The United Kingdom is set to significantly expand its nuclear-powered attack submarine fleet, building up to 12 SSN-AUKUS boats under a sweeping Strategic Defence Review to be announced later today by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.
The move, intended to bolster national security amid rising global threats, represents a major increase from the current plan to operate seven Astute-class submarines.
According to the government, the expanded fleet will be delivered as part of the AUKUS trilateral agreement with the United States and Australia, with new submarines constructed at Barrow-in-Furness and Raynesway, Derby.
A new submarine will be built every 18 months, creating a sustained production tempo that will support 21,000 skilled jobs across the submarine programme. In total, the wider investment in submarines and the UK’s sovereign nuclear warhead programme will support 30,000 skilled jobs across the UK and double the number of apprenticeships and graduate roles over the next decade.
The announcement follows a £15 billion investment into the UK’s sovereign nuclear warhead programme and is framed by the government as a key element of the “Plan for Change.”
It coincides with the release of a Strategic Defence Review that will adopt all 62 of its recommendations, including a shift to “warfighting readiness,” procurement of 7,000 UK-built long-range weapons, the launch of a CyberEM Command with £1 billion in digital investment, and more than £1.5 billion in new funding for armed forces housing.
Defence Secretary John Healey said:
“Our outstanding submariners patrol 24/7 to keep us and our allies safe, but we know that threats are increasing and we must act decisively to face down Russian aggression.”
He added that the new submarines and the domestic warhead programme will secure Britain’s defences while delivering a “defence dividend” of high-quality jobs.
The Prime Minister is expected to declare that national security is the foundation of his Plan for Change, ensuring that Britain remains secure at home and strong abroad. The expansion is the most significant investment in submarine capability in a generation and marks the first time the government has publicly detailed the full scale of its nuclear deterrent and attack submarine programmes.
The SSN-AUKUS submarines, which are conventionally armed but nuclear-powered, will feature advanced sensors and weapons, with the first boats entering service in the late 2030s.
I feel like an enormous weight has been lifted off my shoulders. Still not much has been said about other major issues such as the army, Tempest and MRSS, but this is a better start than I’d have dared hope for
Lots of people are down on Labour when it comes to defence but the two defence reviews I have seen them do in my life time (98 and 25) have both been spot on.
I have only ever seen the Torys gut defence (1979 onwards)
to be fair James, Labour made significant cuts to the the RAF and RN in the 2004 defence review
RAF- 4 fast jet sqns axed
RN -6 surface escorts gone (3 type 42s destroyers and 3 Type 23 frigates) , and 2 SSNs
2010 RN hulls in water 38, 2024 hulls in water 14. Never trust a Tory government with national security. The scars of 1957 remain a sore point to this day.
97, RN Escorts 35.
2010. RN Escorts 23.
96. Fast Jet Sqns Around 23.
2010. FJ Sqns 12.
Look beyond the party loyalties. Both are bad.
As for this, great.
I agree.
This is an area that we excel at so it makes sense to go big on SSN.
As always it will be cheaper to build them at an 18 month drumbeat than a 5 year drumbeat…..or whatever it actually is….
I agree but some how one of the party’s is credited with being good for defence and the other terrible.
Quite so. Politicians of all parties were eager to buy in to the “Peace Dividend” delusion in order to fund their pet spending/tax cutting agendas. I recall the mantra at that time – “there are no votes in defence” was also a factor.
👍
Hi Daniele,
Weren’t the Labour cuts a direct result of the ‘peace dividend’ and switch to GWOT? If so, there was a significant strategic rationale for the cuts.
The Conservative defence cuts were post GFC and part of Osborne’s plan to significantly cut back on the state which also affected law courts and police, local councils etc (but protected the NHS by a bit and increased state pensions by a lot).
These are qualitatively different situations. There was at least some strategic rationale for the cuts under Labour (however misguided this s rationale looks now) but the cuts post 2009 were completely ideologically driven.
There was a need to get the annual deficit under control but Osbornes’ cuts clearly went beyond that. He saw it as a chance to permanently reduce the role of the State (and said as much). This is obvious when you consider just how much early sunsetting of capabilities tool place under Cameron.
Labour definitely aren’t blameless on defence though – I have plenty of criticisms for Brown and his, as I see it, deliberate reluctance to properly fund our troops in Iraq which lead to many unnecessary deaths. Awful and immoral behaviour in my opinion.
I like many of the things Labour are doing to put defence on a firmer footing (e.g. on housing, putting in place long term support contracts) but this reluctance to rapidly reduce increase funding is incredibly short-sighted.
Bloody Treasury brain will be the end of us! Cheers.
@Tim B
Hi Tim.
That is fair, to a point for me, as a cut is a cut! We lament the size of the forces here, and the fact remains a lot of RAF and RN kit vanished on their watch, for whatever reasons, justifications or excuses one might come up with regards COIN and the state of the world at that time. Other nations were not cutting to the same degree, why did we.
The first Labour cuts were of course before the GWOT, from 97 on. That 97 SDSR by the now Lord Robertson set a good force level for peacetime. But it was not funded.
What also “gets my goat” are people like the current DS talking of hollowing out, when he himself was in HMT at the time the later cuts were underway.
The second Labour SDSR, the “New chapter” around 2004 was a bloodbath for the RN and the RAF. The Army escaped due to the ops in Iraq and Helmand. At the end of the day, whatever their rationale, they ignored the force levels they themselves set. Those cuts continued all the way to 2010, often not widely publicised, but noted by us defence followers at the time. UKDJ did not exist then, the site for us defence geeks was UKDM, UK Defence Management, and to a poster the cuts at that time were loathed much like the Tory ones 2010 on. I have a long memory! And it influences my opinions on Labour and defence, especially as these people tried hard just a few short years ago to get a certain JC elected, so I don’t see defence as safe under Labour. And I don’t see it safe under the Tories either! Their 14 years have undermined any platform they might stand on with this subject.
Lord West, who moans about RN numbers all the time, is another who has no right to speak on numbers considering what he waved through as 1SL at that time.
The only Peace Dividend cuts I accept were OFC 1991. Front Line First 95 was another Tory con, putting the “front line first” but cutting it all the same, as well as a lot of backroom stuff and officer ranks.
Agree that Osborne ( Whom I loathe to this day, as I voted for those B****** to get Labour out, was ideologically minded. I’d also note the financial mess that was left to them when they came in, the “money is gone note.”
Justifications can work for both sides of the political divide.
Brown. The Brown who Johnson Beharry turned his back on. Or did he refuse to shake his hand, I forget. Yes, him!
The only time I have applauded him was in 2014 by steadying the union ship in Scotland.
I agree with you regards HMT, the greatest enemy the military face.
Regards to you.
You have an interesting way with numbers, very similar to the numbers created by Labour. We did not have 38 escorts in 2010 and we have 19 on order now. So 38 and 14 is nonsense.
Geoff
I agree. Having served this country for now 43 years and seven months in both the RN (as a Submariner and then the RFA) this positive news however we need to be looking at spending the 4.7% of GDP as it was when I joined the RN. That said we were still short of Ammunition, lacked proper build plans by only producing the bare minimum of equipment to cover basic commitments and not the what is required to sustain operations if as proved in 1982. My concerns today is what has been announced is political words and we all know what happens with those as governing parties move towards the next election!!
Never ever trust a Labour government, period. The gas lighting with this one is huge.
I agree. Wait for the adjustments
Did you forget the 2003-05 defence review, with the huge cuts?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delivering_Security_in_a_Changing_World
Yes, posters do! For their own political leanings. I had a very amusing debate a few years ago, which soon escalated into a bit of a row, when a poster told me only the Tories delayed the carriers, which I knew was nonsense, as Labour DS Hutton put a billion onto their cost.
This was ridiculed and denied, so I produced press reports detailing Hutton’s 1 billion bill for delaying, which was around 2009, before the Tories were in power.
It did not go down well…..
An interesting comment. You are perhaps quite young? I am older. 1960’s..cuts; 1970’s..cuts; 1998..cuts; so far with Labour..cuts. Promises with labour…sometime, maybe, perhaps depending on…? Just so you understand I didn’t think much of the Tories over the last fifteen years either so it’s not political, it’s factual.
This is exactly my position.
No surprise here,my firiend.
Very articulate Geoff, nicely put!
Thank you..
Dennis Healey in 1960’s cut the Aircraft carriers and set in trend the withdrawal from east of Suez. I remember it well, particularly as after asking him in the lower junior rates dining hall in HMS Centaur in Singapore 1964, what was the future for the carriers etc. The answer being they have a secure future. I have always thought he had a Pinocchio nose after that and always looked beyond what Labour Defense Secretaries say, lots of squadrons of flying pigs.
You think 98 was spot on? The war book of that era said it would take years for the army to be ready for war. Even in an emergency. Not forgetting the borrowers reputation we acquired during the Iraq war.
Army will continue to get investment but Healey is right to not jump into the trap of trying to develop the British army into a heavy armour focussed larger sized force. That is not the UKs forte. We should always look to the sea and securing our sea lines of communication. Securing the GIUK gap and protecting our nationally important offshore infrastructure.
Maritime and Air first, army I’m afraid is a third priority as the moment we need to generate a large army our European allies numbering 500 million people will have catastrophically failed.
What the Europeans (excluding France and Italy) fail to do is deliver the maritime components and enablers needed to protect NATOs seaward flanks.
Literally couldn’t disagree with you more. It is very much the UK’s forte. So much so, that in both Gulf Wars, the British Army was the only one that the US wanted to operate alongside and the only one able to deploy an effective armoured division.
Literally all Army Officer training from promotion to Captain onwards is based around all-arms armoured warfare – because it is the most complex and the most likely in full scale peer on peer war.
Moreover, we are the only European Army (in fact the only Army outside of the US) to have conducted divisional level armoured warfare for real within institutional memory. We are the only Army to have provided divisional HQs to Afghanistan outside of the US military. If you want to go back to the history books – who invented armoured warfare and broke the stalemate of the trenches? The British Army. Who invented all-arms armoured manoeuvre co-ordinated over radio? – The British Army
This line of ‘Island nation’ we shouldn’t be doing land war – if we have it’s gone wrong” is only ever spouted by people who have never been near to the land environment in a military context, have not witnessed other Armies and do not understand NATO. Land is, and always will be the environment where war is won. The others are key to success, but we cannot have a secure UK without a warfighting army that can be a lead focal point for NATO.
Actually mate, pretty sure Australian General Sir John Monash was the one who invented combined arms warfare and implement the idea, with a predominantly Australian force, at the battle of Hamel. Then he taught the rest of the allies how to do it before the Hundred Days Offensive. Just saying.
Agreed RobA.
While I am in the navy first camp that does not mean I think the British Army in its current state is either big enough or equipped well enough to fight in the kind of war we might face with the CRINK axis. As a nation we have defended our islands using the concept of forward defence for centuries with British armies fighting in Europe with the aim of defeating our enemies before they can threaten our homeland. That still applies today.
Having said that the army cannot fight overseas if we are being blockaded and starved at home. In the past the once mighty Royal Navy was, most of the time, able to ensure that we were able to maintain our economy and feed ourselves sufficiently to be able to support our forces overseas. It is no accident that the British Empire was an empire of the seas because maritime power enabled us to dominate the sea lanes and move our troops around the global at will whilst being able to interdict the troop movements of our enemies. Mostly the French. As such we were able to role back the French Empire quite considerably in the 18th century. When the RN was stretched we lost the American War of Independence.
My big concern today is that all of our armed forces have been so hollowed our that we cannot even defend ourselves at home and as for the Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC), wide open even with NATO support (inc. USN). There are just too few NATO escorts, especially when you take into account fleet readiness levels. So fix the RN, is my priority.
Air defence is the next issue. So the RAF is next also remembering that the RAF has a significant role in maritime defence as well. However, I would also include the Royal Artillery as a significant contributing force when it comes to deployed / mobile ground based air defence (GBAD).
While we set about improving our homeland defence we will be depending on our European allies to do the heavy lifting with regards to ground forces. However, I would argue that we would need to demonstrate a significant contribution and intent to European ground defence because it is, and always has been, in our own best interest to forward defend our homeland. I would focus on developing significant capabilities based on the points you make. So at least one heavy all tracked armoured division with plenty of advanced capabilities around intel., GBAD, drone warfare, cyber and crucially command and control. The kind of capabilities around which other NATO allies can coalesce to form a corp. The army’s strength in heavy armour would need to allow for roulement as well so we would be looking at 5 or 6 armoured brigades? I would also look to the need for a medium strategically mobile wheeled division able to rapidly deploy just in case. That formation could be home based so could get by with thinner roulement depth say 4 brigades. I also think the Commando force will need to be expanded given that the NATO area of interest has recently expand and we have significant responsibilities in the JEF area of operations…
So yeh, navy first in my book does not mean neglecting the army, far from it.
The force structure I outline and hint at above is way more than the government is anywhere near to committing to and many on here would say I am in dreamland. I argue that I am thinking in terms of the three things, the threat, the threat and the threat. The geopolitical threat environment consists of an unreliable US and the CRINK axis. So far I have only seen Starmer talk about Russia. That leaves a huge range of issues unaddressed, at least in public. The UK and Europe need to be able to stand on their own against China, Russia, Iran and North Korea (CRINK) axis and that is a massive step up in threat but it is real and growing. A such I believe what I say above is the minimum, short to medium term requirement for the British Army in Europe.
Cheers CR
During gulf war, daguet was under « control », not « command » 😉.
And yes, we (the French) want a british army/navy/raf to be able to operate on its own if necessary and rely less and less on the US because, it seems, it will have to be done soon.
How conveniently foregetting the French in the gulf war. Also, you should read more about ww1. Also, mentionning the war in Iraq alongside the us isn’t especially apropriate if you want to convince people investing in army.
In the first Gulf War, the French light division was placed on the far left flank, because it couldn’t a. Manoeuvre in a fully armoured battle, and b. couldn’t fit into the wider command and control of the Corps HQ. That’s precisely why I used it as an example.
I literally studied the use of combined arms in WW1 at university and as part of my officer education. Happy to debate you.
Your third point on Iraq – my assumption is you are making a political point, not a military one. Mine was a military one. When the world’s premier military power feels like you can fit seamlessly into its operations, that is militarily a plus point. That was in direct response to the original comment that armoured warfare “is not our forte”
No. It did not « want » to be under US command; that was a political decision which reflects 60 years of French politics. Also, the FAR was best suited for that mission as it had conducted a similar exercise in czech republic in 87. Also, it allowed France to keep the same level of forces in Europe and africa.
Both France and uk worked on tanks during ww1 but Estienne defined their use the best and the battle of malmaison is the first time tanks were appropriately used (April 17 use was a disaster). What ended the stalemate was the failure of german offensive in 18, improved artillery, coordinated use of tanks with smaller infantery groups, use of « corps francs », the overwhelming motorisation of French army, the focus on first Line of defense when attacking and the (re)construction of 10 000 km of roads to allow movements of troups alongside the front.
On Iraq, that litteraly why it’s not a forte: you can’t argue anymore it’s a plus because it can be integrated into an US operation. It would have been a plus if uk army could have completed a similar operation independently, even on a smaller scale.
You’ve given me a headache trying to take it in guys
Unity of Command is literally a principle of Mission Command – so ‘choosing’ not to be part of a wider command structure is not a good thing is it?
The modern French Army is very impressive. It is dynamic, it is integrated and it can conduct rapid operations out of area (we were all impressed by the initial operation in Mali). But it doesn’t really operate above Bde level (because it doesn’t have to) and that is where there is a difference between the two.
And I genuinely don’t know what you are getting at on your point on Iraq. It demonstrates a British armoured division (albeit a light one) operating in a corps context. What do you want to see – an independent armoured divisional operation to prove it can be done?
I feel That age old problem of ‘experts’ defending their own favoured service for special attention tends to get in the way of realistic debate over future defence needs and associated spending. The reality is that no matter what we do there is not enough money to satisfy everyone and give every service everything g they need to get them back to ‘world beating’ the reality is we are a second tier nation (I.e below the ‘superpowers’) but part of a alliance that has other strengths. In order to keep the alliance as strong as possible within available resources then we need to make hard spending choices. looking at the likely threats, what other NATO allies are doing and where our many deficiencies are I would suggest that Naval, Air and air defence should be the top priority alongside cybersecurity. That doesn’t mean no improvements to land forces or no increase in force numbers or capability, but only that it may not prove to be as important to protecting the homeland and strengthening NATO. We provide protection to NATO right along the North and West approaches, a deep strike capability asks a land reinforcement capability that can be applied globally (alongside a nuclear umbrella) but they provide the land muscle to stop Russian forces rolling in our direction.
I fully agree with you on your first point.
I just took umbrage at the comment that armoured warfare isn’t our forte when the Army is literally built around it. I genuinely see why we need stronger RN. I understand and support having a stronger RAF. I also recognise that there is a real and genuine need for deep strike – my hope is that those are additive capability, not instead of.
However, even looking strategically at NATO, I do not believe that we should have a Sea, Air and Cyber first strategy. I believe our real and genuine strength (and what we bring to the party) is military leadership and command and control. This is widely recognised in NATO, across Sea, Land and Air domains. We have a glaring gap in NATO and it is in the European ability to command at scale allowing allied nations to plug in. That is something the UK actually excels at and is recognised for.
That only comes from decades and decades of hard won lessons, experience and investment in staff training. If we whittle down the Army too much, we lose the scale to make that a credible reality. And then NATO really does have a capability gap (especially without the US).
Mr Bell. No-one thinks we need a large army. Just as well as we have had a small army for over 30 years. But we have a single armoured division, which needs restructuring and modernising. That is the bare minimum in terms of ‘heavy metal’. Other parts of the army are well suited to European combat aside from armoured warfare. Our remit is to, with 31 allies, deter and defend across the Euro-Atlantic area, not just the watery bit. In putting the army last in the priority stakes, perhaps people have forgotten about how much we have actually used the army in conflict and combat in the last 30 or 40 years, generally far more than the other services. Putting the army last will hobble its attempt to modernise. Some of its capability gaps are massive.
GM,
Am curious, does the unstated subtext of your post indicate that HMG should invest in a third armoured regiment equipped w/ CR-3? Presumably, the most favorable and least costly time to increase the conversion order, would be while the production line is hot. Thoughts?
pie in the sky click bait for the media. the man is utterly clue
would have been easier to commit to another five astutes.
Welcome news but its hardly an increase, it was outlined by the SSN AUKUS where there was speculation that the government generated that there might be 15 SSN A procured by the UK. Anyway 12 is a good number.
Looks like the Army wont be getting any increase in numbers from this review. The Airforce and the Navy seem to be getting major uplifts. Given the massive increase in Army numbers in Poland and Germany and the vagaries of the commitment of NATO’s largest Air and Naval power that probably makes sense.
I also wonder is that a £15 billion in UK nuclear warheads or nuclear weapons in general. Could that signal a break from Trident.
A break from Trident; French missile, UK warhead?
No £15 billion will add additional warheads to Trident and renew the warheads, it will also provide nuclear bombs and some potential storm shadow nuclear armed missiles and the infrastructure required to house and guard them securely. It might also be the budget for a small purchase of F35As to carry the nuclear bombs or cruise missiles.
It’s a good chunk of money and will most definitely mean the UKs nuclear arsenal is a real and effective threat to our enemies. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and any other MF that wishes to harm the UK or our allies.
James, we have 7 Astutes today. 12 is a much bigger number than 7.
Interesting that you think that because 2 out of 32 NATO countries are expanding their army that this is a solid reason for us to continue to have the smallest army since Napoleonic times.
Yes us being an island and all, do you know how many ships we had in Napoleon’s time?
will take years to deliver. at the beginning of the the first world war we had reduced the sizes of the army and navy to less than the country had in the boer wars.
I hope recruitment of sailor will go up for these submarines. But I welcome this réarmement effort of UK!
I never like those two words, “up to”!!
Yep, it’s the standard get out clause.
or fitted for but nit with. is another phase that should be binned too
Makes sense.
You get the cost savings of maintaining continuous production.
You get to leverage an existing sovereign advantage in that Nuclear submarine technology is hard, expensive and difficult to break into.
Building small reactors will also buttress Rolls Royce and allow them to more easily develop civilian Small Modular Nuclear Reactors.
It meets a strategic requirement to defend our sea lanes and also delivers a significant strategic threat to Russia.
It delivers a global offensive capability to the UK. Naval vessels can be turned from a defensive asset into an offensive asset simply by being told to be somewhere else.
There is zero cross over or leverage between the tech in the production of a RR Submarine Nuclear Reactor and an SMR, they both use nuclear fission, produce heat which is converted into steam but how they actually work, fuel used (LEU or HALEU vs HEU) and in size they are miles apart.
That may sound odd but it’s a UK National Security requirement and it’s all down to our Treaty obligations and the cross over of highly classified tech with our US partners.
Which is why RR have both businesses in completely separate divisions and are Fire walled to prevent just that scenario, they have even gone as far as ensuring the proposed factory will be nowhere near Derby and Training / recruitment pipelines are separated. When they first started looking at SMR some of the “seed” engineers went over but other than that is kept completely separate (and Audited).
Where there will be leverage is it provides security and added mass to parts of the engineering supply chain particularly SFM. We just need Miliband to pull his finger out.
This isn’t France where due to how they design their Military LEU reactors has massive leverage from their civilian industry.
Appreciate the insight. I understand there’s no direct correlation between the design of a Sub nuclear reactor and a SMR. I was thinking in more general terms. More nuclear even if split between civil and nuclear and civil should deliver some economies of scale to both sides even if it’s allowing more career opportunities for employees and subsequently fewer skill bottlenecks. The waste of training someone to be a nuclear engineer and then binning them for lack of work is quite appalling. In-house expertise bought for with Defence dollars and then later exploited in the civil sector can only be good for RR and the UK.
If true, this will be an excellent announcement by the Labour government, building on our strengths in submarine design and construction, protecting the CASD and helping to secure the sea lanes to the UK. Likewise, investing in our sovereign ability to design and build new nuclear warheads for the Dreadnaughts.
Many who post here will be surprised that the Labour government would take defence of the realm so seriously. It’s good to see the first SDSR since 2010 not cutting capability in stupid attempts to build “leaner but fitter” armed forces on the cheap
agree
Agree. Having had the expansion of RR Derby, Barrow, and other places hammered home to me by ABC countless times, with the investment in industry going in long term as part of AUKUS, I feel this aspect of SDSR is a goer.
It is needed, too, the SSN is one of our Aces.
As for 12 SSN, I got excited for 0.1 seconds then I read the same words that HMG used when they announced we would have 12 Astutes to replace the S and T boats.
Those exact same Magic Slimy Politician words are there “Up to 12 !” Which means in reality it’s absolutely meaningless but sounds good.
So nothing is certain about the oa numbers and nothing extra needs spending till the late 30’s when long lead items need ordering (Reactors, Turbines, Motors etc) for a 3rd batch of 4.
I’m not getting excited yet and I will not until I see some concrete steps being taken to enable it to actually happen. Some of those real steps could be.
1. Speeding up the Dreadnought build process so they are up to speed for a faster delivery schedule of 1 every 18 months (15 would be better). That would be a real reason to be hopeful because that involves the Treasury accelerating the stage payments (show me the Money). And yes I’d still add a 5th to kick start it !
2. The US (Trump) to sign off the 3 / 5 SSNs for RAN, that may sound odd but it’s real spanner in the works. That decision will determine the oa numbers of SSN(A) and components to be built, which has a knock on effect to the costs per hull and how many you can afford.
3. Issuing an order to RR to start planning for a
4. Last but not least increasing the complement of the RN oa and the Submarine Service PDQ. Simple fact is we will need more crews and the specialist rolls / command staff need to be in place well ahead of time.
5. There is one more step that I think needs taking right now and it may sound odd. RR / Babcock need to be asked to start looking at a LOP(R) for the Astutes. Reason is it’s the most sensible and fastest way to increase SSN numbers and get 12-boats in service, if you can extend some of the Astutes till the 6th SSN(A) enters service you are up to 12 oa.
Thanks mate.
So the SME has spoken, good enough for me.
And my scepticism in later posts I’ve made has been justified.
Hot air and SPIN from HMG!
Who’d have thought it eh.
leaner but better, got us where we are today
This Will never Happen
Why? It’s now government policy….
Because this present Government will not be in power in the mid / late 30’s when the extra boats start to need funding. “We will build up to 12” is waffle and costs zilch.
Plausable Deniability – nothing will ever change where Govt’s are concerned.
Can a nuclear attack submarine be actually built in 18 months?or am I reading it wrong and should be one delivered every 18 months when building starts?
The second option.
a SSN can’t be built in 18 months but we can deliver one every 18 months as there are five under construction at any one time with three in the build hall and two others being pre assembled.
One every 22 months was seen as the ideal speed in SDR 98 so one every 18 months is not much of an expansion. Billions have already been pumped in to Barrow and Derby by both the UK and Australia, this is the result.
You can look at what was achieved in Barrow and Birkenhead between 1963 and 1975 – dreadnought, Valiant, Resolution, Repulse, Warspite, Churchill, Conqueror, Courageous, Renown, Revenge and Swiftsure was on the stocks.
Sure I’ve read here that we were doing that during the Cold War, with a regular drumbeat and hot skills.
All the delays from the 90s on wrecked the industry.
ABC is the man for this.
This is excellent news.
Yes it’s drumbeat.. the SSN itself takes a long time to build.. but you set product so your finishing one every 18 months.. for that you need to be constantly building 4-5.
Yes thought so,the hawks are already circling over Starmer and Healys figures though!
To be honest I think the hawks forgot that many many people will be very very pissed about 3% then 3.5% later.. if you watched the interview with starmer he was leaking pissed off around the 3% challenge.. he actually got quite frustrated for starma and said essentially…look I promised 2.5% by 2030 and actually delivered it by 2027..I will tell you the exact date for 30% when the figures are worked out, but trust me I’m trying to deliver it quickly…
Essentially he knows unless he has the figures exactly nailed down everyone from everyside will attack.
‘up to’ umm i do like those words. Lets see what really happens. Cut spin and double talk and say what is going to be ordered. I feel the Army will come 3rd in this review and in way can see why. It all boils down to what is ordered not what we might look at, hope to do, there it might be a bit thin on detail as normal. Lots MOD speak and open ended stuff but little else. I hop i am totally wrong.
How ever Labour if look back as reviews do better than the Tory’s.
I’m not sure the headline is right. We will currently plan to have 7 astute and 4 dreadnaughts, giving a total of 11. Going up to 12 just means 1 extra boat.
No, it specifically refers to the purchase of 12 SSN AUKUS boats, to replace the Astute-class and supplement the Dreadnought-class boats.
It didn’t state that in the press release I read, it just vaguely linked to aukus, but the quote just said the UK to build 12 submarines. I guess we will find out shortly when the full SDSR gets published.
12 attack submarines but you could classify Dreadnaught as that considering normal polictically spin.
I just read the MoD release and it stated 12 attack boats.
Interestingly the quote doesn’t actually state they will be for the royal navy either, just that they will be built in the UK. I assume for the UK but never assume anything.
AUKUS has always mentioned up to 12 so don’t understand why this is so newsworthy, other than attention grabbing headlines. Nobody believed the Tories would build 12, so don’t see what has now changed so why would we believe Labour will build 12 after a vague statement with fuzzy non-committal words. Hopefully the commitment will be stronger in the actual review, but doubt it.
Extra 5 astutes i believe
Wrong.
no they are referencing SSN’s in multiple statements not nuclear submarines. So its an increase from 7 to 12 + 4 SSBN which is exactly what the 1998 SDR said.
They never referred to SSN in any of the official publications I saw, they just mentioned attack submarines, and that could be anything. The fact they didn’t specifically mention astute is interesting. We will see, it’s hard to know if dumbing down for a press statement or trying to make it sound more impressive than it is, in spin style. The full publication should hopefully clarify.
The Dreadnaughts are ballistic missile submarines not attack boats. So the dreadnoughts should not count.
No it will be 12 Aukus or SSNrs eventually. For a time the fleet will be a mixed Astute and Aukus force until upto 12 in service then the astutes will be retired and additional Aukus/ SSNrs come online to replace on a 1:1 basis. The RN is also going to be getting much larger much more capable drone hunter killers to prosecute targets within the GIUK gap and wider North Atlantic. The drone submarines will be our second line and proliferative units and could be built in reasonably large numbers.
A couple of hours to go before we see the actual review, but additional SSBN, sovereign nuclear warheads, more escorts plus project Cabot do seem to me like the right priorities for the RN. Good job; would like to see a sovereign missile too.
Will this require more submariners, or are these boats simply replacing older ones? I imagine recruiting could be a big challenge in itself. Maybe that’s why they’re not planning to increase Army numbers.
We don’t know whether extra automation will allow SSNA to require fewer people than the Astutes. Probably. However going from 7 boats to 12 would need a significant reduction in crew per boat, around 40%, to not require more submariners to fully man the boats. That might be a bit much to ask for.
Who will be manning these submarines?
The Rifles. We are going to paint it dark green, drive it slightly faster than everyone else, but be ever-so slightly more scruffy. HMS Bugle. We can do that, because as everyone on this site keeps saying “we don’t really need an Army…”
Erm excuse me kind sir that’s my lot you’re calling scruffy! You’re not wrong though 🙂 Especially what was DDLI! Potatoes growing behind their ears most of them!
Our lot
RAF Regt
Recruits yet to join the RN, with some currently serving.
If long-term plans are laid, a work force can grow.
Finally some good news
Good news! But the cynic in me reckons in the decades between now and when they will be built there will be another review and they will be cut back down to 7.
That’s standard.
Always jam tomorrow.
I’m hoping this time things will be different.
Hi Daniele,
That will likely be down to what messrs Putin, Xi, Kim and Kamenei do next.
My guess is that Putin and Xi are going to step up their pressure on the West as they are not getting any younger and they have personal ambitions and egos to satisfy. It is that egotistical element that makes them so dangerous and sets the timescales we face. Even if they do not actually start a shooting war with the west in general (Putin and Kim are already shooting at a western aligned nation!) they will likely have set the CRINK axis rolling sufficiently down the slippery slope to war that the chances of avoiding it will be virtually nil.
We should never forget that if you are Japanese and Chinese WW2 started in 1936, 1939 for Poland, Germany, Britain and France, etc… In other words WW3 will likely start small and snow ball… History might say that it has actually started in Europe in 2022 or 2011..!?
Cheers CR
CR,
Agree w/ your general assessment. Minor points: Japanese invasion of Manchuria began on September 18th, 1931 (Mukden Incident). Not certain re 2011 reference, possibly 2008 (Georgia) or 2014 (Crimea)?
Hello mate,
I was thinking of the pro western protests in Ukraine that started in 2013 and culminated with the annexation of Crimea in 2014. I should have checked me dates!
I don’t much about Manchuria, other than a certain Soviet General, later Marshal, Zhokov stuck it to the Japanese which had a lasting impact on Japanese psyche such that they didn’t move to support Hitler in 1941 against the Soviets.
The old Axis Pact was an interesting lesson in how not to build an alliance whilst stirring up trouble in a semi coordinated manner. The are similarities that are worth thinking about with the current CRINK axis that seems to be developing and which seems to have been lost somewhere in the wash of the SDR. We’ll see when it finally drops.
Cheers CR
CR
Sorry, missed your intent when reading the section of your post mentioning both the Chinese and Japanese. Drew wrong conclusion, my bad
It’s just words at the moment and we currently have some serious trouble maintaining the superb boats that we already have with 3 of the 5 delivered to date laid up with 2 (Ambush & Artful) awaiting repairs and 1 i(Audacious) in dock undergoing repairs/refit. No point in building more until we get the current mess sorted out.
If it takes to 2035 to sort the current mess out then we might as well start learning Russian and Mandarin now!
The last I read was that Babcock were making good progress on the dry dock upgrades and the backlog of SSN / SSBN refits was starting to improve, but we are not out of the woods yet. One would hope that any upgrades required for Dreadnaught and SSN-AUKUS would be delivered in good time.!?
Cheers CR
🤞🤞 Taking a little artistic license w/ the “Field of Dreams” quote, “If you build it, the (USN) will come.” Virtually guaranteed. A nice little balance of payments enterprise operating into the indefinite future. 🤔
Great news — assuming budgets remain intact and we don’t face cuts in actual orders down the line.
It would be encouraging to see additional orders placed for equipment already in production, such as the Type 31, F-35, and Typhoon. Also – a tracked IFV.
What news. There is nothing new.
Hello Roach,
I think you understood my point perfectly well, so you’re either being deliberately obtuse or—just in case you genuinely fall into one of these new spectrums that have emerged over the last 10–15 years—I’ll try again.
Yes, it’s great news if we actually end up with 12 SSN-A in service in a couple of decades. But it’s easy for a government that’s years away from placing actual orders to “commit” to such numbers. Most of our surface fleet started out with far more ambitious plans, only to be cut down repeatedly.
My broader point is that I’d like to see what our procurement plan is in the short to medium term—not just distant promises.
Anyway, hopefully not long now.
Firstly, you could have used Geoff. The clue is in the name so I’ve no idea what a “new spectrum” is, nor was I being obtuse. There is no news, other than what we already know. As for “not long now”, I thought that’s what the SDR was supposed to about.
I served in the 70s to the 90s and both governments have stripped out our military. We need a navy the size of the Falklands area. But we need to increase the army, to minimum 500 tanks, more artillery, more APCs. The RAF needs to double in size.
We need to build British, but there is one problem with all this ? Who is going to man this ? The governments have alienated the young British men from council estates who use to volunteer in there tens of thousand. You now have iidiot iidiot civvies doing recruitment who haven’t got a clue. Bring Bach old fashion recruitment, let the experts decide as they did with me.
We need men serving in front line units
Will be interesting to see where the yard space comes from to build another 12 boats. Barrow is full and busy finishing off Astute class and the new Dreadnought SSBNs. Barrow is also small ship yard. They either need to significantly reduce build time or start building at another shipyard – maybe Liverpool? Kier reckons a new boat every 18mths. Like to see it. Recent Astute’s have been taking over a year from float out to sail away, total build time more like 4yrs each
BAES Barrow wants to buy land next door at an old gasworks I think.
My money is buying the Morrisons supermarket out and building new facilities on that space.
I assume the AUKUS boats replace Astutes and are even better. But does that mean we are replacing the Astutes before they have done their full service life?
Doubt it with the long timescales involved?
Assume a mix of new SSNA and the newer Astutes will be in service as older Astute are replaced.
Unlikely just continue AUKUS production at a after of 1/18months after the dreadnoughts. That’s still several years away so for a while the SSN force will be both Astutes and AUKUS by the time the dreadnoughts are built and another 8 years or so for 5 AuKUS are built the first astutes will be quite old. I’m cynical though that changes of government/costs will lead to drops in numbers or the astutes being retired because the replacement is then cancelled.
Having been positive earlier, and trying to remain so, the cynical side of me is tapping on my shoulder.
12. We’ve heard that before. 12 T45, which Labour nibbled down to 8 then ended up buying 6.
This is a typical example of Jam tomorrow, or Jam decades from now, they know they won’t be the ones delivering it if it is into other Parliaments.
Just like the Tories did pre election, just like BJ did I 2019 with his defence cuts end grandstanding.
The groundwork is being laid, big expansions underway or planned at Derby, Barrow, SFM secured, Devonport Dry Docks being refurbished.
Where is progress on Euston? The new floating docks fir Faslane? Get them ordered.
Get long lead items ordered.
These grand announcements are intended to be the headline the public swallow. The details come out further down the line.
Carrots nibbled? We shall see.
Positive, but until they’re actually ordered this is just words, but positive words, yes.
What in SDSR today re conventional forces will actually be ordered shortly?
I suggest nothing except the industrial uplifts.
I take this with a huge pinch of salt.
Easy to aspire to twelve when your government will be long gone before they are ordered.
I read this as 12 between the UK and Oz, not 12 just for the UK. Maybe I’m just too cynical…
The release states that the boats will be built in the UK. Given Australia intends to build their submarines in Australia, the British-built boats can only be intended for the RN.
The best option is for VP to go on his way. He can’t avoid Mother Nature for ever or a Ukrainian drone strike.
Russia won’t change until the Cold War generation has passed.
I suspect he will be gone within 5 years along with Lavrov, Gerasimov and the rest of the leadership past retirement age. What happens if the next lot without the Cold War tempering of ambitions are a rampant Russia First team rather than your suggested Peace team?
This is great news. The problem is that unfortunately the last 20 years are still kicking us in the teeth as the first of these will not be built the late 2030s
So realistically let’s say they can keep the astutes ticking for 30 years and they lay down the first AUKUS in 2030.. with increased investment they can hit a 5-6 year build so commission the first for 2036
2036 7 astute 1 AUKUS =8
2037 7astute 1 AUKUS = 8
2038 7 astute 2 AUKUS = 9
2039 7 astute 3 AUKUS = 10
2040 7 astute 3 AUKUS = 10
2041 6 astute 4 AUKUS = 10
2042 6 astute 5 AUKUS = 11
2043 6 astute 5 AUKUS = 11
2044 5 astute 6 AUKUS =11
2045 5 astute 7 AUKUS =12
2046 5 astute 7 AUKUs =12
2047 4 astute 8 AUKUs =12
At this point because audacious and the rest of the Asutes were so delayed there is an opportunity to increase the SSN fleet above 12 if they still keep the asutes running for 30 years as audacious would have only been in commission for 27 years.
2048 Astute 4 AUKUS 9 = 13
2048 Astute 4 AUKUS 9 =13
2049 Astute 4 AUKUS 10 = 14
2050 Astute 4 AUKUS 11 = 15
2051 Astute 3 AUKUS 11 = 14
2052 Asute 3 AUKUS 12 = 15
So we can see that in a best case we are over a decade away from any increase and 2 decades away from 12.. the delay in ordering Astute then the slowdown in the build will take a very long time to fix.. decades we don’t actually have… unfortunately I will say it again 2010 was easy to read.. there was a profoundly likely chance we were moving to a Cold War.. Cameron and others miss read it and gambled, because they were the epitome of the “ end of history “ generation of politicians who were essentially geopolitically dense.
The Astutes Reactor Core is Fuelled for 25 years only,not 30.HMS Vanguard proved that they will be a complete PITA to Refuel.
In that case they will not reach 10 until close to 2045
The reactors were designed to not need refuelling over the expected 25 year life of the subs… NOT to need refuelling after 25 years.. I suspect they were build with more fuel than was expected to be needed over the 25 years so there must be a margin as reactors, because to not have a margin would be utterly idiotic, SSNs also don’t simply run out of fuel one day.. they become less and less effective..Navies simply as policy change the rods or decommission before there is any indication of fuel decay.. also the more a an SSN is used the more it uses up its fuel rods.. the Asutes have spent a lot of time sitting against the wall which will have given more years on their reactors.. so with all that it’s not unlikely that the navy could get five more years out of each.
Hi Jonathan. Although the Astutes were never intended to need refuelling to extend I believe they can be. It’s actually the quickest, cheapest way of getting oa numbers up to 12 and crews formed. But if someone seriously wants to do that then they need to make that decision right now and splash the cash to Babcock and RR.
Simple reason is long lead items will need to be produced simultaneously with Dreadnought / SSN(A) ones and that isn’t going to be an easy job as it’s all go go on PWR3.
I was thinking on this actually and they have never actually stated the reactors would need refuelling after 25 years… only that they are designed not to need refuelling in the 25 year life of the astutes… which is not the same as they will run out of juice in the UO2 pellet stacks after 25 years.. after all the Astutes have spent a lot of time sitting against the wall as well.. so I’m not sure there even would be an issue running them on for 5 more years.. after all if they were really fuelled for the reactor fuel rods to flake out exactly the year they were due to be decommissioned that would be a bit iffy…
Big items of kit are good – but what is the plan to be able to produce millions of one way drones, as we see in Ukraine? Also the flexibility to change such capability very quickly. The standard defence model of taking years to define and build defence equipment just won’t cut it.
Sure our situation is different, as every country is to Ukraine’s in that for the UK at least, as its always been, we are a maritime nation and need to retain control of the North Atlantic and others surrounding seas.
The workforce needed in the Forces is just one aspect of this boost to our economy as there will be more needed in industry to construct and support it.
Where are they coming from given what seems to be a reducing willingness to serve and what looks to be a reducing working age population apart from imports which may not be either skill capable or loyal? From last week’s articles we seen to have already run out of technically capable staff in the Scottish lowlands.
Where is the needed announcement covering the significant increase in technical training in schools/colleges/universities?
This seems to be going to be an announcement sadly built on sand. Anyway we are going to desperately need exports over the next decade, we need RR cranking out small nuclear power stations not naval reactors.
THE BIGGEST NON EVENT IN YEARS..
Not sure if there is the land for building 12 boats, and trundling bits of hull along the roads of Barrow island is not for the faint hearted.
Then there is the workforce – where are they coming from and where will they live.
Then the RN will need personnel AND accommodation I and around Barrow…
Then, the need for Australian personnel accommodation and a production slot for their boat…
Is this really going to happen?
The Australians are building their boats in Australia.
Rumour control has the first is being built here.
That is far to much reality for a politician to grasp. It isn’t the world they inhabit.
Great! – on the face of it. In general I think the UK defence industry needs to prioritise Sovereign capabilities/IP. I sense that UK politicians are gradually understanding the need to do this. However, in the case of subs there are – to me – worrying examples of where this is not the case:
1) High spec hull steel should be made in the UK (UK steel industry needs re-booting).
2) AUKUS subs will be using American Combat Management System – not the existing UK one.
3) “THALES UK” have been awarded £1.2B to develop a sensor suite. Given that the French “dogs of war” company THALES is into all sorts, including supplying Russian armour with their sensor/sighting system, I think the UK should avoid using such companies in such sensitive areas, and develop/use its own Sovereign design/IP and industry.
Not to want to throw a spanner in the works but is that up to 12 SSNs for the RN or 12 SSNs for the RN/RAN? If it is for the RN then I hope that four of the future SSNs would get the Virginia payload Module inserted.
If the RN did get 12 boats and 24 surface combat ships that is a major increase in the capabilities of the RN and about time.
It would make sense to build 1 or 2 more Astute class since the timescale to get to 12 AUKUS class is ridiculious. We can only build 2 nuclear subs at a time so this needs to be expanded to at least 3 or possibly 4. We have had 35 years peace dividend since 1989 and our dwefences martime, aerial and land are totally inadequate
It makes some sense but it is physically impossible now – the Astutes use the PWR2 Reactor,the Dreadnoughts will use the PWR3 Reactor, which is bigger than the PWR2.You cannot fit PWR3 into the Astute Hull structure,and RR cannot make any more PWR2’s.
Thanks Paul a logicasl answer.
Yay! let’s commit to yet more capability and platforms without actually allocating any funding to it! May our enemies fear the ink on our paper!
In all seriousness I do question how this and other plans can be achieved even if they increased to 3% of GDP from tomorrow. I suspect the surface escorts will be small scale drone boats, as for the submarines I hope they do build more but with budget constraints I was expecting more drones, maybe networked drone boats and submersibles to create a kind of NET within european waters freeing up out Astute subs for attacking and long range missile fire.
And yes I am another useless armchair general =p,.I just hope it isn’t all hot air and smoke screens.
This is very good news. However as Labour are now vastly unpopular it is likely they will be out at the next election. So we can only hope Reform share their vision for defence…
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Next they’ll be recruiting white men while singing rule Britannia.
They won’t be built , it’s just more hot air and bullshit . They will be built in line with the type 32 frigates.. and built in the empty promises ship yard that’s down the road from the long grass air field ..all displayed in the long term distant future never going to happen department.
Why after being told repeatedly lately to their faces that we no longer believe anything they say do the politicians still roll out this faded jaded bullshit ..sorry not buying it .
If he was genuine then it would be started now ..not in 2035-40!
Double ?