Construction of the first SSN-AUKUS attack submarine will begin next year, with the Defence Investment Plan confirming the commitment to build up to 12 of the next-generation boats for the Royal Navy.
The plan states the UK is “building up to 12 next-generation SSN-A nuclear powered, conventionally armed attack submarines, and we will cut steel on the first boat next year,” adding that “these will be the same class of submarines that Australia will also build under AUKUS.” Alongside the boats themselves, the document lists investment in weapons systems and sensors for underwater drones as the signature project under AUKUS Pillar 2, the strand of the partnership covering advanced technologies rather than the submarines.
SSN-AUKUS is the successor to the Astute class, a design based on the UK’s next-generation attack submarine adapted to incorporate American and Australian technology under the trilateral partnership. The British boats will be built by BAE Systems at Barrow-in-Furness with their reactors manufactured by Rolls-Royce at Raynesway in Derby, the same sites building the Dreadnought ballistic missile submarines, and Australia plans to construct boats of the same class at Osborne in South Australia, having also arranged to buy three American Virginia-class submarines to bridge the gap until its own production line is running. Defence minister Lord Coaker revealed this week that the fifth SSN-AUKUS reactor is already in manufacture at Raynesway, where Rolls-Royce has broken ground on a doubling of the site.
The plan supports the build with a series of industrial commitments across the Defence Nuclear Enterprise, including a Submarine Build Modernisation effort to expand manufacturing capacity, accelerate production and improve productivity in support of AUKUS, the expansion of reactor core manufacturing at Raynesway for the UK and Australian navies, a multi-decade infrastructure programme at HM Naval Base Clyde to ready the base for Dreadnought and SSN-A boats, three floating docks at Faslane enabling out-of-water engineering for all submarine classes, and dock upgrades at Devonport. A Nuclear Fuels Programme backed by £1.7 billion will explore re-establishing a nuclear fuel cycle for defence reactor fuel, and the Defence Nuclear Enterprise will invest over £290 million in nuclear skills.
The steel cut will come with Barrow already at an unprecedented tempo, with the final Astute completing, the four Dreadnought boats in build following the start of construction on HMS King George VI last year, and the first SSN-A joining them on the ways. Overall nuclear deterrent spending in the plan runs to £63 billion over the next four years across Dreadnought, SSN-AUKUS and the warhead programme, and the government is targeting a drumbeat of a new submarine every 18 months from the expanded Barrow and Raynesway facilities, a rate some analysis has described as demanding without further capacity growth.
This is excellent news, but the focus in the immediate future has to be to get the Astutes back to sea ASAP.
Not really much that can be done. Just going to have to wait and clear the backlog.
They need the dry docks but the MoD is moving at a sub glacial pace over it. Surely the big dry dock at Rosyth could be used.
Nope it’s off limits, simple reason is it is at present the only dock that an takes QE carrier.
Neither carrier is due dry dock time so I see no reason why they can’t fit an astute in , right now guarding our offshore infrastructure is higher priority imho,
The issue isn’t when they are due a refit, it’s when they aren’t and have to be docked in an emergency andcBabcocks hands are tied due to the terms of their contract. IMHO it would make more sense to get Inchgreen back up and running as it’s near to parts of HMNB Clyde and it avoids towing them through the Pentland Firth.
TBH the whole damn thing is a complete mess caused by 40 odd years of not investing and just pushing the ball onto the next guy.
For example Rosyth has another drydock that’s perfectly suited to do this work but presently it’s busy on the SDP for HMS Swiftsure, which is a process that should have been started 30 years ago.
Bottom line is build the damned floating docks ASAP !
Which is why it is all the more annoying the MoD are moving at a sub glacial pace procuring them.
It will be interesting to get details on the build rate. Starting construction next year is one thing but if they take a decade to get into service then there is an issue.
Why is there an issue, they are building a nuclear powered submarine not a set of shelves from IKEA
on a serious note: Building nuclear attack submarines is a monumental engineering, industrial, and diplomatic challenge. For the UK, delivering the first new SSN-AUKUS submarine to the Royal Navy by the late 2030s takes a decade or more due to extreme design complexity, severe specialized labour shortages, and massive shipyard infrastructure constraints
The delay and extended timeline are driven by several core bottlenecks: Design and Integration Complexity: The SSN-AUKUS is a brand-new, trilateral design. While it relies on a British baseline, it must integrate highly advanced US technologies (such as combat systems) and accommodate shared specifications for the Royal Australian Navy.
Industrial and Shipyard Constraints: The UK’s primary nuclear submarine facility at Barrow-in-Furness must undergo major site upgrades and massive capital expansion to handle the concurrent workload of both the ongoing Dreadnought ballistic missile submarine program and the new SSN-AUKUS class
Supply Chain and Workforce Gaps: The specialized nuclear supply chain is stretched thin, and there is a significant shortage of skilled nuclear engineers, naval architects, and specialized defence trades needed to scale production
Because we are meant to be preparing for a war in 5 years time, so if it’s over 10 years to they are built, they will be 5 years too late.
Well they are to replace submarines already existing, bar one still in build. Getting them reliably operational will be the priority in any war in that time frame.
Weren’t they stated as an upgrade in numbers in the original defence plan from last year?
Saying that adding an extra astute would have made more sense since the halls are already there and lessons learnt from the earlier boats. However agree they need to get the current built boats sorted and back to sea.
Its too late, another astute class SSN can’t be built. The PWR2 Nuclear Reactor is no longer in production
While all of your points are valid, when dealing with military matters it bears remembering that the enemy also gets a say. So while it may be reasonable to expect it to take that long to deal with the challenges involved, there is also the problem that if it takes than long, then it may provide an opportunity to potential adversaries. Excuses about the timelines being too tight are unlikely to be of much use in a military scenario.
So that must mean the design is nearly complete? Or is it more that the first bit of steel are just so generic in size and shape you don’t need a completed design?
The design was (according to the Aussies) around 70% complete some three years ago. Given they’ve ordered LLTIs and are furnishing FMS of VLS from the USA, I think that it’s almost certainly in the final design stages.
Really that’s a quick turnaround, thought we would still be in the early stages with how glacial our design process is. However I wonder how much of the design has actually changed from the original SSNR design.
Wonder when they will release some basic design specs and some sort of rendered image of what it will look like. Obviously nothing sensitive, just stuff you can see on Wikipedia.
I mean, SSN(R) was announced in 2018, so design work on a replacement submarine has been ongoing for some eight years now.
I suspect there’s probably been not too much physical redesign. Many of Australia’s requirements are software-based. The British hull wouldn’t need heavy alterations to fit things like AN/BYG-1 or the ADCAP.
You can check out renders on the Wikipedia page, and there are some images of various models on the Reddit pages. As for specifications, we know it’ll be about 10,000t, use an Anglicised version of AN/BYG-1, British sensors, and be compatible with the Mk48 ADCAP, Spearfish, Tomahawk and potentially Conventional Prompt Strike.
NL quoted a length of around 130mtrs (425 ft) …?
Similar to later VIRGINIA Class Vessels…
.If there beam is more Akin to ASTUTE they’ll very serious vessels..
Beam will be the same as the Dreadnoughts as they are using the same powerplant.
The beam of the Dreadnought is 12.8 meters, it’s not yet known what the exact beam dimensions of AUKUS SSN will be.
The reactor model for the Dreadnought Class will be the PWR3 reactor
The reactor model for the AUKUS Class will be the upgraded PWR3+ reactor (sometimes referred to as Core H).
No they aren’t !
The Virginia class SSN block 1 through block 4 is 377 feet (114.19 meters)
Beam (Width): 34 ft (10.36 m)
Displacement: 7,800 to 7,900 tons submerged
The AUKUS Class SSN will be roughly 425 feet (130 meters aprox)
Beam (width) not known, possibly larger than Astute Class SSN)
Displacement: 10,000 tonnes submerged, making it substantially larger than the Astute class.
The Virginia Class SSN block 5 is 461 feet (140.5 meters)
Beam (Width): 34 ft (10.36 m)
Displacement: approximately 10,200 tonnes Submerged
…or in Chinese libraries.
leh,
Damn, unless mistaken, this schedule represents a significant advancement of the previous, nominal SSN-A production timeline! Kudos to the blokes down at the Admiralty; RN obviously found an additional gear, upshifted and has the tach buried! Rather a different perspective from the usual wailing and nashing of teeth prevalent on this site. 🤔😉👍🇦🇺🇬🇧🇺🇲
Err, I’m not sure. The in-service date for the first SSN-A is set as the ‘late 2030s’, so presumably 2038-39. Assuming the worst case scenario within that range (delivery in December 2039), then you’d have a 12 year construction time for the first SSN-A, which is about average compared to the Astute-class submarine construction times.
But on the whole, it’s absolutely a positive thing. This should ensure SSN-A Boat 1 is ready to replace Astute when her service ends.
It’s amazing what £67 billion over four years can achieve 😀
Not biting 😏
Oh well, money is money.
Is it not £64 billion over four years for nuclear endeavour? I did hear you disputed it but I haven’t seen anything else showing it’s not true albeit it the figure include F35A alongside side several nuclear programs and three submarine programs.
£50bn of it is the submarine powerplants for AUKUS and Dreadnought and the new nuclear weapons and SLBM. About £12bn is submarines.
Is the F-35A purchase really included in the DNE figure? That would be an odd piece of bookkeeping.
Apparently so from what i read.
If the F35A purchase is primarily to carry B61-12 under the Nuclear Sharing Agreement, that puts them in DNE with conventional weapons loads a bonus fir RAF tasking.
Sounds like those F35A will be hangar queen’s because it’s Nuclear, whereas NSA is just a strategic chess move to deter any RF thoughts to use their tactical Nukes in disobedience to Chairman xi and Mr Modi who told VVP not to.
If Ukraine continues past their 40 days and nights initiative to reduce RF critical infrastructure and hydrocarbon infrastructure to a smoking pile of scrap so that even VVP understands that he is defeated, he may become so desperate that he uses tactical nuclear weapons.
What happens next is unknown but certainly is long before RAF has any F35A in service and probably the same for the Luftwaffe. So that leaves USAF at RAF Lakenheath with B61-12 but very uncertain leadership on tactical nuclear weapons use for NATO members, and Ukraine obviously nowhere near NATO membership yet…
Have the F35As definitely been given the go ahead? Having free fall nuclear weapons seems a bit sloppy. Are they glide bomb types? Why no powered nuclear standoff weapons? The Tempest will surely be nuclear compatible, won’t it?
They are mentioned a couple of times in the DIP, but the wording in one place is:
“In addition to the DNE’s investments, we will also purchase F-35As and join NATO’s Dual Capable Aircraft nuclear mission.”
That suggested to me that the F-35As were not part of the DNE budget. Unfortunately I haven’t seen the spreadsheets yet — if they are even to be publicly released — so I have no solid idea what heading they fall under, and if Jim has information that they are in DNE, I can’t refute it.
Have the F35As definitely been given the go ahead?
Yes, according to the DIP reporting.
Having free fall nuclear weapons seems a bit sloppy. Are they glide bomb types?
Guided bombs capable of high accuracy but probably not the range of a glide bomb since just tail fins, not JDAM style wings.
Why no powered nuclear standoff weapons?
Stealth delivery suggests that standoff is not required, though opinions vary. I’d prefer not to put so much blood and treasure at risk. The key test of deterrence is credibility so it’s still believable that the B61-12 would be delivered.
The Tempest will surely be nuclear compatible, won’t it?
Since GCAP doesn’t involve USAF or Boeing it would depend on AWE to recycle current MIRV warheads into a suitable delivery vehicle (missile) to get that capability. The nuclear renewal project would otherwise need to cover decommissioning of the legacy warheads.
Hi folks Jim hope all is well.
Can you experts advise me. Upon reading the article here,, are we the UK going to have 12 submarines of the AUKUS class? That’s more than the current fleet.
Cheers
George
Hi George, yes the plan is for the UK to have 12 AUKUS class SSN’s and Australia to acquire 5 although that might rise in future to 8 to replace their Aging Virginia class.
The actual answer is on line 3 of this article and every single Government announcement “building up to 12”.
Or in simple terms “maybe” with 🤞🏻 behind their backs.
Given the History of the last Major Programmes I wouldn’t bet on us getting 12 and given the lack of funding by this Government I’m increasingly sceptical.
T45 12 down to 8 and then down to 6.
Astute 12 down to 3 + 3 and a 5 year gap till they ordered the 7th.
T26 13 down to 8 and ordered 5 T31 instead based on the being cheaper and be delivered sooner 🤷🏻
I would in cynical mode suggest the F-35As with their nuclear capability is likely an intention under pressure from and to placate Trump, quid pro quo and all that. I would suspect whether they actually arrive or not will depend on who is in the White House when it solidifies and that’s probably why no actual financial allocation has yet been applied to them as yet. All bargaining chips in the end. We know despite Trump’s fantasy deals USS Trump battleships will fade from ongoing plans the moment he falls asleep while twin engined F-35s that no one dared openly correct him on will literally not get off the ground.
Depends on how or what they term as Started…??
Seen a lot of PR Stunts regarding commissioning..!
I cringe about this. The current trajectory is that air element is increasing its advantages over land and sea.
Air is the element with less resistance to movement, it has to consider the gravity force but the advantages are increasing every decade. Sea and land has not seen any improvement.
What tech we will in 15-20 years?
That’s what they are investing so heavily in submarines not so much to hide from aircraft but more to hide from space craft. Surface ships stand out like a soar thumb to radar satellite arrays and with long range hypersonic missiles the expanse of the ocean is no longer safe above the waves.
Arguably increasingly below the waves too with new detection technologies but at least you have a better chance I guess and for longer.
yes, and you can always go deeper. littorals and shallower seas may become off limits for submarines when laser satellite arrays make an appearance.
Easily Britain’s single most important capability (following nuclear deterrence).
I’d take 12 SSNs over 6 cruisers any time. They’re just far, far more survivable and dangerous.
The people deserve the AAW submarine.
I agree with you but neglecting AAW in the way we are trending towards is incredibly dangerous for a carrier navy.
The budget is limited, and something has to be compromised. If certain conditions are met (for example, ensuring each CCV possesses a significant radar capability, I believe the RN can make it work well.
Time will tell.
That Shortfall of cash means t83 not under this goverment… But a t45 service extention and a revisit of t83 in the future..????
8 wouldn’t rule it out…!
.
My worry is that if more squeezes are needed in future the Navy will sacrifice the radar on CCV, or not specify it in the first place, rather than simply dropping or down-speccing T94, and so make the whole hybrid navy concept redundant.
However much you reduce the budget for a destroyer, it’s still a destroyer, but a fleet of USVs can be trimmed into oblivion with only minor changes.
I mean, that’s a fear that applies to every British procurement project.
The Hybrid Navy is however particularly vulnerable to it as the loss of any one of the redundant components makes the whole no better than a mediocre frigate despite costing vastly more.
Government is yet to learn that cost-effectiveness of medium-sized projects tends to increase with increased spend, not decrease.
TJ,
“AAW submarine?” Believe you have just announced a unique, war canoe class. Follow through to fruition and world will beat a path to your door. 🤔😉👍
And maybe they should also increase the defensive armaments on the carriers themselves too as are three Phalanx’s and whatever EW is onboard, is it really enough even with escorts? I’d be curious as to how many LUSVs you could get for a T31 or T26 or even a potential T83? It could be very tricky docking a fleet of ships and their accompanying drone ships. Good luck to all that!
British Deterrence…
Understand the A21/ASTRAEA MK7 Warhead Was Authorised
Expected to be Around 3X more powerful than current warheads…~300kt
From what I read Astrea may be more like 5 times more powerful (500kt) than existing warheads. It’s certainly going to be a massive increase in the UK firepower. A counter value strike with 100 of these would be devastating to anyone.
However I think we should keep the old war heads and use them for a sub strategic deterrent employing them on existing cruise missile and ballistic missiles like the Russians and Chinese do.
It’s essential we can match every leg of escalation, we are not dealing with the Soviet Union anymore but unstable autocratic rulers and its highly likely the US won’t be willing to intervene.
It sounds like we are running low on nuclear explosive, looking to start up new production. Wouldn’t that mean we’d expect to reuse the old stuff?
Hi Jon, they haven’t said if they will be reusing any parts or materials from the old war heads.
You would hope for £15 billion you would be getting all new 😀
We have the biggest plutonium stockpile in the world by miles. Over 100 tons IIRC
It’s no a lack of material more the pit manufacturing, the US stopped making new pits in 1992, presumably we did something similar.
You can easily reuse pits as they last a long time so they may take the pits from the old warhead and stick it in the new one.
But we don’t know as it’s not the kind of info they share.
My understanding is that a higher yielding warhead would need a physically larger pit, because they are cast in tightly fitting segments. So you’d likely have to recast them regardless where the materials came from. But I’m not a nuclear scientist so who knows.
Apparently new pits are still manufactured at Aldermaston. But ours do last a lot longer than Russian/Chinese ones (which makes them cheaper to maintain) because we have more sophisticated metallurgy.
Jim Keeping the older warheads isn’t cheap they need a lot of regular maintenance over the years and that involves replacing Isotopes such as Tritium which decay. Problem is we don’t make it in U.K anymore so we have to buy it from the US or Canada.
Don’t get me wrong I’ve been advocating a U.K sovereign Tactical Nuc for years, if nothing else it gives us sub Strategic options and annoys the French (which is always a bonus). But it would probably be just cheaper to manufacture some extra new ones.
FYI a new facility to build new pits is part of the Aldermaston renewal and modernisation !
According to Google AI the UK holds about 140 tons of civilian plutonium mostly at Sellafield…
“Civilian” suggests it would require further processing to be used for military purposes. Quite the stockpile, but my guess we have it because no one can decide what to do with it!
Cheers CR
Its a legacy of magnox reactors that produced plutonium continuously as a by-product of civil nuclear electricity. Some of it was used for warheads and what’s left over is the civil stockpile.
Virtually all British Nuks use the same amount of plutonium as a trigger..!
I agree leh, the SSN’s are our most important conventional capability.
Have they bothered to plan the maintaining of them this time? 🤡🤡
🤡
According to the stuff I have read the up grades to the maintenance facilities are intended to support the Dreadnought and SSN-A classes and as such will easily be able to support the Vanguard and Astute classes to the end of their service lives.
Cheers CR
Just clocked that the image isn’t the normal Audacious, Artful and Anson shot, but a modified (presumably AI?) version showing three SSN-A boats. Very cool.
Leh,
Wonder whether SSN-A bears a significant resemblance to Virginia Class SSN, BlockX ? May be an intuitively obvious question. 😉
Probably a little in the sense that they’ll both be long tubes with a fin/sail on the top. The renders of SSN-A definitely smooths out the distinctive chine and shaping of the Astute.
The chines were an early 2000s thing to deal with active sonar in shallow water, IIRC. The Astutes with their unusual focus on inshore SF missions are the only SSNs to have used them but they are common on SSKs.
A return to open ocean, large SSNs is implied by the return to a round hull for SSN-AUKUS, which is better for quiet flow around the hull against long range passive sonar.
Hopefully T93 will be able to take over the inshore ISR role though a swimmer deliver version (X-craft type stuff) might be needed for SF. MSubs build stuff like that though they’d need to be larger to self-deploy.
Err, I’m not sure. I was under the impression that the ‘sonar deflection’ explanation was a misconception, and that the shaping was more to do with sonar performance from the submarine itself, and the shaping of the arrays themselves (being horseshoes).
Going back to some sources from when the Astutes were being built, I’ve seen a multitude of speculative reasons:
Using flat panels to make producing the rubberised panels easier
Using flat panels to give better sonar performance
Improving hydrodynamic lift from the positive angle of attack of the sub
Reducing drag by vortex shedding along the chine
Blast deflection against proximity mines and torpedoes
Breaking up the wake to prevent tracking by that means (yes, that’s a thing)
Deflection of active sonar pulses
The real reason on the Astutes is probably a blend of all of those, and the reason it isn’t being done on SSN-AUKUS is probably similar to why F35 looks a lot less ‘stealthy’ and angular than the F117, or why modern fighters have no visible ‘area ruling’ because computer modelling and design mean that the effect can be done better without compromising on the shape.
The wake-detection/tracking systems are particularly interesting, and given that the UK is the Western (though probably not global) leader in that field, I can imagine Astute being given particularly features to experiment with reducing detectability (and similarly making it easier to pick up foreign wakes using whatever versions of those little spikes she’s fitted with – if at all).
There’s an excellent NL article on non-acoustic sensors from 2021, I imagine they will be heavily incorporated into SSN-AUKUS to assist the sonar.
Positive news, looks like we’ve finally got the ‘drumbeat’ construction sorted and (if all goes well) we’ll avoid a capability gap when Astute goes. Not that we really have any submarine capability at the moment. The bit that worries me is that they are still using the phrase ‘up to 12’.
‘At least 12’, would be reassuring to be sure…
Cheers CR
A lot of people doubt that the U.K. can actually deliver the SSN-A at the rate of delivery required, they base that not unreasonable conclusion on the Snails pace schedule of the Astutes.
There are 2 fundamental reasons that happened :-
1. What isn’t generally appreciated is just how far down in capacity our DNE was when the Astutes were finally ordered, no new recruits or training for nearly a decade, wave after wave of “Voluntary redundancies”, supply chain either folding, leaving the industry or downsizing to near extinction.
The lack of funding for plant and infrastructure for decades made regenerating that capacity even harder and it’s no wonder there have been issues getting it all back up and running.
2. The ordering and funding of the Astutes was like holding sand in your hand and trying to count it, the numbers ordered went from 12 to 8, then just 3 ordered, then another 3 and then ……..1 more when HMG finally realised that all the progress made risked being undone due to no work to tide the DNE over till Dreadnought came along.
As for the funding the staged payments got delayed, smaller and spread out over far more years than industry needed for efficient build processes.
So don’t go blaming industry for this pace it’s what our Lords and Masters in HMT would fund. You get what you pay for !
However that’s rapidly being put behind us and the proof of the pudding is in the line about RR here in Derby having 5 SSN-A reactors in build and they are behind the last PWR3 for Dreadnought that’s still in build. When you look at when AUKUS was announced the massive sum of money being pumped into the DNE and we have 5 in build you should begin to realise that just for once HMT are actually funding industry with what it needs to get the job done properly.
I can’t speak for Barrow but from what’s in the public domain it’s also cracking along at a rate of knots, new assembly halls etc etc.
For those of you who are interested in seeing what some of this at Derby actually looks like go onto a search engine and put this in :-
“Huge Rolls-Royce Derby expansion critical to protect U.K and Europe” that should take you to an article with a picture of what the site will look like when it’s finished, the dark bits are the old and the white is the new. But just like a lot of official launches or in this case a minster with a nice shiny spade shifting a bit of earth, the actual build process has been going on for 4 years and some of it is pretty well advanced. FYI as a lot of it is on the old staff car park the first bit built is a new Multi Storey on the other side of the Midland Mainline, shame the footbridge isn’t up yet but hey that’s down to Network Rail.
One funny little and very English tibit, if you look at the picture you will notice a small L shaped building right up at the top on the other side of the duel carriageway (Raynesway). Yep it’s exactly what it looks like a Brand New Cricket Pavilion, complete with 2 new cricket pitches, that’s because RR have had to buy the Old Derby County Training ground so they can shift Alvastons Cricket Club so they can build 8 office blocks on it (that’s the bit top right near the river).
Those 5 reactors that are in build already are all being done in the refurbished old assembly facilities, so go figure just how serious this ramp up is !
Thanks for sharing link ABC, it’s an impressive scale. Fingers crossed we hit the required stride of builds.
Hi Jim, Glad you liked it, it was a crap pitch and if you whacked the ball it ended up in the river so I’m happy.
Yep it’s impressive and oddly the actual site clearing, prep, acquisition of extra land etc started years before AUKUS was ever announced ! Everyone knew something big was happening when HMG magically moved some land from Network Rails portfolio into RRs and massive pile drivers sprang up everywhere. Then AUKUS was announced and it all made sense.
There is a similar image somewhere of what Barrow will look like, it’s pretty damned impressive as well. The big difference up there is they desperately need extra houses, town redevelopment and a major new rd so that they can expand the workforce and increase the catchment area.
On the subject of numbers my gut feeling is we will at least get more than 7 and my hunch is 10 and that’s related to crewing and the AUKUS requirements, to do what we have committed to with RAN we need more than 7 boats ASAP ! So easiest way to do that is to carry out a LOP-R on some of the Astutes and build up mass until the RAN start getting their own.
It’s an odd thing for MOD and a bit of a Golden Handcuff position for the Political idiots who run this country, they just can’t cut numbers of T26 or SSN-A as they please anymore, as they have partners to consider and those partners have contracts and Money at stake.
If MOD cuts an order it affects the unit cost of our boats / ships and those of our Alies who are helping to fund it all ! This could be interesting 🤔
You may want to watch what happens in Parliament at 2pm tomorrow its Defence Questions time ! I think there will be some good ones.
Some of the smaller companies that had made kit for the boat ‘s have gone to the wall. They couldn’t survive producing the small amounts over many years.
Not good when those parts break!
Let’s hope they have some serious Tracking Radars If they are to protect against “Cricket Balls flying at Twice the speed of sound” then…….. “Four”… “How’s eeeeeee”.
Fantastic news.
I wonder how many of the “Up To 12” we will actually get, I’m sure this will be debated In the next few decades both In Government and on here.
With the push towards Drones and Motherships, I can see the potential for this project to add Incredible capability to the RN though. Especially If they add Nuclear tipped cruise missiles to the 12.
Will we sell off Astutes early though ?
The aspiration is to get SSN A in the water ahead of astute retirements so the fleet begins going up in numbers in the late 2030’s
Personally I’m hoping China finds democracy and Russia disappears and we don’t need 12 but better to be prepared 😀
Crazy to think that each submarine can buy a light rail metro system for a city the size of Leeds.
Shows how little the UK spends on infrastructure given that 12 SSNs are a minority of Defence which is itself a smallish slice of government spending.
We could buy a LOT of light rail systems.
I agree, if it was up to me every city above 250,000 would have atleast one line like France. It’s a scandal that a city the size of Leeds still have no mass transit system.
Yup. A rapid transit system in West Yorks would pay for itself over a decade. We could have that and the submarine if it wasn’t for the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. No need to choose.
Given their recent edict on education and civil proceedings for being 100% good CCP members regardless of ethnicity which amounts to a public declaration for genocide, I would not be hopeful for Democracy just a continuation of CCP dictatorship.
Chairman xi remains confident that it’s all going to his plan…
Xi can’t live forever, no one thought in the mid 80’s the Soviet Union was going anywhere. I remain an optimist 😀
A feature of the dictatorship governance model is that they must chose a successor that they can control, like a child, or risk chaos as their legacy. KJU of DPRK for example was a peaceful transfer of power. Nobody is suggesting Don Jr because there’s a VP for that, and term limits.
In the case of CCP it used to be a party leader election, but I’m not aware how such an election would be called…
Good luck with your optimism.
Ok where are the designs or in old speak the plans, ? Say build subs next year what class are they, whats thier type name,
I suspect the naming convention will be announced next year. Hopefully it’s something good and not just the B class names.
I’m hoping they use the Leander names or the 1942 light fleet carriers.
Colossus Class SSN 😜
Submarines are nearly always letter classes and the RN has enough names for it to work.
B or C would both be fine.
That’s fine when they were boats, these are 10,000 tonne nuclear monsters.
We can do better than just the B names, Most of the B’s are crap names anyway and all used on the T22.
SSN’s are the new battleships, they should have appropriate names.
It was fine for T45 with D names and in my plan the T83s would also have ended up with I names from battlecruisers, the SSNs being bigger doesn’t really matter.
I’ll have another look at the Wikipedia lists but IIRC the C names are a pretty good bunch.
B class were pretty naff and although I like the Light Fleets I think maybe we should use either Admirals names (Rodney would be nice) or to stick 2 fingers up at the PC crap, remind the country about our History we reuse the Battle class Destroyers names but add a few like Tumbledown or Longdon and stick Agincourt in just in case.
Could bring back the cats, Lion, Lynx, Tiger, Puma and so on. Fits the ominous silent hunter vibe of a submarine
For names with an RN history you run out very quickly after that, however.
The I class would be good as they have history in aircraft carriers and battlecruisers, or the various storied B and C names.
The need to keep Barrow rolling will get us 12…
The real question is can we Operate 12 or will Some become Dockside Paperweights as we’ve Seen of late…
With three floating dry docks and three onshore docks I suspect so.
Jim you are assuming that all 3 Drydocks will end up in UK, I think one will end up in Australia as initially we are committed to sending a Boat down there.
Plus someone has to figure out how we maintain the Reactor compartment for the RAN boats when they can’t touch them due to NPT.
The KISS solution is to actually commission one of the Docks as an RN Warship which means it is UK Sovereign Territory and not subject to the NPT as it has Immunity under Article 29 of UNCLOS.
As much as I would like to see a SSN-A every 18 months I don’t see how. With the first SSN-A steel being cut now and expected delivery to the fleet in about 2038 that gives 12 years of construction. If we then take delivery to the fleet every 18 months that mean 8 SSN-As will be in various stages of construction with the first one going out the door and number 8 having the first steel cut. Can Barrow accommodate such a build schedule.
I have noted several comments about the readiness of the design of the SSN-As. I do think in many ways sections of the designs are well known. The aft section with the power plant would be similar to the Dreadnought class, the VPM section is known as we know the dimensions of the VPMs and the bow sonar section is known as that would be similar to the Dreadnoughts.The only question for the bow section is if it will include a SAAB Multi Mission Portal, I do see advantages of this portal. So it is the section that is for weapons handling, command and control and accommodation that needs the major work, still a big task.
I do have one major question the power plant section for the RAN, does it get shipped to Aus in bits e.g. prop, shaft, reactor, generator etc and then get built in Aus. Or does the complete aft section including pressure hull get built here in the UK and then get shipped to Aus. Either way it is going to be a logistics and security nightmare.
12 years to build a single SSN…..
Its bad enough it takes us 5 years to build a small type 31 frigate.
Japan and South Korea only manage 1 every 18 months when building 3000 tonnes SSK. So I have no clue how the government expects 1 SSN-AUKUS every 18 months
The builds are staggered. A single nuclear submarine takes roughly 8 to 10 years to build from the first steel cut to final commissioning. The only way to hit an 18-month delivery cadence is to stagger the production timeline so that multiple submarines are under construction at the exact same time, each at a different stage of completeness
” Up to…. ” and there’s the clause that will come back to bite.
Expect 5 or 6..
Hard to be sure,, but if construction starts in 2027, commissioning would be @ 2039/40, replacing Astute at its 30 year point. If an 18 month delivery interval is achieved, roughly half the delivery interval of the Astutes, fleet numbers will expand gradually. The last boat of 12 will be completed by @ 2058/9, exactly 30 years after the last Astute class reaches 30 years.
Only if the construction rate is accelerated from the 10/11 years of the Astutes, will expansion of the fleet happen any earlier than the early/ mid 2040s.
Whether the ambition for 12 boats survives future defence reviews and the likely constant pressure on budgets remains to be seen.
Then the problems we’ve had at Barrow with skilled labour will return with a vengeance…
We must not forget 4 SSBNs production every so many years… so a bit like painting the forth Bridge
Rotation of 16 then start again!
Up to 12 – I’ve seen this movie before!
Great news to start with the build as they take so long, but i do wonder how successful they will be given anticipated advances in drones. £65bn could buy a lot of drones.
Future planning is hard
SSN AUKUS will support Conventional Prompt Strike – strategic ranged hypersonic missiles to you and me.
These will generate a sub nuclear deterrence capability. A very big stick with global reach.
Shocking (but not unexpected) construction is starting and yet the first won’t be in service until the late 2030s!
.
.
Typically British.
Uh no, delivery timeline has to dovetail with US and RAN build schedules
Good news, especially since these ships will provide the capacity to operate in the Asia-Pacific region. It’s important that the British flag is seen in those waters.
Isn’t the idea of SSNs not to be seen?
Port calls to allies every now and then
Overlooking the elephant in the room aren’t we. We are unable to keep the Astutes boats at sea so why do you expect any different outcomes with the new SSN AUKUS boats?
Did you miss the Project Euston news or something?
No all noted.
Everyone assumes spending a few million quid will sort out the maintenance issues on the Astute boats. From what I have read about how we ended up in this position and the lame excuses from the RN and MOD I struggle to see UK being able to service, support and operate the current and new boats effectively going forward.
“Steel cut …” We are probably 6 years away from the first hull sections of the first SSN-AUKUS arriving at the DDH for assembly. BAE effectively has a pipeline of 17 UK nuclear submarines in build or planned, plus almost certainly a large chunk of the first Australian boat. And remember one Dreadnought takes 2.5 time the man hours of an Astute to build. The DDH is again being be patched up for another 20 years of service, but surely its time for BAE to revisit adding a new hall at Barrow to add capacity. Why they cancelled construction of the Ramsden Dock Facility in Feb 2024 remains a mystery, and was surely a huge mistake.
Reactor compartment is a UK build
At least there is no gap between projects and the trained engineers and shipwrights will be trained up and ready to go. Whats wrong? Something may have gone right except labour will be long gone hopefully when the bill comes due and there is no one left to pay!
Surely at this point calling them AUKUS is inaccurate? Didn’t the Orange Paedophile pull the US out of the arrangement?
Surely it’s more accurate to call them AUK submarines – though this doesn’t have the same ring to it.