The Ministry of Defence say that contracts worth over £2 billion have been awarded to begin the third major phase of the Dreadnought submarine nuclear deterrent programme.

With the overall programme supporting around 30,000 jobs across the UK, from design through to build, Delivery Phase 3 (DP3) represents the most significant stage of the Dreadnought programme so far.

“In 2021 alone, it supported around 13,500 jobs in the Northwest of England and a further 16,300 over the rest of the UK, making a significant contribution to the Government’s levelling-up agenda. The investment is the latest financial commitment between the Ministry of Defence, BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, and is the initial investment within a planned overall total of nearly £10 billion for the whole delivery phase.”

DP3 will see the first of four submarines, HMS Dreadnought, exit the Barrow-in-Furness shipyard to begin sea trials.

Defence Procurement Minister, Jeremy Quin was quoted as saying:

“The Dreadnought Class will be crucial to maintaining and safeguarding our national security, with the nuclear deterrent protecting every UK citizen from the most extreme threats, every minute of every day. Designed in the UK, built in the UK and supporting tens of thousands of jobs in the UK, the Dreadnought programme is a leading example of our commitment to defence manufacturing and will continue to boost British industry for decades to come.”

Managing Director, BAE Systems Submarines, Steve Timms said:

“We take great pride in designing and delivering one of the world’s most advanced engineering programmes and helping to protect national security. Today’s funding announcement allows us to maintain the Dreadnought programme’s progress and continue investing in the infrastructure and skills needed to deliver these highly complex submarines to the Royal Navy.”

President of Rolls-Royce Submarines, Steve Carlier said:

“Since 1969, Rolls-Royce has proudly provided the nuclear power and expertise that keeps the UK’s continuous nuclear deterrent at sea. This latest contract is a welcome sign of the UK’s ongoing commitment to the Submarines Enterprise and all the jobs around the UK that support it.”

First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Ben Key said:

“We welcome the faith shown in the Royal Navy and our people that submarines remain the optimum means of securely deploying the independent nuclear deterrent. This investment will enable the transition from the Vanguard to Dreadnought-class submarines – an enormous challenge, and one we in the Royal Navy willingly accept. We have provided over fifty years of unbroken Continuous At Sea Deterrence and we will ensure that the Royal Navy provides the ultimate guarantee of security for the United Kingdom for the next five decades and beyond.”

Chief Executive of Raytheon UK, Jeff Lewis said:

“This contract is for a truly transformative submarine training solution and builds on the success that we have had to date in transforming the Royal Navy’s training and learning solutions. Our collaborative working culture and experience in managing large and complex training programmes will help equip the Royal Navy with a training capability that underpins the cornerstone of the UK’s strategic defence capability.”

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

80 COMMENTS

  1. Excellent news this will lead to building the new generation of nuclear and submarine skills as well. Thank god this is going through now so that we can replace the Vanguard class. This means we have an effective deterrent against countries such as Russia and China. Also a big boost for industry as well in depressed regions. This is great news.

    • Thank God and great news, due to the fact if your prospective enemu has it then we alos need it! Putins actions has put all the CND, green lobby and anti-nuke campaigners arguments out to grass. Anyway arent all weapons vile, as they kill people, its just the numbers that seem to make people squirm.

      • Thanks airbourne. Couldn’t have summed it up better. Always found people that argue against nuclear weapons but don’t find the waste of large scale conventional wars like WW1/2 rather strange folk. Nuclear weapons have pretty much ended large scale conventional wars in Western Europe. I say again thank god and great news we have the dreadnought class SSBNs. I’m glad we are modernising but would have been good if the reliable replacement warhead was given the go ahead as well plus an R&D programme on hypersonic cruise missiles too. Also good to have the ultimate insurance policy. The arguments of CND and the Scottish Nats are pretty much made redundant by Putin…

        • I presume you have heard of the greens, their agenda and defence policy, and all the associated boring off shoot groups!

          • You didn’t say ‘the greens’ you said green lobby. If you mean the Green Party, then yes they are simply a bunch of middle class liberals who believe in scrapping defence, and putin proves you can’t do that. But if you mean all green lobbying and climate change awareness etc, then I don’t get your angle. You can believe in a strong defence and believe that we are ruining the planet and need to change.

          • I mean the eco zealots who support the Green Party, and all the splinter bell ends who class themselves as “green” and drive mini buses long distances to oil depots to chain their bony arses to a fence to stop oil tankers! Not sure they can see the irony! Anyway like I said the green lobby, which is costing billions but with limited effect, as it’s just another racket for many to make money! We do have a climate issue, but life is a cycle and whatever we do to this planet, the planet will survive, we won’t as humans as a race are stupid and greedy, and will continue to be so even staring destruction in the face! It’s a shit sandwich, and we can all eat grass and kill all our cows to prevent them farting the ozone layer away, but until China, India and Russia stop pushing billions of tons of carbon emissions into the air with their thousands of old coal fired power stations every year, we are pissing in the wind!

      • There’s a qualitative as well as quantitative difference between nuclear and conventional weapons. It’s not “just the numbers”.

        Strategic nuclear weapons maximise civilian over military casualties, to the point where if you drop a hundred Hiroshima-sized bombs almost anywhere on land, you get a “mild” nuclear winter, food production plummets and hundreds of millions of people starve. Drop substantially more/bigger than that and we all freeze to death instead. Even if fewer/smaller are dropped, many people will die nastily from the radiation. They poison the earth and the seas for generations.

        Modern strategic warheads are much bigger than Hiroshima size, so even one UK Trident submarine’s worth, say 25-40 warheads, will have significant global rather than just local reprecussions. As the UK’s 2010 artificial limits on how many missiles and warheads will be put in a sub have been removed, Vanguards could easily be carrying twice that right now. The UK’s total load out isn’t just a trigger for worldwide destruction from other people’s bombs. It takes us a long way there all by itself.

        Minimising civilian casualties in war and not killing in an needlessly cruel way are principles this country (and most others) have signed up to for good reasons. Nuclear weapons may be necessary but that doesn’t mean we have to minimise what they are.

        • Fortunately not being a moron I understand the concept of tactical and strategic weapon systems in regard to nukes! But let’s keep it simple, it is down to the numbers, 1 death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. The consequences of using any weapon could result in death and destruction, and nowhere did I minimise what they are capable off, but stated that all weapons cause death and destruction, the end result is about numbers! Some numbers can be acceptable to some, but not to others! If your the parents of just the one person killed, I would say they wouldn’t accept even that one death! It’s all about the numbers and consequences wether we all agree or not. Cheers.

    • What is more vile – a weapon systems that no-one in the world has used since mid-August 1945 or the very many (conventional) weapons that have killed soldiers and civilians over centuries.

    • As in the above article. DP3 will include ‘first of class’ sea trials, so, somewhere around 2030ish I assume.

  3. I wonder if the new SSN will be very close to this design, after all when the new SSNs come into service autonomous platforms will be mature and any SSN will need plenty of space for launching and managing these.

    • Giving each Vanguard a full load of missiles and warheads would be the speediest of all. Confident the people in charge are working on that right now.

      • It’s a shame we rely on it but it’s the ultimate deterrent right now. I am confident that AWE are at full steam ahead on that

      • Not sure what said people will be working on? Trident missiles are ‘shared’ between UK and the US. We have our missiles at Coulport, and despite what you see on wiki, all the UK needs to do is put more warheads on each missile and more missiles onto the next deploying SSBN.
        We have a stockpile of warheads which is due to increase by 40% over the next few years bringing the number upto approx 260ish. We have more then enough, even before you factor in the FR and US arsenal’s.
        If you put say 12 missiles each with 5 warheads on a SSBN, that gives you 60 bombs, just how many places do you want to destroy?

        • We share missiles but not warheads with the USA. AWE will be working flat out increasing stockpiles of warheads as outlined in last defence review.

          • Im sure AWE will be working to increase our stockpile in line with Bozza announcement. Given that we started out with over 170 warheads, not sure that ‘flat out’ is necessarily the case.
            In fact it’s largely irrelevant how fast/hard they are/might be currently working, as the only number of warheads that actually matter at any given point, is the number carried by the on patrol SSBN. Given an all out nuclear exchange, Faslane would be a pile of radioactive debris inside of 15-20 minutes, so no relief boat sailing from there!! How would you launch the remainder without an SSBN??

        • Because in the recent past it’s been said and reported that they were not sailing with their full load of missiles. Whether they have full missile and max warhead load may not matter to some but it would matter to say Putin for example.

          • Yes, we haven’t sailed with a max load for several years now, mainly due to the ‘peace dividend’. Doesn’t mean that we can’t or indeed aren’t.
            Given that Russia has potentially 4 SSBNs worth of missiles able to target the country, don’t think that I would be fretting over how many potential warheads might be aimed at me! But yes it might be the sort of thing that gives Putin sleepless nights.

          • Right. It just means we weren’t. Cameron said we would only load 8 missiles out of a possible 16 and we’d have a maximum of 40 warheads attached in total. Boris has removed those limits and what the Vanguards currently sail with isn’t public information. But I think we still have over 50 missiles available, so going back to loading 16 isn’t an issue. Each missile can take up to 12 warheads. That means we could theoretically put almost our entire active warhead stock on one sub if we wanted, at least until the numbers build up a bit more.

          • Hi Jon, not entirely sure how many missiles we actually have (we share them with the US Atlantic SSBN flt out of Kings Bay) over in the UK. Suffice to say that the 3 running SSBNs(Vanguard in refit doesn’t have any onboard) have at least 24 missiles onboard between them and there will be more missiles stored at RNAD Coulport.

            We started off with over 170 warheads prior to the increase being announced, split between a high yield bomb and a smaller yield bomb(Holbrook). We are limited to 8 warheads per missile by the START treaty, but what’s in a piece of paper!!! The US can put up to 14 warheads on the missiles, as they have a wider variety of warhead sizes – believe that despite the difference in yield, our warheads aren’t that different in physical size. Of course, the more warheads you put on a missile, the less range the system has, but, as the Trident D5 has a huge range anyway, its a bit of a moot point.

            Despite what many say, we have more then enough warheads to go around the SSBN’s. As others have posted, it is entirely possible that we will be increasing numbers over the short term to allow for newer warheads – perhaps with a different yield come into service before retiring older warheads?? The 8/40 figure (5 WH per missile) is a fluctuating figure dependant on the latest threat assessment, it always has been. It is widely thought that the US only fits an average of 5 WH per missile too, although they routinely sail with more missiles then we do, so again, a moot point.

        • What I am not sure on is if the stockpiles are actually increasing or if it was a spin by our policticans. At the same time as the increase, there is a series of upgrades happening and I am wondering if it will just be a temp increase as we transition from old to new, rather than an actual increase in missiles, which would have made zero sense if true, why did we suddenly need to pay for more.

          • The stockpile is increasing but this could well be to deal with replacements/upgrades etc. the main thing is there are enough for 2/3 boats ready.
            I can’t remember if the boats have the missiles on board permanently apart from refits.

          • I read somewhere at the time that the increase in numbers was to allow for new warheads to be brought into service. I guess the new warheads get introduced into the ‘rotation / maintenance’ pool while old warheads are still on the missiles.

            I should also point out that the Dreadnought Class SSBN will only have 12 launch tubes for SLBM so there would only need to be a modest increase in warhead count to fully tool up the new boats given there is no new missile.

            The impression I got was that we would go back down to about the original numbers, but I cannot be sure of that. All I am sure of is there will be a political fudge in there somewhere – as usual.

            Money talks, reality walks.

            Cheers CR

          • That was my assumption, the increase came out of nowhere without any form of justification and so I assumed it was just a tweak to the rules to allow a temp increase as they rotated things around, rather than an actual increase

          • Hi Steve,I think both you and @CR have a point, however, personally I believe its a bit of both, replacing some older ones with new ones and increasing those new stocks a bit as @Tommo has posted below.

        • Deeps ,Defence minister Wallace wants tòo increase warhead numbers on the Boats in service ,8th May thanks too Putins posturing

  5. Excellent news. I wonder how this might tie into the Aussies developing their submarine fleet…I suspect that our industrial capacity is stretched as it is to build our fleet (these truly are among the most complex machines ever built by humans) but how that our expertise makes it way into Aussie subs….

    • The study to determine which submarine design, UK or USA (Astute or Virginia), the RAN will operate has been running for a bit over six months now, still about 12 months to go before the Government here in Oz makes a decision.

      The reactors won’t be built here in Oz, but as much as possible of the rest of the hulls will be, less local content in the beginning, greater local content as the project matures.

      Anyway, still very much wait and watch for about another year.

      • Yes, I guess they (aussie def dept) have some pretty big decisions to make around design/manufacturing/infrastructure etc. I just hope successive governments and public opinion is supportive of continuing to support a project that offers huge long term benefits but eats up lots of money over the next 15 years or more …

        • Yes the SSN program is going to consume huge amounts of dollars for many decades to come (the Attack class SSG program would have consumed huge amounts too).

          But I don’t think we have much choice in our part of the world (Asia-Pacific and Indo-Pacific), I can’t see China taking a step back from their aggressive behaviour anytime soon either.

          Time will tell.

          • I hope Australia get the best sub for their needs. I’m guessing they will want the American combat systems and weapons. It’s a tough choice. Big American sub with 4 tubes and lots of VLS, bigger crew and costly, or smaller fatter sub with 6 tubes and a bit smaller crew but a bit cheaper.
            Hopefully it will all work out nicely and a drum beat can be kept going on the sub building. It will take a lot of effort but will be a great addition to the RAN. The attack class was just turning into a bit of a mess so best to cancel it when they did.

          • Yes it’s going to be interesting to see which design is selected, and the justification as to why.

            On the one hand, Astute does appear to be the ‘right amount’ of sub, but it does lack the desired combat system and weapons, and production is winding down.

            Also the PWR2 reactor is now out of production. Can the new PWR3 be shoehorned into the Astute hull?

            On the other hand, Virginia Blk V is probably ‘too much’ sub.

            The other option would be Virginia Blk IV (eg, without the VPM), already has the desired combat system and weapons.

            The ‘hybrid’ option could be an evolved Astute, integrate the US combat and weapons systems, and install the US S9G reactor from the Virginia class.

          • That’s a helpful summary, I’ve not seen a lot on what Australia are looking for in their SSNs. You’re right, they’re really the only solution for Australia’s geo-political situation. maybe in the future autonomous underwater systems will have the range and payload to replace SSNs, but that’s a boat class away, I expect.
            No idea about reactor size, but I’ve read it’s a development of the S9G anyway- potentially there’s scope therefore? Otherwise, I’d definitely go with the S9G rather than try and mess with adjusting the size of the hull. Weight distribution and hydrodynamics are incredibly important for maintaining trim and suchlike from my understanding.
            I get the US combat system, but why not go Spearfish with the torpedo? I understand it’s better than the US equivalent 21″ / 533 mm option.

          • Is Spearfish better than Mk48 ADCAP Mod 7 (CBASS)? Who knows, depends on who is telling the story.

            What is clear is the ADF (RAN, RAAF, Army), have a very very close relationship with all arms of the US military, many many decades long.

            Various weapons and weapons systems have been, and still are, jointly developed.

            Not that we don’t have a close relationship with the UK, but in our part of the world, the US is always going to be our major security partner.

            Having common weapons (as just one example) with the US, is far more practical, especially in a future coalition operation.

            No offence to you Poms!

          • Both spearfish and Stingray just went through an upgrade programme in the last year or so, so depends when Mk48 got CBASS’d?!
            You’re right, it makes perfect sense to be able to re-arm an Aussie sub at Pearl Harbor with Mk48s in the event of a Pacific war, rather than having to keep a special stock of Spearfish. No offence taken- it’s the right call!

      • I would assume and hope the UK SSN successor class will be part of the programme John, it should be absolutely correct for Australian needs and a combined build of say 16 for the UK and Australia would reduce costs all round and add scale.

        Australia could get in on the design phase too, designing and building a true Anglo Australian SSN, total .. Win, win.

        I think the US boats will be overkill for Australian needs and horrifically expensive….

        • I think the problem with SSN(R) is that it is too far down the road to be selected, too far into the future to meet the desired timeframe, in my opinion, it’s going to come down to a possibly modified version of Astute (change of combat and weapons systems, and replacement of the out of production PWR2 reactor).

          Virginia Blk V is too large (with VPM), so possibly the much shorter Blk IV (without VPM).

          We just have to wait and see.

          • If you build a version of the Astute that fits PWR3 and has updated sensors and weapons, you’ll be substantially building SSN(R) anyway. Alternatively look at it as a truncated Dreadnought.

            The UK has already accelerated SSN(R) timescales and Australia can input into the currently running SSN(R) concept/design phase. Accelerating the design could fit Australia’s timescales for their first batch, even if the UK is not ready to build it yet. There’s no reason Oz can’t build a small batch of say three subs, learning from the experience, before synchronising with UK production on a finalized design.

          • The Australians say they want it in the 2030’s and the latest from the Australian Strategic Institute is the commission are in particular looking at the two navies next gen designs over current Astute/Virginia (understandable, they would be spending a lot of money on a base design that was 30 years old) however the US is running about 7 years behind original plan on their SSN(X) program with it now due to be laid down in 2032 and enter service in 2044 compared to original plan to enter service 2035/36, too late for the Australians while the British SSN(R) will only be a few years ahead.

            My bet if they are indeed focussing on next gen is on SSN(R) with the Australians getting some industrial participation in return for essentially funding the UK acquiring an Astute+ to replace transferring an older Astute to Australia (their working idea is to gradually build up to 50% Australian crew on a borrowed sub with borrowed crew). The Astute+ would allow them to testbed and derisk technologies for SSN(R) allowing Australia to receive either the first or second of the SSN(R) proper in 2035-2040. This would be similar to how the US built a quarter scale Virginia as a testbed for that class.

          • The big enemy of this project is time, or more accurately, lack of time.

            Up to this point the Government here in Oz has held firm on not having a capability gap between the retirement of the Collins boats and the introduction of the SSNs.

            The first Collins enters the LOTE upgrade in 2026, planned to re-enter service two years later in 2028, serve for another 10 years, and retire in 2038 (each subsequent Collins boat follows at two yearly intervals).

            Can all the ducks be lined up?

            Hopefully, it does appear all three AUKUS Governments are committed to the project.

            It’s going to be a very interesting project to watch.

      • Well in todays world, no one, as BAE and government have seen to that! So we pay BAE whatever they want basically. That’s a basic fundamental of capitalism.

        • To be fair Tom, they are horrendously complex and murderously expensive things, only built in tiny numbers too, where would the competition come from?

    • Hi Tom. These are the most complex machines mankind has ever made, including anything we have put into space. I’m very glad BAE are building these boats. And that we have the engineering experience and infrastructure to build these incredible feats of engineering. Shame we need them at all, but that’s the world we live in.

  7. There’s an article about this at the Telegraph. It also mentions that Australia is likely to choose a UK solution to their nuclear powered sub. I’m a bit sceptical about this claim. Seems odd that it’s not been mentioned anywhere else in the media.

    • Yes seems a bit of wishful thinking on the papers part. Could be something as small as they have a contact at the Australian government who has said we will go for a British design. Might not even have anything to do with the sub contract. I will wait for an official announcement.

  8. Great news.
    I just wish it was paid for out of central government funds like it was before 2010 according to reports.
    It is a political decision to be a nuclear power so not ideal conventional forces suffer as a result, and one reason why we get less assets than other medium powers. They lack things like this.
    Having said all that, I’m a firm believer in having Trident.
    Glad Deep is on hand on this one too, being a SME on this.

    • I do agree, the deterrent should be a different budget line that MOD spending. It’s more of a geopolitical statement and not a weapon of war. Even thought is costly it’s not something we should ever considering backing away from if our main geopolitical competitors maintain a nuclear strike capability.

    • Absolutely agree – As you say its a little outside of a conventional force and reduces the effect of the budget on conventional forces.
      If anything the current situation in Ukraine should reiterate that nuclear deterents are just that – only deterents against the use of nuclear force and are unlikely to be used unless that red line is crossed. Therefore it logically follows that an efffective conventional force is more of a neccessity now then ever & therefore more budget needs to .afforded to those forces.
      These subs cost a lot of money and tbh its a fine lne drawn between their cost and their ‘effectiveness’if that makes sense.
      Their build and maintenance costs at least shoud be covered by the treasury , couple that with forces pensions covered by DWP ..then.maybe 2-3% GDP on actual defence would be enough..

      • Exactly. I’m not on about operational costs, that is RN/MoD. It is the cost of build and the AWE operation.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here