The United Kingdom and the United States have set their sights on establishing a rotational presence of one UK Astute class submarine and up to four U.S. Virginia class submarines at HMAS Stirling, located near Perth in Western Australia, by 2027.

This undertaking, named ‘Submarine Rotational Force-West’ (SRF-West), will adhere to Australia’s longstanding policy of no foreign bases on its territory.

Additionally, this will enable the three nations to pool resources while Australia endeavours to build the necessary operational capabilities and expertise to oversee and run its fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, you can read more about that here.

New Australian submarine to be based on British design

Not entirely new

HMS Astute, a nuclear submarine then deployed with HMS Queen Elizabeth’s Carrier Strike Group, visited Perth back in 2021.

UK High Commissioner, Vicki Treadell, said at the time:

“This visit, and the warm welcome our Royal Navy has received exemplifies our commitment to the region, and the spirit of mateship that underpins the bonds between our two great nations.”

The Astute class are the largest, most advanced and most powerful attack submarines ever operated by the Royal Navy, combining world-leading sensors, design and weaponry in a versatile vessel. The class have provision for up to 38 weapons in six 21-inch torpedo tubes. The submarines can use Tomahawk Block IV land-attack missiles with a range of 1,000 miles and Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

201 COMMENTS

  1. We don’t have enough subs to deal with threats in our own backyard …….this another fine mess somebody has gotten us in too!

    • We normally have a sub based in the Indian Ocean anyway so forward basing in Australia potentially frees up subs. Even if we forward deployed two that gives us 5 to cover the Atlantic and the Med. That’s one for CASD defence/ North Atlantic and maybe one more for something else.

      • Two RN boats are possible, certainly during a SCS contingency op., but more probably occurring routinely during the late 2030’s-2040’s when RN is being equipped w/ 10-12 SSN(R). 🤔🤞

          • Hopefully enough to be meaningful whilst not compromising our defences. If they cut some NHS waste that would probably fund both easily.

            (no I’m not going to think that ideas of the left and right are mutually exclusive- the fact that we can build a powerful navy whilst atoning for the past should be something to be immensely proud of-the Germans and Japanese had to be bombed to see the error of their ways, and the Germans are now militarily redundant- we have avoided that due to our innate superiority)

          • Quite simply, this submarine deal, with the POSSIBLE prospect of SSNs increasing to 12, is one of the most heartening things I have seen in years. So many years of seeing cuts. It really feels like an RN regeneration is under way!

            Plus my diet seems to be working and I’ve almost finished a 3-year long work project, so I’m buzzing a little today!

          • It will be fantastic if it all pans out. My cynical side worries that it’s all too good to be true. In our democracy, political will is as transient as the politicians and more changeable than the British weather.
            Remember, we almost had Trots Corbyn. Need I say more. He views the ChiComs as role models and Putin was likely his KGB handler during the Cold War.

          • Oh come on, what’s wrong with some positivity today? Just because I don’t agree with you on everything doesn’t mean we need to go down the “get help” route. We both agree on the need for a bigger navy, and today I just want to feel upbeat for once.

            OK, so we both disagree on apologies. How about pride? I would very much like to see a memorial to the West Africa Squadron and a film about their sacrifice to free the slaves. How about the EIC coming to the aid of Travancore when it was threatened by Tipu Sultan? The Christians of Malabar will never forget that.

            We also did pretty well in WW1 (no matter what popular historians say), and I could honestly go on for hours about our successes in defending against France in the 18th century.

            I’d love to see a film about the Battle of Quiberon Bay.

            How about you?

          • What about the Romans ? or the Vikings ? or the Barbary Pirates ? or the RN sailors killed serving in the anti slavery Sqd ? Just free all your slaves and don’t involve the rest of us.

          • The Romans aren’t around anymore. Ditto the Vikings. We are though.

            If Algeria wanted to invest in the UK as reparations for the sack of Baltimore, and to show they’d changed, I wouldn’t stop them. The Japanese have apologised to us many times for the Burmese Railway atrocities, and I don’t think anyone has sought to stop them doing that.

            I’m glad you mentioned the WA Squadron. If you know of any organisations seeking to set up a memorial to them (and who have a good chance of succeeding with that), I’d happily donate,

          • SPQR is dead. No one cared about slavery or atrocities back then (though they were surprisingly alarmed by the post Boudiccean slaughter of rebellious tribes). The Vikings are long gone and their descendants are now Christian.

            I’m talking about modern history- we were appauled at 19th century Indian famines perpetuated by lefties! If the Left want to apologise for that, why shouldn’t they? The left never usually feel guilt for anything else, and apologising would keep them busy. It would be a nice change from ruining this country’s finances and educational system.

            If shame is a bad thing then we would never have wiped out slavery. No granting independence to NZ or Australia. No restitution of Mysore. So many proud acts of this country would never have happened.

          • The Guardian left won’t be paying any of the reparations it’ll be the ordinary people of this country who don’t have trust funds in tax havens who will.

          • Not enough is made of the fact it was we British who abolished the transatlantic slave trade. It didn’t stop the islamic slavers in Africa. The last officially sanctioned african slave auction took place in Saudi during the late 1960s. The practice is still widespread today, elsewhere in the islamic world. That’s a fact!

          • Hundreds of billions!
            Minus whatever they can get for the crown jewels and two aircraft carriers on EBay.

          • I suppose the idea is that economies of scale a massive budget lift wouldn’t be needed to order additional next gen attack subs. However, that 19 figure been thrown around could be the 12 Australia wants and the 7 for the UK.

          • Roger your last, Andy. We could certainly do with a second yard building submarines. There is no surge capacity for any military industrial production at all! Thanks to the so-called peace dividend.

          • He means slavery. Probably unnecessary (the left’s reputation in India is worse), but if it keeps them busy and empties Labour Party coffers, then hey, ho.

          • Why exactly would the government allocate tens of billions now when the next sub design isnt even in place and we cant produce them currently? Easy to criticise but its a non sensical comment to make.

          • Because we need bigger manufacturing facilities and far more trained staff and that requires investment has to be done right now.
            If you think Mrs Sunak and Hammond wouldn’t have done anything they could to delay this expenditure dream on.
            An SSN is quite simply the most complicated, hi tech piece of machinery ever conceived or built by mankind.
            The process to commission 1 starts 20 years beforehand.

          • There is plenty of other stuff that needs funding in defence right now. Just to stay still in funding the MOD needs £8 billion.

          • Sure, but here there is international positive pressure to do the subs deal.

            Sunak can see the positives for RR + RN. He is a spreadsheet wonk and this is spreadsheet positive for UK PLC and UK workers as well as reducing long term costs.

            Let’s hope that Sunak + BW’s one legacy is NATO 2.5% GDP agreed this year.

          • yep I can see the T45s staying in commission for some time to come…I would be supprised if we saw the first one decommissioned before the early 2040s and the last one after 2045.

            big AAW Destroyers are just to expensive and take to long to build…if we say the T26s are all done for 2034ish then we are not going to see the first Type 83 commissioned until the early 2040s with the best will in the world.

          • Exactly, well written Sir. Dear(not) sunak has a habit of promising the earth to all and sundry, however refuses to part with the nations hard earned. At the end of the our Employees (the government) tend to do just what they want, and ni thought given to what their Employers (the people) want or more importantly Need.

          • Unless it is the Eat Out To Spread It About scheme?

            That was a colossal waste of money and levels of fraud were eye watering and virtually un-auditablez

          • If labour take parliament it’s game over. We may as well disband the armed forces and just kneel before the CCP, with our begging bowls front and centre. “Please Sir, can we have more.” Britain will follow fellow anglosphere nations Ca and NZ down the socialist toilet.

            GB dodged a bullet when Trots Corbyn lost the election. However, his marxist antisemitic cronies still run the grassroots party behind the current veneer. It has been that way since the late 60s and 70s. When the USSR took over the TUC and sowed the seeds we have harvested ever since. The Tony B’ liar interlude notwithstanding.

            The Tories are hardly much better in real terms. Still pandering to the woke liberal globalist ghetto. Thankfully there are some old school conservatives left, just not enough to force the issue. We should thank the Gods they got behind BREXIT. At least that vote proved the dwindling numbers of native British people still have some pride left.

            OOPS wrong soapbox, wrong meeting.💂💂💂

          • “woke liberal globalist ghetto” how many daily fail buzzwords can you get in one sentence 🤣. It will be a brilliant day when the “old school conservatives” finally lose their power and the country can actually make progress rather than undoing every good thing we had going for us over the last decade.

          • There’s no mistaking your political bent, is there comrade. I shudder to think what your vision of progress might be. A country bristling with the correct pronouns; while our towns are overrun by rape gangs and the red flag flutters over Westminster. 💩
            You should consider moving to the socialist paradise Beijing and have your organs harvested for transplant!

          • Ho ho ho. Looks like I found your buttons too comrade. The reality check was obviously too much for you.

          • Lesson from life. There’s a few of you on here who can’t comment on anything without a party political point. If you can’t take it don’t give it. PS could you tell me what a woman is ? Asking for a friend. 😐

          • What are you wibbling about? We’ve had the worst PM in history, followed by an act of economic idiocy and now someone who installs private electricity supplies when some people can’t afford to switch on the heating.

            I want a sound economy, with a reach out to those in need, but, with a Government doing their first duty, and that Duty is Defence of the Realm.

          • David, Steeper, have you served?

            Don’t you know that any hole is a goal?

            😉

            Stand down please, just banter.

          • Worst PM in history? Having you forgotten about Blair and how he and his lackey Campbell sexed-up the dodgy dossier to justify an illegal war in Iraq?… that PM helped to create the disillusionment in British politics that allowed the anti-vaxxers, climate-change deniers, and ‘Putin is a nice guy’ brigade to flourish.

          • Well George Parker started it… I’m not gonna let someone throw daily fail drivel around without challenging it. I mean the topic was about submarines and he starts going on about the “woke globalist ghetto” so…

          • We’re all far too old to get into the who started it argument. There are hundreds of sites out there for anyone who wants a party political argument. This is the UK Defence Journal lets all stick to that. And I include myself in that as much as anyone else. If I stick party politics into my comments on here then feel free to call me out on it.

          • What on earth is a woke globalist ghetto…as for native British people I think you will find they all got knocked off by the celts in about 400BC ( they were a bizarre looking bunch apparently..dark curly hair, blue eyes and black skin colour) ..we are all basically a bunch of immigrants..from Europe…celts from Central Europe..Romans from well ummm Rome….Dane’s… Norse, Saxons…..infact whomever in Europe was happy to knock of the incumbent residents and steal their stuff…

          • The Silures tribes of South Wales was said to be very swarthy, dark haired and darker complexions in Roman writings.

          • Worth noting that most of the world is in fact a bunch of immigrants if you go back far enough 😛

          • Agreed, as an Anglo Saxon origin my descendants arrived here between 4-6th century, originally (as is thought) as Roman “mercenaries” in small numbers, who thought damn this place is lovely, get the family and community over, fight the locals, push them into Wales and Cornwall and take over! We’re all immigrants mate aren’t we, we just got here earlier and in smaller numbers over a longer period of time! Cheers.

          • Cheers for agreeing. It seems I have ruffled a few “woke globalist ghetto” feathers.
            Ignoring politics when discussing defence budgets and policy. Is like trying to discus warfare without mentioning soldiers and their martial prowess.

            We have just listened to three politicians, announcing potentially far reaching military matters of global importance. Quite obviously intended to counter the aggressive moves by the evil CCP. Yet they were not mentioned once!

            None of the three national leaders have served a single day in uniform. Biden and Albanese were both anti-war peaceniks in their socialist student days. Sunak, although a good guy by all accounts. Is so far removed from the people of GB, he may as well come from Neptune. For example, can anyone tell me what supporting a local squabble between two of the most corrupt countries in the world had to do with AUKUS?
            Sunak had to bring Ukraine up and do some virtue signalling. So, why not name and shame the CCP?
            Was he playing to the “woke globalist ghetto?”

            People have asked what I mean by a “woke globalist ghetto.” Those of us who have visited Tower Hamlets, much of Bradford, Birmingham and Rotherham etc. Know only too well what one is. Most British cities have them now thanks to unrestricted illegal immigration. Places where the third world has taken root in Great Britain and nobody has the guts to call it what it is for fear of causing offence. Even to the extent of ignoring organised rape gangs and the industrial sexual abuse of young children.

            There, I’ve said it. I’m not in the slightest bit diplomatic, I say what I mean and don’t mince words. BTW, I’m available for corporate motivational events, multicultural workshops and childrens parties.

          • “For example, can anyone tell me what supporting a local squabble between two of the most corrupt countries in the world”

            I think you mean

            “For example, can anyone tell me why we shouldn’t support a democracy that has been attacked and is daily suffering war-crimes from an authoritarian revisionist regime”

            No need to thank me.

          • You ruined that by blurring about Brexit.. biggest mistake ever. Pride never won anything and goes b4 a fall. We’ve all seen that in action..
            And seeing it in action now.. justblook atbthe Keystone Kops in the Kremlin!

          • I strongly disagree about BREXIT. The problem is we have not yet achieved independence from ALL of the entire EU quango. ECHR, the flood of illegals and the NI debacle etc. AUKUS is an example of what we should be concentrating on. The Anglosphere and maximising our advantages as British. Also national pride is a strength, not a weakness. It’s not the problem the clowns in the Kremlin suffer from. It will be the quality that enables them recover, in time.

          • Jim please don’t believe this drivel of an article.

            It is written in a totally ill informed and just down right misleading way by someone who has just read some facts and mis understood them.
            The tragedy is anyone believes it.
            For example “in 1958 the US helped the U.K. become a nuclear power” that is total BS.
            We had been a Military Nuclear power since 1953 when we let off our 1st A Bomb, and had been a civilian one since 1947 when our 1st reactor went critical at Harwell.
            The US assisted us to speed up our acquisition of nuclear powered submarines in 1958 by giving us a Westinghouse reactor. But the U.K. was already well on the way to designing our own, it just sped things up a bit.
            The U.K / US mutual assistance agreement was exactly that, mutually advantageous. They helped us to speed up our sub builds, they got access to our quietening technology and most importantly a swap of our Bomb Grade PH for their D and T.
            Which both needed to build H bombs.

            FYI The truth is the U.K assisted the US to set up the Manhattan project in 1943 as we moved our existing Bomb programme across the Pond (see Tube Alloys).

            They have jumped this total crap journalism to then stating the U.K. will expand OUR SSN fleet to 19 from 7.
            Well we may well be building a fleet of up to 19 but 8/12 of them will be for Australia !
            How anyone can imagine we can actually build 19 for the RN and 12 for Australia is delusional.

            Then again it is a Guardian article. Nuff said.

            If I were to make an educated guess I would bet on a build of 16/20 AUKUS boats operating as a joint pool between the RN and RAN.
            Simple reason is the refit schedule for the boats and their PWR3 power plants has to be on agreed drumbeat. And due to NPT that cannot be done in Australia.

          • I think it’s true to say quite the opposite, the US did not want the UK to develop nuclear weapons. They wanted to sit at the top table with the USSR for company Only. They thought that made them an unchallengeable top dog. In fact the US did everything possible to bring the UK down from the 1930s planning to invade Canada to after WW2 doing what it could to demean an almost bankrupt UK.

          • I don’t disagree with you after the fact of the 1st A Bomb, but during the war we sent them everything we had including research, materials and Scientists. Unfortunately we also included a few Soviet spies such as Fuchs.
            After the War was a different matter the US enacted the McMahon act which banned the export or sharing of Nuclear research including all of our own.
            But Atlee and Bevin were none to pleased (both were actually very Patriotic) and our own project was kick started, PDQ and broke or not it got done, in virtual secrecy. When Churchill was re-elected he was surprised that £100 million had been spent without Parliament having a clue.
            Our 1st A bomb was let off in 1952 and after we exploded our own H bomb in 1957 things changed very rapidly.

          • They “lost” their copy…my arse..Truman saw it as a major mission in life to destroy the British empire and did pretty much everything he could to undermine post war British power. In fact it’s very likely he saw Britain as a great threat than Stalin’s USSR and only later realised the USSR was the greater threat…it’s even notable that while doing everything it could to undermine the British Empire the Truman administration supported France in retaining its colonies after WW2…There were a lot of people in both FDRs administration and the Truman administration who could not really stand the British.

          • Wiki states – which may even be true!

            “ The Hyde Park Agreement was lost in Roosevelt’s papers after his death, and until the American copy of the document was found American officials were puzzled when the British mentioned it.[33] The Quebec Agreement was an executive agreement that only applied to the Roosevelt administration, and the Senate had not seen the document. McMahon told Churchill in 1952 that “If we had seen this Agreement, there would have been no McMahon Act.”[34] The McMahon Act fueled resentment from British scientists and Churchill, and led to Britain developing its own nuclear weapons.[35]”

          • The USA did NOT plan to invade Canada after WW2.

            War Plan Red was a routine hypothetical exercise that identified what actions would be required IF the USA and British Empire ever went to war against each other. It was first devised in 1927 and then updated on a routine basis until 1935.
            It was decided in 1939 that no further planning would be made.

          • 19 subs?

            If the Dolphin Club were paid as much as the workers at Barrow recruitment and retention would’ve be an issue.

            It is a sobering though that there will be more workers at Barrow + H&W + Babcock + BAE than blue suits….

            Which when you think about it is really quite ridiculous!

          • Yes but it will not even be the next Labour government that has to sort that out..If we end up building 15 SSNRs a last batch would not be ordered unto the 2040s probably.

          • Yeah but that’s always been the case. The type 23’s began their journey into service on a drawing board when Jim Callaghan was PM !

          • Yes but to be fair the ship that was designed in the 1970s and started procurement in 1981 was a totally different ship to the one they actually ended up procuring….they shredded the design after 1982 with the costs going up by 25%+…it went from a basic towed array tug ( light frigate) with no hanger, no NGFS capability, no organic air defence and no ASuW…it was basically going to be shite all costing 75 million each…around 120 meters, 2500tons post the Falklands….they ripped it up and redesigned a £110 million pound all rounder 133meters long 4900 tons….it was effectively a different procurement program pre 1982 to post 1982.

          • Yep 23 was an extreme example but not untypical. All complex weapon system design, procurement and entry into service is incredibly protracted.

          • Indeed it does not help that they tend to spend a decade or so doing concept work over actual design work….it’s the best way for a government to kick the actual expenditure down the line to a different administration…the type 26 was a classic example really…1998-2010 dicking around…2011-15 actual design work…15-17…final changes..2017 ordered effectively 60% of the time was just…..kicking the can to the next administration.

          • Yeah it’s a fair price to pay but it’s the price we pay for democracy. It’s not hard to understand to be fair to the politicians. Why should they pay the price for raising taxes or not building that new school or hospital for something that someone else 10-20 years from now will get the credit for.

          • Sometimes it would be nice if the political parties could at least agree to some longer term goals and strategies…and not score points…the nhs would be far better off without constant political meddling….it’s so bad that even someone like me who should never be anywhere near the political elements of healthcare get emails and notes from DOH policy advisors…both central control and complete turn around a from one administration to the next is really destructive.

          • That’s true. Imagine 2 guys one listens to the people at the coal face and works quietly without fuss making incremental improvements. The other, mostly politicians, read an article once and now realises everyone else is an idiot. Big changes lots of publicity and fast track promotion. Meanwhile the next guy in charge inherits the shitshow and more often than not gets the blame for it. On long term continuity it does happen but it needs long term contracts. In other words they won’t screw things up when they can’t screw things up.

          • Yes good point on the long term contracts…after all the only thing that really kept 2 carriers was contract related…one of the big problems we have with some services such as out or hours drs services and 111 is most of the companies only have a 3 years + 2 years optional contract..so they don’t have any real long term investment in an area.

      • The absolute priority for the RN SSN force is maintaining a fully operational boat in UK and North Atlantic waters to protect the CASD and counter intruding Russian subs. Subject to that overriding tasking being met, the next priority has long been maintaining a SSN “East of Suez”. That has led to some very long (10+ months) deployments of T’s and A’s in recent years. The third priority is assigning a SSN to escort the UK Carrier Strike Group – once POW is finally fixed that may become a big marginal drain given the small size (currently just 5/6 boats) of the SSN force.

      • We will only have four Astutes available on a good day. Even on that best case, we’d have one available to support CSG, one supporting the deterrent SSBN, leaving just two to support all the other naval operations and monitor the growing number of Russian subs. That is very stretched, take one away for Australia and we are at the bare bones.

      • But how many subs are available at one time? Until recently it was just 3. Quoting overall numbers doesn’t really show the picture.;

    • The workforce at Barrow is due to increase from 10:000 to 17:000. I’d say sombody has made a very good decision.

    • Got. See 2010 Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition and ‘Austerity Mk II’, described at the time by incredulous observers at the time as ‘the death spiral’. We’ve lost years of production we now cannot get back. Look who noticed.

      • Our Party Politicians and the Treasury can play the peace dividend & jam tomorrow game with the electorate right up to the point where an adversary makes them an existential offer they cannot refuse, at which time Party playtime ends. Though supposedly poorer during the last Cold War, the UK maintained far greater numbers, as we know.

      • I’m presuming that designing and building this with/for Australia is allowing matters to be sped up both the project development stage and build which has been about twice the time of average US boats, with the new urgency and economies of scale so there will more overlap with the Astute class being in service I’m presuming.

        • If you discount the fiasco when Astute was in its infancy caused by gapping the building of any submarines it really isn’t down to industry.
          Phased payments get stretched to smooth out budget bumps or shortfalls. That slows the time taken to build and increases the overall cost BW was quite scathing about this very issue today. The Carriers cost £1 Billion extra due to stetching the budget over more years, same with the B1 T26.
          When you build at pace, with few if any alterations the 1st one costs more due it being 1st of class. Then if you continue the tempo thelearning curve kicks in and as long as inflation isn’t too bad the build cost comes down.
          You also have to remember that the US has 2 builders going at it in a very strange competitive but cooperative environment. And they are under pressure to build fast and to cost.
          It isn’t a popular example but does clearly demonstrate what can be done. The 4 Tide Class RFA’s were delivered a bit late, due to some issues with the 1st build having a knock on effect but after that they came in at a very rapid rate. The specialist work in the UK was also done to budget and schedule and overall the costs combined were £50m below budget.
          The original buget was £452million for the hulls, engines etc to be built by Daewoo plus £150million for the UK work.
          All done for £550million.
          Contrast that to the broadly similar US John Lewis class. The 1st 2 cost over $1 billion each, but when bulk purchased $650 million.

    • Well it’s not only forward basing but it’s forward thinking. Do we know the full details of this forward basing yet, is a UK sub permanently there (rotating between those available) along separately with 4 rotating US subs or is it a rotation between the 5 So a uk sub will only be there part of the time the above excerp doesn’t make clear.

    • We are lacking subs, but come off it!

      Russia is no immediate threat given their abysmal showing in Ukraine (thankfully), and we do have allies in Europe with submarines.

      We can spare one for the Pacific, and ones is stationed near enough there already anyway. Saves it chugging all the way back to Blighty.

    • Whilst I can see your pov.

      What threats are there in our back yard?

      The Russians? Yes they still have (on paper) a formidable Navy, but, if we were to face them it would be a NATO engagement, not a Royal Navy on their own… It would not just be our 7 Astute (when all built).

      The Argentines? This is the only foreseeable naval engagement in the Atlantic not involving the Russians… The dispatching of 2 Astute for the duration would be maintainable. Given that the other threat in the North Atlantic would be a NATO issue.

      The Iranians? OK so now we are not in our back yard. But is the Astute an asset in the littoral waters of the Gulf? Yes it could sit in the Indian Ocean and launch Tomahawks, but it can do that from a forward base in Australia.

      The CCP? This is of no doubt the only major maritime power we could end up at war with. Therefore, prudence dictates that we take steps to strengthen our position.
      The mass training of the RAN in nuclear submarine technologies and capabilities is a must. The forward basing of submarines therefore is also a must, not just an option. The benefit out weighs the pain, imho.

    • It is taking too long for HMG to wake up & smell the global security coffee. Sunak is responsable for the nadir of our armed forces as COE under Boris.

    • After appropriate support infrastructure becomes available, imagine it will operate in a similar manner to HMNB Clyde? Eventually, not only RN and USN SSNs visiting/rotating through, but also, on occasion, French and possibly Indian boats? Believe there was also discussion re establishing a submarine base on the east coast as well? Sydney or one of two other locations?

    • One of 5 UK submarines along with 4 Virginia, so 5 total with one from the UK. A very sizeable force able to dominate the Indian Ocean.

      • I was thinking more like Guam to be honest than the set up at HMS Clyde. Perth is a very long way a way for boats just to visit. I was thinking they would be temporarily home ported their with possible crew rotations a bit like the old US Naval base at Holyloch in Scotland.

        An amazing deal the US is offering Australia on these Virginias. I hope they realise how lucky they are.

      • That answers my question above and was what I was presuming so generally one and sometimes two based there at any one time with perhaps an occasional show of force to prove the potential.

    • SSNs are not something you can really keep ticking beyond their planned life..20-22 years is sort of it for a T class. Beyond that it’s my understanding you’re starting to drift into safety risks you don’t want.

      • Like what? The US is still operating Los Angeles class subs from the 1980’s. Some of them have been refueled 4 times.

        • Hi Chris the LAs had a service life of 24 years as designed…with a core life of 30 years. After operating them for some time and after a full review it was decided that they could operate for 33 years. Some boats spent a lot of time tied up and this is added to their operating years..so you will see some boats retires after 34-35 years. The manufactures have said it’s actually possible to extend the service life by another decade..but this would require a rebuild that takes 2 years and half a billion per boat.

          The T boats on the other hand had some major issues with there reactors and there was no manufacturer saying they could be nursed along.

  5. So £3 billion of the £5 billion will go on the shared design of the new SSN AUKUS which will be the next generation SSN for the Royal Navy & the Royal Australian Navy. We will base an Astute class SSN in Australia from 2030.

    I fully agree that the shared design is a good thing but basing one of our scarce SSNs away from where they are really needed (the North Atlantic & chasing Russian boats) is a problem. Surely they need to order at least one extra Astute?

      • Yes, announcement talks about SSN AUKUS entering service in late 2030’s. Astute was commissioned in 2010 so that may see SSN AUKUS enter service before Astute retires which may allow UK to increase fleet size to 8 or more boats 15 years from now.

        Probably best we could hope for given the current government’s lack of ambition.

    • Look this has been talked to death so I will just say simply.

      There cannot be anymore Astutes ! It is impossible because :-

      A) There are no more PWR2 reactors and no more can be built. That boat sailed the 2nd we finished Agamemnons and started on the PWR3.
      B) Barrow is full to present capacity with the last 2 Astutes and 1st Dreadnought.
      C) If you really want to see the best deal the U.K has ever had to ensure the long term future of U.K. nuclear sub building just tell our 2 partners there will be an unscheduled delay.

    • Russias and inconvenience in the Atlantic. China is an existential threat and anyone able to blockade the India Ocean will win a war against China without having to fight anywhere near chinas A2AD umbrella. The only way Russia becomes a threat is with Chinese support. The two issues are linked. Keeping the US interested in Europe guarantees Atlantic security and the US is interested in support in the Indian Ocean in return which the UK is uniquely capable of providing.

      With a major industrial base in Western Australia, US naval basing in Bahrain and British basing in Diego Garcia and Oman, AUKUS can easily sustain a blockade against China even if fair weather friends like India and Saudi decide to look the other way again.

      • Did anyone notice last Month that China has given instructions for 8 significant cities, islands and features presently on Russian territory, but once controlled by China are to be referred to with their former. Chinese names? This includes Vladivostok. Effectively this is as good as reinstating a claim to those lands which can’t be an encouraging message to the Kremlin in its weakening state and increasing reliance on China economically. As both Putin’s regime and the Chinese Communist Party have publicly claimed all land they once had at the extremes of their most extensive empires clearly and inevitably there is an overlapping set of demands here between the two. Matter of when not if it will flare up, certainly only mutual distaste of the West will put off that moment of truth in that regard.

        • Yep, seen… Russia is starting to slide toward break-up. The independent military units in Ukraine coming from the different ethnic enclaves are a nail in the coffin of Russia. The more of these people who return to their enclaves, with tails of Russian mismanagement, the more the push for independence will grow.
          The Russian have previous form at this.

          The more Russia starts to fragment the more the CCP will look toward the resources and ”Lebensraum” of its former territories. Let us not forget, it was a key flash point in Sov-Sino conflicts and a major part of the two great communist empires falling out…

          Russian states, Kaliningrad, Siberia to name two, have already held unofficial ballots… The whispering has already started.

          On a positive note, perhaps this would stop the CCP land grab in the South China Sea and operations against Taiwan…

        • Yeah, Putin’s a real genius, turns Ukraine and the west against him and opens the door to loosing half his country to China. 😀

      • There was talk about building an oil and gas pipeline from China, through Afghanistan and in to Iran. China had been building connections with the Pre-Taliban Government. Looking at building new infrastructure in exchange for mining rights.

        Since the Taliban took over it went quiet for a while, as the Taliban has links to the so called terrorists in the Xinjiang province. However, China have made diplomatic efforts with the Taliban leadership. Looking at restarting their campaign for mining rights etc. If that works the way China wants, the pipeline could be back on the cards.

        Oil and gas is one of China’s biggest imports. A lot was being shipped from the Gulf states. But now Russia has a northern pipelines feeding both gas and oil. But countries such as Nigeria and Venezuela are also big exporters to China.

        A blockade would reduce the amount of oil and gas, but it won’t stop it, especially coming from Russia.

        • Mate, very, very early 2001, in Kabul, got an update to watch out, escort and assist if neccesary, a “diplomatic” convoy in and out of our AO. Turns out, Chinese recce of business possibilities given diplomatic level of clearance and armed Chinese CP teams.

          • In 2010 I was at Bagram. About 5 miles out of Bagram were Chinese construction crews building an upgraded road to Kabul. Not one of the lads doing the work was past the age of 30. For every 10 blokes working there were at least 1 to 2 minders. They also has their own Afghan Police protection. Too many times were they spotted with bino’s and video cameras recording aircraft taking off from the base. The US got wise to this and used to park a whole section of troops with their MRAPs right next to where they were working. Apparently they stopped the recording, but also local Afghans took over the construction work as the Chinese went else where, funny that!

    • I don’t think so. The £3b is to be invested( spent?) across the defence nuclear sector which includes Barrow, Derby for Rolls Royce reactor development and construction as well as Aldermaston for warheads. In the comparison between the 2021 and 2022 10 year plans, by far the biggest increase was the nuclear sector. This just seems to continue that trend. A large increase in warhead numbers was announced after the Integrated Review but I am not clear as to whether the SSN fleet will be increased. In any event, it won’t happen for years

      • As I have said elsewhere this is one of the most sensible, longterm decisions I have seen any Group of Governments make in 60 years.
        I suspect the numbers of U.K SSN will change as will those of Australia as the project goes through design, towards production and the overall timescales of production and cost settle down.
        There is a huge U.K. supply chain that just went Yeesss ! It isn’t just BAe in Barrow or RR here in Derby it is Weirs up in Glasgow, Sheffield Forgmasters and all the other engineering companies.
        The Aldermaston investment isn’t part of this and to be honest any expenditure on Nuclear Weapons has to be Fire-walled separately from any mention of involvement in AUKUS.

        • If you own of only 2 counties in the planet that can make a “dreadnaught” why would you not make as many as you can. The UK can’t build and sustain large armies or even air forces but it can build a **** off big navy and run it.

          Strategy served us well for 300 years.

          • Well a Dreadnought is a SSBN which has only 1 single purpose which is to deter Nuclear war by being able to launch SLBM at an enemy.
            Other than that horrific use they are no use whatsoever and I sincerely hope it stays that way.
            As for your bit about just having a Big Navy as that strategy served us well for 300 years.
            I do think that we have allowed our Navy to shrink too far and we need to increase the size of it a bit. But it may have escaped your attention but we no longer have an Empire to rule.
            Also Waterloo, Battle of Britain, D Day, Falklands etc etc were not won by the Navy.
            The Army would be fine at @90k if it was properly equipped.
            The RAF is probably fine for Heavy Lift, Tankers etc but seriously in need of more combat Aircraft.
            48 new Typhoons and 72 extra F35B would do nicely.
            As for the Navy it gets to use the F35B from our 2 Carriers.
            I’d add 8 extra T26, 3 extra T31 and peg the future numbers for T83 at 12 and SSN(R) at 10.
            The one Big item I would add is a land based version of SAMPSON with a mix of VLS Astor 30s (including the ABM versions) and CAMM.
            But then it is fantasy land.

          • Small ‘d’ dreadnought in quotes suggests they meant something analogous to the more famous HMS Dreadnaught of the last century: a trump card.

  6. From the announcement today, UK SSN(R) is now the AUKUS class which will cut late this decade and enter service from late 2030’s. Australian AUKUS will cut early 2030’s and enter service early 2040’s. £3bn investment in expanding UK Submarine construction capacity while US is investing $2.2bn to expand theirs. Australia will invest in both US and UK submarine production capacity and will become a component supplier for the Virginias. All Australian AUKUS subs will be built in Australia though will have UK reactors. Royal Navy AUKUS will use US/Australian combat information systems.
    Australia will invest in the ability to host a rotating deployment of US/UK SSN’s including constructing a dry dock which will service Virginia’s.
    Australia will buy 3 Virginia class in the early 2030’s and will have the option to buy 2 more, they will be a combination of new and existing boats (likely first 3 old and the two options are new build).

      • ANZAC had historical significance due to Gallipolie. AUKUS is a terrible name. I don’t think it will last as I think Japan, Canada and possibly France may join eventually.

        Call it the Convict class or something more fitting 😀

  7. I’m impressed that the PM and defence sec are reading our posts for ideas😂😂😂
    Putting more money into the nuclear boats, potentially speeding up orders.

  8. Just asking… Is it usual that non military ‘types’ base their costings and decisions about deployable assets, based purely on peacetime reasoning?

    The UK has 7 Astute class subs. 1 goes (on rotation) to the Pacific. One then needs to be based in the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean, 1/2 in the Med, 2 in the Atlantic leaving one for cover, or allowing for one to be broke!

    That coverage seems way too thin to me.

      • Sorry Jim, think you might be a tad optimistic with that. Rotating out of Perth allows the boats to go into the SCS/Pacific which I believe is the intention. To counter CCP activities really, but yes they could also deploy to the IO/Gulf if required.
        If we want to cover the Gulf/IO, then a more suitable location would be Diego Garcia, or simply keep them based in the gulf as they currently do.
        Its all about ‘core life’, the more time in transit eats into the patrol time, and the ‘core life’. The reactors are designed for 30 years, but thats not 30 years of continuous running. They do have a finite amount of hours available to them, the more you use them the quicker you burn through your ‘core life’.

        • From memory, aren’t the Astute supposed to run their lifetime without a refuel? I suppose the question that should be asked, is could they be refueled in the future, if like you say they have burnt through their core life faster than originally planned?

          • Hi fella, yes you are correct there, its supposed to be 25 years, and like the Vanguard class, are not designed to be re-fuelled.

            Unlike many who seem to believe that Nuclear Submarines can operate continuously for that period of time (understandably so), they have in fact a finite amount of ‘core life’ available to them.

            This is measured in Effective Full Power Hours (EFPH). A similar measure would be aircraft airframe life, also measured/expressed in hours I believe. So for example a fighter might have 6000 air frame hours of life,and is slated to use say 300 hrs a year, giving a life of 20 years. You use less you can extend the life, you use more you shorten it. EFPH works the same, only when you reach the last hours, thats it, the tank is empty, no work arounds, its either scrap it or refuel it.

            HMS Dreadnought which had a Westinghouse reactor, on build had 10000 EFPH available to it before needing a refit. Thats approx 416 days in the full power state of continuous use.

            Luckily Nuc SM’s spend very little time in the FPS, normally only on contractors/post refit sea trials to determine its max speed.

            Most of the time (UK SSN’s) spend most of their time either in the 1/2 or 3/4 PS. This governs what RPM is available to use at any given time, and you dont need maxi chat when say 20kts is enough. SSBN’s spend most of their lives in the 1/4or 1/2 PS as they are only required to pootal along at a slow 3-4 kts so dont require much over 10-12 kts at any given time.

            By utilising a lower PS, you are automatically increasing your ‘core life’ but, as I wasnt a nuclear engineer, I couldn’t say how much less you use, I dont believe its as straight forward as simply doubling your ‘core life’ if you drive around in the 1/2 PS.

            Obviously the use of HEU has helped with extending ‘core life’ in more modern SM’s, Im afraid I wouldnt know what the EFPH values on build are for the Astutes or Vanguard class, but think it reasonably safe to believe it exceeds Dreadnoughts 10000 hours (open source data – look up Westinghouse Nuc Reactors if interested).

            So, whats changed to potentially require Astute to need a re-fuelling? Lots of things, the cold war that never really went away for one. The last few years has seen a dramatic increase in RUS SM activity in the ‘high north’ which we in the west have had to respond too. Both Trenchant and Talent being retired early didnt help either, as it increased the work load on the few Astutes we have at the moment.
            The tilt to the Pacific will perhaps be the biggest issue we have to deal with. Forward basing/rotating an Astute out of AUS will only further increase the work load for the remainder.

            People aren’t really aware of the maintenance requirements of operating these beasts they require lots of work to keep them running, punctuated with dockings and inspections. When we are fully up and running with all 7 available (late 2026 after Agincourts work up) we will IAL only ever have 3-4 available on a very good day. We dont have enough we should have built 12.

            So, to get back to your original query, Astute at the very least will need a re-fuelling IMO, or we will have to speed up the build rate in Barrow and get SSN(R) hull 1 in the water by 2025/6ish.

            Sorry for the long winded reply, but adds a bit of context to your post.

          • Cheers Deep, that explains a lot. Transit times to patrol areas are something that can’t be mitigated as, the tasking can change monthly. Which screws up long term planning.

            I take it for reactor reconditioning/refueling, it would require the hull being cut open to remove it? Therefore probably facing similar problems to Vanguard in time and complexity.

            Therefore, would in not make sense for the SSN AUKUS which is going to be a bigger boat, to have the PWR3 more easily removable, even though the reactor is supposed to be designed to last the life of the boat?

          • Davey,

            Sorry, didn’t read enough of your post to realize you were asking essentially the same question.

          • Probably not as the Core life of the PWR3 is @30+ years depending on usage.
            At years old you have a pretty old boat and you aren’t going to get another 30 years out of it.
            It actually makes far more sense to build on an agreed Drum beat of orders to supply the required force level over that period of time and then roll over into the next replacement class,
            That is more sustainable, incremental and cost efficient as you maximise the benefits of continuous production. But you can introduce updates in blocks just like the Astute and Virginia class.
            You mentioned the RCOH of US carriers well some of those cost more than the original build costs and are problematic. And Vanguards refuelling and refit has been a “Challenge” and that is me being polite.

          • I agree, this is the more sensible option. Every time I’ve seen a lifex program they’ve ended up costing nearly as much as a new replacement.

          • Hi mate, @ABCRodders has pretty much covered everything, the only area I would differ is wrt Vanguard’s refit. It was an absolute f*****g disaster, but to be fair not really anyone’s fault per se. It’s just the way it turned out due to the problems they encountered.
            You are correct in that they cut a big hole in the pressure hull above the RC to remove the core, but these new cores are designed to stop that and reduce the time of a refit by not having to re-fuel them.
            No of this bodes well if we have to refuel Astute/Ambush as they have the same reactors. It will be far more beneficial and cost effective to get SSN(R) into the water early – 2035/6 ish would be doable if we speed up the build rate at Barrow over the coming years.

          • Cheers Marra. That’s the issue though! If we are sending boats to the SCS more often. Then they are using more of their core life. Thereby shortening the planned life of the reactor. Which means the RN will have two choices, do a cut and shut with a refuel or scrap the boat by replacing it with the AUKUS boat.

            Hopefully, someone has looked at this and planned around it.

          • Deep,

            Slight typo…believe you intended to state SSN(R) hull in the water by 2035/36ish. Agree w/ Davey, excellent post.

            Question for those knowledgeable, what sort of cost delta would be required to design and build refuelable reactors? Realize that there would also be a requirement to change our piping, valves, pumps, etc.,but wonder whether that couldn’t be preplanned into the design? CVNs are refueled and kept in extended service.

    • Neither Japan or Italy is going to meet the requirements to share nuclear technology. It’s the diamond of tech, and up to this point the US has only trusted the UK with it.

      There is already talk of issues with massive Chinese espionage in Australia, Mi5 and the CIA need to tighten that place down before anything SUBstantial happens down there.

      • Probably why the reactors are being built in the UK and then fitted in OZ, yes certain bits of info can be gathered from walking around the equipment but seeing how they are put together would release alot of secrets.

        • Nothing to do with that, the reason is that Australia has virtually zero Nuclear industry. Also if they did develop their own ability to design, build and operate Reactors the NPT would be shredded and you are in a whole New World of plop.

      • Well believe it or not Italy was offered the option of a US nuclear sub reactor back in the 1950’s for their own SSN. But due to concerns re communism in Italy the offer was withdrawn. I seem to remember there being a lovely wooden model of it in a Museum somewhere. It looked like a Skipjack.

      • Much more likely to be about the next phase of the Tempest programme, any thoughts on what Tempest translates to in Japanese. Kamikaze means “divine wind” so that could be a starting point.

  10. Good news.
    We have stationed a T23 in the M East so placing an SSN in Aus is doable. I assume it will cover the M East as well.

    • Yeah that’s what I’m thinking, we normally have one east of Suez anyway and if we can save transit times it makes the force more available.

        • Especially not having to book Suez transit slot which for SSN tells bad guys hey look UK SSN going to be here at this day/time makes lot easier to track. Sailing out of Perth means could be anywhere from gulf to Hawaii without having to pop up.

    • I read the very 1st comment on this from Paul42 and went OMG, then started to think OOTB.
      We haven’t got enough for our own purposes ?
      CASD protection, AS work, refit and covering Carrier group deployments.
      To me having an SSN forward based in Western Australia is actually a force multiplier and a really brilliant idea.
      When CSG21 deployed it was escorted to Suez by HMS Artful and met at the other end by HMS Astute.
      It would make way more sense to have a boat forward deployed from a secure friendly base rather than having 1 tied up justvtdansiting.

      • It makes a lot of sense. Gives crews variations on deployments, locations. Transiting half way round the world takes time.
        One of the reasons the Australians are so keen on nuclear boats also is transit time.
        It was noted back in Vietnam war that getting diesel boats from Australia to Vietnam was a real hassle. This is still the case. Getting to the South China Sea takes time in a diesel boat especially when needing to snorkel at night and battery during the day.
        This deal is great for the west, it gets extra boats in the water and allows much more coverage of the world.
        U.K. has bases close to the Atlantic and med.
        The USA has altlantic and pacific.
        Australia closer to Indian Ocean and pacific.
        The pacific is massive so good to have bases across it.

        • It would take a SSN about a week to get from Perth to the SCS, whereas it would take a SSK (Collins class) about 3 weeks to do the same journey.
          For say a 12 week patrol, the SSN would have 8 weeks on station, whilst the SSK would have to head home after 4 weeks.
          A SSN can leap 450 NM in a 24 hr period, whilst the SSK can only manage about 120. Its why AUS wants/needs SSN’s

  11. It’s probably far too early to say but, does anyone know, will the SSNR class have vertical tubes to allow for a potential US hypersonic buy? Am I right in saying it won’t launch through the horizontal tubes the UK currently use for Spearfish and Tomahawk?

  12. Every time I see a picture of a Submarine at the Quayside in Australia I instantly think about the film ” On the Beach”

    • Me too. Haunting film. Should be required viewing for everybody at the moment. Shocking too how good Fred Astaire was as an actual actor, but all the cast were brilliant. The soundtrack though is also superb. The slow, orchestral, ‘Waltzing Matilda’ as the submarine goes into port really got me right in the guts and vey memorable. Have not seen for years. Must track it down.

      • I think both versions are great and both on either Amazon or Netflix, I still get cold shivers watching either version

  14. First, we are never going to get 15 SSN(R) boats – with HM Treasury penny pinching defence at every turn, I just don’t see it ever happening. Sure there will be economy of scale especially with the RAN order added to ours but look at Type 26 – 32 hulls combined with both Canada and Australian buying more than us but yet we never increased our order to take advantage.

    I’m sorry for being negative but experience has shown that no matter who is in power, defence falls a long way down the priority list.

    BTW – why is the MoD paying 3Bn for AUKUS as announced yesterday? What do we get for this and how does it contribute to our ORBAT?

    • I’m matters of strategic importance especially involving the USA and five eye partners the Treasury is often over ruled.

      SSN construction is about to become as big a deal as aerospace for UK exports. The money will be found although it may come at the expense of other departments.

      SSN are not really that expensive when you already build and operate a fleet. One SSN cost 3% of the annual defence budget to buy and they are fairly cheap to run with no fuel cost and limited engine overhaul and a small crew.

      We already pay for the expensive infrastructure and adding 8 more boats won’t change those costs much.

      19 was what we had in the 90’s and can be easily replicated again.

    • I could see Oberon being used again as the class name so Orca for Australia would fit.

      Personally I think rebooting the Leander names would be better, Jupiter class has a nice ring to it 😀

  17. RN has four SSNs. A fifth is being commissioned but is probably a year away. The other two Astute are still in build. So HMG sends one to the other side of the planet. How does that protect our SSBN force and the entire surface fleet including two aircraft carriers and an amphid force? Nothing that HMG does seems to make sense to me anymore. Almost seems like someone is trying to make a name for themselves without actually doing anything to deserve it.

      • Accepted. My bad. But barely in service until Anson is operational. S93 was supposed to decommission last year. Four year refit for just a couple of extra years though.

        • Hopefully Hms Triumph will see Anson into full operational service and Boat 6 rolled out and floated, then it’s refit might just have done it’s job.

    • Believe the plan is slated to be implemented by 2027. Nominally after the last two Astute class are commissioned.

  18. What everyone seems to forget is every election brings promises that last as long as last years snow. Tories promise X amount, Labour cut it to Y. Same everytime new gov in place

    • If published accounts are true, at one point Thales would have mopped the floor w/ US sonar provider. The real potential benefit of free enterprise system, as exhibited by open competition. A fallback option w/ multiple intelligent people/organizations collaborating together, probably less cost efficient, but equivalent or superior synergistic designs? 🤔

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here