The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that long-term upgrades are underway at His Majesty’s Naval Bases Clyde and Devonport to ensure sufficient infrastructure is in place to support the Royal Navy’s growing submarine fleet, including up to 12 planned attack submarines and four Dreadnought-class ballistic missile submarines.
In a written response to a question from James Cartlidge MP on the adequacy of submarine docking capacity, Defence Minister Maria Eagle said the government “is committed to ensuring the availability of submarine berths to support all submarine operations”. She added that the focus remains on “the long-term infrastructure development of His Majesty’s Naval Bases Clyde and Devonport”.
Eagle did not specify how many berths would be required or which bases would be responsible for specific classes of submarines, citing operational security. “For reasons of operational security, further details on specific berths cannot be disclosed,” she stated.
This assurance follows similar answers to recent questions raised in Parliament about the infrastructure required for the UK’s next-generation Dreadnought-class submarines, which will replace the current Vanguard-class boats. The Ministry of Defence confirmed that it is upgrading dockyards to support the maintenance and repair of these submarines, but warned that disclosing details could “undermine the security and capability of our Armed Forces.”
The Dreadnought-class programme, the UK’s largest defence project, remains budgeted at £41 billion, which includes a £10 billion contingency. The first submarine in the class, HMS Dreadnought, is expected to enter service in the early 2030s and will form the cornerstone of Britain’s Continuous At-Sea Deterrence (CASD) until at least the 2060s.
While specific plans remain classified, it is widely anticipated that HMNB Clyde (Faslane) will remain the home of the UK’s strategic deterrent, while Devonport is likely to retain responsibility for deep maintenance of nuclear-powered submarines. Both sites are currently undergoing extensive modernisation to prepare for the expanded fleet.
God damn it, we are on a roll now.
Up to 12 World class, cutting edge, state of the art hyper super dooper sinky/floaty boaty types all backed up by world class, state of the art, cutting edge facilities, the envy of the world.
Eventually.
“All good things come to those who wait”.
Saying one thing and it actually happening is another. Do you really trust the eagle has landed? Or any of them ? If and when these 12 boats are going to happen the last one to enter service will probably be around 2070. Not much of a roll.
You just have to go to Barrow to see these boats are happening. Massive expansion and hiring already under way.
12 x 18 months…..
That is an 18 year into service from first to last.
Question is really when boat #1 is going to hit the water. Not that long till it hits initial fabrication. In the geological timescale involved…..
The bigger elephant in the room is what was the effect of the Barrow fire? Fixing burned submarines is always harder than you might think.
Totally agree with this.
If its impacted on Dreadnought, then can’t really see that as too much of an issue, as she’s still years away from being launched, so plenty of time to rectify issues from said fire.
Not the same for the last two A boats though. Boat 6 is due to be handed over later this year, with boat7 (Achillies) due to enter service later next year. If she doesn’t then clearly there has been an issue with the fire. Let’s wait and see what happens next year.
If we are looking at 12 in total, with an expansion of production capacity at Barrow, causally an increase to 3.5% on the core defence budget, then it’s all quite doable.
I suspect that the first SSNR boat will replace Astute, as she’s apparently quite different to her sisters.
The rest of the Astute class can be refitted and updated for 30 plus year careers.
So they should be able to build 6 SSNR’s at a steady drum beat, from boat 7 on, they would start to replace the outgoing Astute class.
Crucially even!!!
Edit function back please!
Evening John, Although I don’t post very often on this site, I usually draft it on Word, check it (of course…!) then copy and paste onto the site. Alwus wirks for me…
Funny China launched 8 SSNs between mid 22 and now… with another in the water 2-3 coming every year..
They also manage to drown their dock yard workers in the process
Fortunately the PLAN ssn fleets aren’t very effective, distinctly noisy and therefore easily detected, tracked and targeted.
Unfortunately you forgot the word “were”.
That unfortunately is changing
The Type 91 batch ones were the worst SSNs ever built
The type 91 batch twos are about up to a late November… I’m not sure these will be about when any war starts… they will have pulled the crews for the new type 93Bs.
The type 93s are pretty much about victor 1 level.. but they will put these in the open ocean as commerce raiders.. that will need to be hunted down .. finding them in the Indian Ocean or pacific will take resources..
The type 93As are a mixed batch.. but the batch 1s are about the level of a victor 2
and the batch 2s about the level victor3 or just below a sturgeon SSN637 level.. they will probably use these as raiders and threat to lesser surface groups. They can also carry 2000km range cruise missiles.. so will be used to attack infrastructure.
The latest batch type 93B is considered to be around an early 688 SSN or Akula.. so a submarine that is a threat and that is actually seriously impressive passive quieting when you consider the SSN is crippled by having a duel reactor. These also have vertical launch silos ( 12 + 6 tubes) and 2000km cruise missiles so they will first be used to attack core infrastructure or just hold anywhere in the world at risk.. sucking away resources to hunt them..they may use them to attack carrier battle groups in the open ocean.
The new type 95 is a single reactor SSN and is estimated to be beyond an improved Akula even up to a Virginia class of quiet. The first has apparently been laid down These are the nightmare of the USN and once they go into serial production 2-3 per year the US not only losses its edge in the western pacific ( which it has now lost) it will loss it everywhere..
By 2029-2030 the PLAN will likely have
2 type 93
4 type 93A
16 type 93B
After 2030 they will be launching the type 95s at 2-3 a year..I suspect at that point the early 93s will go.
They have 16 SSN building bays and 4 SSBN building bays.. so they can assemble 20 nuclear hulls at the same time.
The Chinese SSN fleet has transitioned from joke the strategic threat.
There are 7 Astute class SSNs planned. That meets the ‘up to 12’ requirement. Who knows if any more will be built.
Well, one way to get a feel of things is how many PW3 reactors are Rolls Royce looking to build…. I am sure I saw something here a year or two ago talking about mid 20’s for the PW3 reactors…. 4 Dreadnaughts, 20 AUKUS subs plus a prototype reactor….
If you mean that only 7 SSNAs might be built, I agree we can’t know. However, given current trends I’d be optimistic that more will be built than that. (Or pessimistic if you are viewing the geopolitics driving the increase.) One threat could be someone pushing some fantasy world of submarine obsolescence, decades before the replacements reality. I can’t see the whole Atlantic Bastion UUV thing taking over the requirements that quickly.
That’s nonsense, they are very specific that up to 12 SSN A are planned not Astute.
All Astutes are accounted for – 7 ,no if’s or but’s,if you mean SSN(R) AUKUS then up to twelve is pretty self explanitory.
No more Astutes can be built, unfortunately. Why? Because the PWR2 reactor that goes into them has been replaced by the PWR3 reactor on the production line. The PWR3 goes into the Dreadnought boats and will also go into the SSN A class, it is much bigger that the PWR2 so cannot be fitted to an Astute class sub. Secondly, the production lines at Barrow and Raynesway (RR Derby) are full with Dreadnought work and I suspect they will soon be cutting steel and building the reactors for the SSN A boats (if they haven’t already started on the first reactor for SSN A, takes years to build and fuel a reactor).
So no more Astutes I’m afraid, and just for the record we don’t and never will have enough of them. I would also argue we need a fifth SSBN, but that ain’t going to happen either.
Hopefully, to up dated infrastructure will help with Astute and Vanguard availability in the meantime…
Cheers CR
Id also like to see a fifth SSBN- possibly as co-funded by the European Nato allies- its been said before on this site- if the UK and France are providing a nuclear umbrella for the whole of European NATO then that comes with a price- the price is France and the UK both need at least 5 SSBNs each and that way 3 can be out on deterrent patrol at any one time.
Europe is happy to be protected by us and our unique capabilities – especially with our submarine fleet but pays zilch towards its upkeep, manning or operation. They get to build hospitals, refit and repair their roads and generally have much nicer well maintained countries whilst we are providing nuclear deterrent.
Trump is sadly correct about that- they are free loaders.
But Poland and the three small Baltic states are building much stronger armies relative to their population than the UK is. Poland and Estonia are spending much more as a percentage of their GDP than the UK as well.
It makes sense that the UK puts a much bigger proportion of its defence spending into the Navy than countries who are directly facing our biggest threat.
That’s only very recently. I also don’t think it’s viable. I wouldn’t want the UK to use it’s nuclear deterrent for any other reason than our own homeland being attacked.
As you rightly say Poland and the Baltics can defend themselves with their much lauded increased defence expenditure.
Non proliferation treaty kills that idea in its tracks
Is that the same non proliferation treaty that Russia has already breached on multiple fronts and torn up essentially.
China hasn’t even signed and is expected to double it’s nuclear arsenal. I think we can say with full legal clarity that as other nations are threatening the UK we will do what’s necessary to increase our deterrence potency and ensure our enemies know we have increased our warhead count to ensure our retaliatory strikes is more potent.
If a Naval war looks imminent, I am sure they could open an improved PWR2 line. That would be a lot quicker than going down any other route.
It makes a lot of sense to do that anyway and if our economy wasn’t being run into the ground by Labour for reasons of rich-hate; we would probably do that; especially if US pulls Australia’s Virginias.
It would probably take longer to switch back to an out of date reactor than push on with the current program. Apart from the fact that the PWR2 is now a 30 / 40 year old design which means some of the components might not be available any more it does not meet modern safety requirements. The PWR3 is already in production as there are 2 Dreadnought boats in a relatively advanced state, Dreadnought certainly has her reactor in place or ready to go in, given they are welding the mega blocks together.
Building a reactor takes years, its not something you can rush, unless you are willing to build widow makers…
So push on with the PWR3 and put the foot down on the gas, which is what appears to be happening anyway given the money that is being invested at Barrow and Raynesbury. Sadly, there is no quick fix for gapping the SSN production line post Cold War but at least we seem to have enough resources to move onto the Dreadnought / SSN A programs…
Cheers CR
Thanks, interesting, I didnt realise it was such an old design.
Although the exact out of service date has not been disclosed it is a matter of public record that the ASTUTE class submarines were designed for a 25 year service career – this number dictated by the stated design life of their PWR-2 nuclear reactors without refueling. HMS ASTUTE was of course commissioned back in 2010 – so theoretically simple maths tells us she will therefore decommission around 2035 – even though this boat has only just entered what has been described as her ‘mid- life refit’ this month .
However, if HMS ASTUTE’ does indeed decommission around 2035 as expected then her replacement – SSN-AUKUS 01 – would surly need to have already commenced construction given recent experience shows us it takes UK industry around 12 years to deliver a new SSN. Yes, I understand that the the first long-lead components for SSN-AUKUS are now under order, but construction proper seems a long way off given the pressing necessity on delivering DREADNAUGHT at this time. Modern nuclear submarine construction is a expensive, complex and difficult problem which even the much better funded US industry struggles with while our economy and industrial base is not what it once was.
Therefore, it seems to me that in order to maintain even the current seven boat SSN force structure we will either have to extend the service life of the ASTUTE class well beyond what was expected of them, and/or we will have to solve the problem of accelerating our submarine construction rate dramatically. Any ambition to increase our SSN fleet to 12 boats would alas seem to be a ‘long grass’ proposal at best.
“Specific berths cannot be disclosed.”
Yet X and Z Berths locations are public knowledge, and one can look on Google Earth and count all sorts if one wishes.
Hiding behind secrecy so they avoid giving truthful answers.
This government are more obscure than the last lot so far.
Oh, and CDS, CGS, CNS, and CAS are all being gagged by orders from No 10, reading various reports on X.
CDS comments at RUSI are xxxxx xxxxxx while other foreign militaries officials can speak.
Procurement above 50k at a standstill.
Why?
Tell them CAB is there to listen.
Anyone with a pair of binos can see what is going on.
The lack of spending small(ish) amounts of money has been the real problem for quite a while.
DM.
“…Hiding behind secrecy so they avoid giving truthful answers.” That’s a petty remark, it’s not even a big deal as berth allocation is of no importance to you. No doubt James Cartlidge would have given the same non-committal answer.
Yet, I fancy, if it was the Conservatives/Tories witholding disclosure, you would have been all “Damn right, wouldn’t want the Boche know what we’re up to! It’s all hush-hush don’t you know.”
What on earth could they possibly be hiding? if, as you say “…X and Z Berths locations are public knowledge, and one can look on Google Earth and count all sorts …”. What is this secrecy you have conjured up? Are the “truthful answers?” implicatorory or imaginary?
You’re not making any sense, it seems that acrimony has given you a voice, but it has stolen your reason.
The point being: ditch the political bile, it’s destructive, concentrate on lifting your country and your fellow countrymen to greater endeavours; together.
Try articulating with a positive voice, a balanced voice … a reasoned voice.
M.
Hi M.
Balance. I’ve been doing for years!
If you’ve been reading anything I post here for the last 8 years I repeatedly say all parties are as bad, so no bias here.
The previous government, bad as they are, was publishing a lot more information than this one. That is not political bias, it is fact. Even the equipment plan has gone.
Solid go do one from Magenta, get back to your X-Box fiction. Daniele, was a TAD Tory but, now despises both main political parties.
This country can not be talked up – it needs leadership and sadly has none.
Anyway, off you to pop to do whatever you do in your tin-foil world.
Umm…er…the Navy Lookout (NL) website periodically provides updates re submarine maintenance infrastructure renovations/upgrades at HMNBs Clyde and Devonport. Perhaps someone should inform them that they may be violating the Official Secrets Act? 🤔😉
Evening USAF.
Very much so. It is a ridiculous statement from Eagle. She, like others in her position over the years, hides behind such nonsense to avoid a straight answer.
Such as “wait for the SDR….”
We waited. Now, we must wait till the Autumn.
I have no belief whatsoever this government will resource defence any more than the previous rabble, unless literally FORCED by NATO and Trump.
Even then, they would I suspect rather send pork the way of the MIC than ever putting in place plans to expand the three services or fill the gaps, some of which they themselves have added to.
Hi Daniele,
I agree that our politicians have been getting increasingly secretive for political reasons rather than telling the truth. I do wonder whether this latest lot are being even more so because there is some sort of bun fight going on behind the scenes with the Treasury playing a leading role… Hence the total news black out… First the SDR now the Investment Plan, it’ll be Santa Claus next..!
Cheers CR
Smoke and mirrors and damage to UKs interests in many ways.