad it is.
P8 can use Harpoon,NSM will get fitted to more Ships in due course,its not great but it is something.
I’m willing to bet the US has at least one attack sub deployed at sea all the time and probably many more than that. They continue to do most of the heavy lifting for the allies.
You are joking?
🤐🤐
For what it’s worth, I agree entirely. There’s also a reason why it’s called the silent service…. Not sure that being an “armchair Admiral” and making adverse comments from the side lines is helpful. I am confident in the professionalism of the RN and their ability to guard the freedom of us all. (As always.) Outside the corridors of power, we can’t possibly understand the full strategic position. Jamie
This was my thought, too. If Russia kicks off a surprise Northern Fleet operation of some kind, better to have the bulk of the submarines available to start new patrols.
Russia doesn’t have anything like the resources for such an operation.
Doesn’t stop it playing submarine games.
Subs are the Russian’s best assets.
The last Russia boat that came our way had a tug following it. That pretty much says it all.
If they had the crews for them. Ironically I suspect the burden of keeping CASD going without interruption has severely impacted the rest of the branch
Please explain how this has changed? We have had a permanent deterrent at sea since the 70s how has it suddenly impacted manpower today in 2024?
Because the RN headcount has been on a downward spiral – recruitment and retention are a massive problem,especially for Nuclear Trained Specialities.
So nothing at all to do with CASD, but recruitment and retention. So do try to speak honestly about the problem you “think” that you can sea (sea what I did there)
CASD obviously has to take priority with Crewing requirements,sometimes to the detriment of SSN Operations – i’d say that does have something to do with CASD 🤔
Ita good news Astute is back at sea.
It is. And still some can only ever see the negative, even with this single boat.
It’s a positive step and things will improve.
Could not agree more. Looks like the garage commitment has been parked up along with the fleet. So SF is probably relying solely on US for training. That’s all well and good for SF, however our boat crews are not keeping their launch and recovery skills current.
It’s not great on that front, no.
As there are other insertion methods i assume its low on their priority list?
The Daily Telegraph had an interesting article late April of this year. Based on an article of the Florida SSGN transiting the Suez Canal with garage. At the time I thought it was clearly done to send a message. The article was based on just that theory. The USN took big steps to make it as public as possible. We have not had even that ability for some time now or are likely to soon. You gap capability at the danger of losing it. The RFA being another case in point. Small things taken individually but put together mean much… Read more »
Hopefully a corner has been turned and submarine availability will continue to improve.
I’ll second that!
Cheers CR
So one attack boat is back at sea. 😠
The first “one” to leave base was always going to be “one” or were you expecting three to leave all at once on the same day? Or even same month? How would that help getting back to a sensible rotation?
Yes more should have left at once, scattered to the four winds, submerged and gone about their ‘wiley’ business!
It’s not about rotation, it’s being seen to have those boats, those capabilities at sea, not knowing where they are!
Unlike some who will deplore the situation we are. I’m just going to say welcome back Astute and our political masters for 30 years of inept, incompetent dithering that led and her Sister boats without the proper facilities to keep you maintained. However I would also point out that perhaps the RN Admirals should have paid more attention to infrastructure than just political games with the other services together more ships things might have been better. I’ve looked at the timelines and irony of irony the uplift in infrastructure investment started off in TM’s period in office and we had… Read more »
Makes a lot of sense to buy up Inchgreen especially if we plan to greatly expand the SSN fleet and have the possibility for supporting more USN vessels.
Naval Drydocks that can handle SSN seem to cost billions to build now a days and an opportunity to buy up such a facility should not be overlooked.
Be careful with thoughts of a big expansion. Until something is officially announced or the requirement for a certain number of boats has been made official. I’d assume the number of SSN A will be 7. Hopefully it will be 8-10. But until it’s official. I wouldn’t get your hopes up to much.
Exactly. The new minimum is always the new benchmark.
Which is why I wonder if parts of AUKUS are worth it when we end up with 7, no real increase, and yet more assets lost elsewhere in cuts to fund, primarily, industry. Again.
I’m waiting for it.
It’ll be the same with Tempest, if Starmer can stand it.
Daniele, I doubt that anyone can accurately say with any degree of certainty what the future size of the RN Submarine fleet will be. In many ways the linear way of thinking about capability vs budget has just gone straight out the nearest window. Our experience of the last 30 years has been Capability goes up, so costs go up, which means we can afford fewer which in turn forces costs up again and so on in perpetuity. My best guesstimate is we will not have any real answers for a couple of years and that will all depend on… Read more »
Thanks for that mate.
I still think we end up with 7 Boats!
HMG is only interested in big industry.
Somewhat confidently predict that USN SSN(X) will become SSN-A2, followed by RN SSN-A3, in due course. 🤔
“…do exactly the opposite and offer to sell 8 to fund Tax cuts for Elon and Co…”
Not possible, without a majority in Congress!
And unlikely Repubs will get a majority.
The RAN will struggle to crew more than six SSN(A).
It’s about calming expectations. Otherwise, people are going to be very disappointed. I certainly believe the RN would like more boats. But as always, it comes down to the available budget. Plus increasing manning is always very challenging for the silent service.
I’ll hold my breath on your “Big expansion”
It seems such a no brainer mate?
Inch green can’t take QEC the cill is too high.
As for nuclear – no chance. It isn’t certified. It is massive, which is actually an issue – you don’t want a massive dock for nuclear you want a snug fit. It has no segregated sump system – so no way of storing contaminated water is something went wrong. The dock probably isn’t watertight either way. There are no facilities and no workforce. Does it even still have pumps? I’ve no idea!!
Never say never, you have to start somewhere and be a Cando nation again. I think its probably an excellent idea.
Possibility of grant of nuclear surety waiver(s)? Probably not politically feasible during peacetime, but could become feasible upon commencement of hostilities. 🤔
The days of the Crown doing that kind of thing have faded.
There was a time when all that had to be said was MoD / Official Secrets Act / Defence of the Realm and that overrode everything else.
Not these days. Now that MoD falls under the useless Health and Safety regimes.*
I love Health and Safety but not UK style.
The days are over for the Crown doing that sort of thing ? Maybe we are more subtle about it but we seem to have Nationalised SFM without a whisper.
I have no idea either. And I had no idea on any of that detail. It must have some use as a national strategic asset?
I know the pumps are still there, it is watertight but that’s about it. All facilities were removed by present owners. As far as I’m aware no Drydock in UK we’re built Nuclear Certified all have had to be converted for use.
As for the Cill height yes it’s higher than Rosyth but so is the tidal variance in the Clyde.
Spookily one of its last uses was building the floating jetty for Faslane.
Good one. And if the MOD ever reads all the contributors to the SDR and not just who’ve they’ve appointed they might find some gem comments from the UKDJ and take yours and others suggestions up.
It would take more investment to upgrade it rather than building from scratch unfortunately.
Rules that have to be followed, including earthquake proofing the structure for those frequent events we apparently have rented the upgrades highly impractical and cost prohibitive.
Our government has implemented these outlandish rules in the guise of the nuclear regulator, whereas China, North Korea and Russia seem to be less risk averse.
In addition, I wouldn’t have another facility in the Clyde area, eggs in one basket and all that. Falmouth would be a better 3rd submarine facility, good shelter and access to the western approaches.
I still have one concern the dry docks. Will they or are they designed capable to take the future SSN-AUKUS. My understanding is that the future SSN-As will be a much bigger boat.
Well if you are referring to the Floating docks they are to be capable of handling a Dreadnought and an SSN(A) isn’t going to be that big. If you mean Inchgreen it was built to be able to handle a US CVN, so yep plenty big enough. Floating docks have their advantages in that they can be moved, but quite where we can build them in the UK could be an issue. To me it makes more sense to re acquire assets that we the Tax payers funded in the 1st place and are capable of far more than sitting… Read more »
Never realized before that Inchgreen was designed to be able to accommodate a USN CVN. Some bloke down at the Admiralty must have been guilty of indulging in forward planning. 🤔😳😉
But it was never nuclear licensed so the forward planning failed at that point!
It was really developed to try and get the UK into constructing super tankers in an era when Shell and BP were national champions and big spenders and before they were fully privatised.
Needless to say that never worked.
Yes dock 10 is huge as in capital ship sized.
so Devonport will have
dock 9 SSBN sized dedicated for SSBNs
Dock 10 SSBN sized ( beyond any potential nuclear sub size) for both SSN and SSBN refit
Dock 15 specific Asute dock.
Per description included in recent NL article (12 Sep 24). SSN-A will probably be able to be accommodated w/in Dry Dock Nos. 9&10 of HNMB Devonport. Capacity to accomodate SSN-A class w/in Dry Dock No. 15 perhaps to some extent more ambiguous.
…HMNB…🤔 (dyslexia or fat fingers?)
Remember as well the RN will be be getting a new SSN commissioned in 2025 and then another in 2026. So even with the maintenance backlog the RN will have a lot of more give to sort out the issues with the 2 new SSNs.
A whole submarine. Wow. It’ll probably be back in a week when the crew fall out with each other.😷
I want to know how we managed to have 2/4 docks under maintenance at once. That seems like it was always going to go wrong.
Maybe the point for those who think surface threats can be dealt with by our subs, allowing a tiny escort force, is that with such a tinier sub fleet that’s just wishful thinking. 7 subs means even 3 operational is pretty good & usually less probable. 0 available for so long really underlines our weakness.
Surface threats should be primarily dealt with by air assets.
So an air launched ASM.
Indeed Danieie. A vital capability anyone with an ounce of sense should see.
Still, one is better than none. Time to really kick some arse over this issue. And a few others. Given the incompetence of politicians, MoD, Treasury and other clowns in the circus? Don’t hold your breath.
Congratulations!
Is it a lack of serviceable submarines or the lack of sailors to run them?
None – it’s dock infrastructure that coincidentally broke down or is being replaced at the same time
This is the noticable sign of the reduced fleet numbers across the navy, we fall off the edge of the Cliff like other countries do all the time (particularly European). Yes a special set of circumstances but in all ship types it’s liable to happen – even the new frigates will struggle to get numbers to sea. 6 destroyers, 2 at sea is maximum sustainable – 3 will be at times and 1 others 8 type 26 – 3 at sea 5 type 31- 2 at sea 7 Astutes – 2 at sea That is probably the best sustainable deployments… Read more »
Just to note if we ever went to war those numbers would turn into surge numbers for a limited period of time.