The UK Government has awarded a new £5.9 billion contract to BAE Systems to fund critical work progressing the Royal Navy’s Dreadnought Class nuclear deterrent submarines towards entry into service, according to the company.
Work on the first of class, Dreadnought, continues at BAE Systems’ shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness ahead of delivery to the Royal Navy in the early 2030s. The contract also covers continued build of boat two, Valiant, and the fabrication and outfitting of the remaining two boats, Warspite and King George VI, which are in the early stages of construction.
The four-boat Dreadnought Class will replace the existing Barrow-built Vanguard fleet, maintaining the UK’s Continuous at Sea Deterrent. According to BAE Systems, they will be the biggest, most powerful and technically advanced submarines ever built for the Royal Navy.
The contract forms part of a wider £8.4 billion package approved by parliament for the Ministry of Defence. The build programme is being delivered in collaboration with the MOD’s Defence Nuclear Enterprise, the partnership of organisations that operate, maintain, renew and sustain the UK’s nuclear deterrent.
Charles Woodburn, BAE Systems Chief Executive, said:
“The Dreadnought programme is of vital strategic importance to the UK, underpinning the security of our nation and our allies for decades to come.”
“Its delivery depends on the strength of our national industrial base, with thousands of skilled workers right across the country playing their part in the mission to deliver this critical capability to the Royal Navy.”
In the last financial year, BAE Systems’ Dreadnought supply chain spend was £1.3 billion, taking the total spent so far to £8.9 billion across more than 1,500 UK suppliers.
Defence Secretary Wes Streeting MP said:
“Our nuclear-armed submarines are essential to keeping the UK secure, acting as the ultimate deterrent to our adversaries in an increasingly dangerous world.”
“This milestone investment breathes new life into Barrow’s historic traditions and secures our commitment to deliver Dreadnought Class submarines by backing British industry.”
“Supporting thousands of skilled, local jobs, we are fusing Barrow’s proud heritage with modern technology to build our security for the future, supporting the next generation to keep our country safe as their parents and grandparents did.”
The Dreadnought programme supports approximately 30,000 jobs across the country, with more than 7,000 people currently working on it at BAE Systems alone.
In September 2025, King Charles III visited Barrow-in-Furness to bestow Royal Port status on the town, recognising the contribution it makes to UK defence. Over the past four years £1 billion has been invested in the BAE Systems Submarines site, and its workforce has expanded from 11,000 to approximately 16,000. BAE Systems is working alongside central and local government as part of the Team Barrow partnership to deliver improvements via the £200 million Barrow Transformation Fund.
The lack of detail in these announcements is so frustrating. Go back to the 1990’s and the MOD provided quite detailed information on the construction status and planned launch and commissioning dates of individual Vanguard-class submarines – a quick check with some of my old Janes Fighting Ships volumes confirms this. As for the Resolution-class in the 1960’s, journalists such as Desmond Wettern were providing updates in national newspapers on a near weekly basis!
By design.
Speaking from experience as a researcher, including filing numerous FOIA requests, the MoD gives out aa little as possible, in my opinion to try to hide how small the military has become.
Anyone who can be bothered to watch any official or officer in any of the HoCDSC meetings will see it. They’re either as thick as mince on the subject matter, what, when, how many, where, or are being gagged.
Yes I agree, and in the end it does not work.. because the Russians are not idiots, they know how deterrent works as well as HMG, if you have it you communicate it as the enemy needs to know for it to be a deterrent.
Oh, I think the Russians know exactly how many bits of kit we have and so do the Chinese. Both nations have satellites that can see vessels down to workboat size let alone frigates, subs or socking great aircraft carriers. Plus both nations are pretty ruthless when it comes humint and are very capable hackers as well.
As Daniele says it is not about security instead it is about avoiding putting the wind up the Great British public and the resulting political fallout. The British public are in for a heck of a shock if one of those frigates the Russians are placing a few miles off our South Coast does something stupid. The Russians will gradually take ever bigger risks and watch the response, trouble is we don’t have much with which to respond not with most of our subs stuck alongside waiting for refits and the T23 frigates dropping like flies, so how far will the Russians actually go..? Putin is surrounded by yes men and has a particular dislike of the British it seems.
Oh how the once mighty Royal Navy has been allowed to shrivel…
Cheers CR
Could it not be that what is being hidden is not what we have but how it works.
I don’t think they are trying to hide anything. A quick Google search can find how many people we have. Warships, fast jets, tanks ect. Its all available. But you can’t expect them to give high levels of details when it comes to the construction of new SSBNs. The Russians and Chinese certainly wouldn’t. So why should we.
“But you can’t expect them to give high levels of details when it comes to the construction of new SSBNs.”
Hi mate. I wasn’t referring to SSBNS or indeed anything whatsoever to do with nuclear capability.
Nuclear, intelligence, and the DSF are all long understood exemptions, and rightly.
And with respect, a quick Google gives very little real detail and is often utterly out of date.
Have a watch of the recent committee meeting where the “new” ATV was mentioned as a typical example. What they highlight to deflect from what they do NOT reveal, which as we both know are cuts as long as your arm, on the quiet to all save those with a genuine interest. And it is continuing.
The more cuts, the more paranoid the MOD has become. The moment I realised this was regarding the Royal Navy Fleet Bridge Card, a very handy reference tool. An unclassified document with no markings, it was for many decades freely available, including as a PDF version on the official RN website from about 2003. Then in 2013 updates stopped being made, and in 2014 the link was broken. An FOI request for the latest version got the reply “I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) does regularly produce an updated Fleet Bridge Card … but this is [now] only available for reference within the MOD.” No explanation why.
Fantastic point!
That RN Fleet Bridge Card was a goldmine, I’d cross referenced my own data with it on many occasions.
My own FOIA requests are all the proof I need, they won’t supply some quite basic data that was once freely offered.
Easy to see where all the money goes. Worth pointing out though that their is only one weapon system that defines a world class military at that is the SSBN.
The deterrent takes up around 7% of the defence budget over its life cycle and around 25% of current spending and it’s worth every penny.
For all the nonsense spouted about UK allies expecting us to provide them or NATO with some capability ( as if NATO was some allied shopping list 🤦♂️) the deterrent is the only capability European NATO allies need us to provide.
Europe is massive and has huge conventional forces. Nuclear weapons and submarines are the only military item where the UK can meaningfully turn the dial on European and global security.
We should be spending more not less on them.
We should follow France and increase our strategic warhead count to 500 giving ENATO 1,000 warheads in line with China the cost of this is marginal as we already have the launchers.
We should also develop an air launched sub strategic weapon and a dual use MRBM to give the UK a full nuclear triad and nuclear escalation ladder.
In the near term we should purchase our own Trident D5 missiles from the restarted production line and set up our own storage and maintenance facility. We should present this to the next US administration as compensation for all the grievances we have under the current administration. Longer term we should cooperate with France and develop a UK designed and manufactured SLBM.
None of this is particularly expensive for a nation that spends nearly $100 billion a year on defence and already pays for all the expensive items like SLBM’s and warheads.
‘I doubt that one can place in priority the value of strategic nuclear forces, naval forces, theater nuclear forces, and conventional land forces. As a matter of fact, I am quite sure one cannot. All are links in the chain of defense, deterrence, and strategic freedom of action. None can be slighted or emphasized at the expense of another.’ Lt Gen DeWitt C Smith Jnr
But good to see that the Royal Navy will be getting another H.M.S. Warspite, the most famous name in modern naval history.
Joint Statement by Group of Five Defence Ministers – 13 January 2025. Minister for the Armed Forces, Luke Pollard, joined Defence Ministers in Helenów, Poland, from the Group of Five nations: France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the UK:
‘We welcome the apportionment of NATO capability targets to be endorsed at the NATO Defence Ministerial Meeting in June 2025. We are committed to enhancing our military capabilities to strengthen NATO’s deterrence and defence posture in line with NATO requirements and fair burden sharing, in support of SACEUR’s regional plans, recognising that it requires increased defence spending and having in mind that leveraging defence effort is a prerequisite for it.’
‘NATO Capability Targets define which military capabilities member countries need, in order to implement NATO’s operational plans and contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence. New capability targets are adopted every four years.’
‘As part of the June 2025 Capability Targets and the subsequent Strategic Defence Review (SDR), the UK’s core commitments and capability modernizations include:
Spending Targets: Accelerating the commitment to reach 2.5% of GDP on NATO-qualifying defence spending by 2027, with ambitions to reach 3% in the next Parliament.
Integrated Air and Missile Defence: Investing £790 million in new homeland air and missile defence systems.Nuclear and Conventional Deterrence: The UK is returning to NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements and purchasing F-35As for NATO’s Dual Capable Aircraft (DCA) mission.
Advanced Technology & Domains: Committing £3.2 billion for space capabilities, £2.5 billion for cyber and the electromagnetic domain, and £330 million for protecting critical underwater infrastructure.
Strategic Reserve Corps: Developing a fully deployable and enabled Strategic Reserve Corps to meet NATO’s conventional defence requirements.’
NATO countries between them do not possess a single formed armoured division.
NATO capability targets are all voluntary, members offer to provide certain capabilities often based on areas they hold an advantage in.
No one in NATO is sending a list of items for us to provide for their defence.
NATO members are indeed sent ‘capability targets’ which they discuss and commit to at summit meetings.
‘NATO Defence Ministers agreed a new set of Capability Targets in June 2025, based on the defence plans adopted at the 2023 Vilnius Summit.
The new Capability Targets demand more forces, equipped with the right tools, underpinned by greater defence investment.
They also require expanded defence industrial capacity, more robust supply chains and new technologies. The top priorities include air and missile defence, long-range weapons, logistics and large land manoeuvre formations.’
SDR 2025 highlights the army’s contribution of two divisions and a Corps HQ to NATO’s strategic reserve corps (SRC). These are forces held at readiness, able to deploy anywhere when required by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). Al Carns, the Minister for the Armed Forces, has described the SRC as SACEUR’s “most credible warfighting land force”.
‘The UK’s credibility – especially in relation to armoured forces – has been undermined when it makes ambitious promises but then fails to come even close to delivering them.’
RUSI 2024
A recently leaked NATO league table ranked the UK 31st of 32 on meeting agreed capability targets
Hi Munro so you do agree then that all NATO commitments are voluntary. Good to know. 😀
A commitment, as with an assurance, is a promise.
Promises often are made voluntarily. However it is compulsory to keep them to avoid charges of dishonesty, mendaciousness, or even, in certain cases, criminality…
Monro, I nearly choked on my cuppa when I read your post. How can you say that amongst the 32 NATO nations there is not one single formed armoured division? What is your source?
My apologies. It’s the marmalade that’s always the most difficult to clear up after dropping the toast, isn’t it.
I should, of course, have added ‘in Europe’. The United States has armoured divisions, but none in Europe.
Turkey only has armoured brigades. Poland will soon have an armoured division but not yet fully formed up. Germany’s armoured divisions are not fully formed, multinational. France has mechanised divisions. Italy doesn’t have an armoured division. Britain certainly doesn’t have an armoured division and will not for the foreseeable future.
Churchill (1940): ‘Ou est la masse de manoeuvre?’
Gamelin: ‘Aucune!’
It is the signal that sends out that is, in my view, the most dangerous thing; no credible conventional deterrent. Putin invaded Ukraine 2014 after U.S. red lines were crossed with impunity in Syria 2013.
Britain has for years committed to sustain a “minimum credible deterrent”. The question is whether a single SSBN at sea is sufficient to deter any would be attacker. Might a future leader of Russia ( Medvedev for example has made very aggressive threats) calculate that even though Britain’s nuclear response would cause damage, it would not be a knockout counterstrike, especially if GBAD could destroy some of the small number of missiles launched.
We have chosen the most expensive system precisely because it would survive an all out attack on the UK. Expanding our nuclear arsenal with land based delivery platforms that would be destroyed in a pre emptive strike doesn’t really add to the deterrent effect of the survivable SSBN.
Expanding the SSBN fleet would be very expensive. Actually using all the launch tubes would increase throw weight more affordably. I am still unclear why Dreadnought is bigger than Vanguard but has fewer missile tubes which we don’t plan to use fully.
Given the state of the armed forces, I don’t think spending even more on nuclear deterrence is justified.
I agree that our current minimum deterrent may not be sufficient to deter Russia in all scenarios especially if they perceive ABM systems may counter it and simply increasing the warheads on each missile should be our first action like France.
A land based MRBM system should be about providing a sub strategic response as part of an escalation ladder without exposing our one submarine at sea. We already have such a capability using a trident missile with a single selectable yield warhead but using such a capability would expose the submarine and also may be mid interpreted as a full strike.
Such a weapon can easily be road mobile and fired from eastern England or Northern Scotland. China and Russia already have such systems we should counter.
Peter, if a Vanguard sub had all 16 tubes filled by a missile with up to 8 MIRVs per missile, then that is up to 128 warheads of 100 kiloton yield, but some sources say that there are only 12 tubes filled by a missile and yet other sources say that a boat carries just 40 warheads on a typical patrol. Whatever the truth, that would cause a headache for Moscow, particulaly if most were aimed at Moscow!
The Russians surely weigh up the totality of the West’s nuclear capabiity – US, UK, FR, in deciding if that amounts to a credible deterrent?
Who knows what goes on in the minds of Russian leaders?
You would hope that our deterrent is powerful enough to forestall a pre emptive attack. With the new warhead reportedly having a yield of up to 475 kts , up from 100 in the current warhead, the destructive power of a single boat ought to frighten any adversary.
For a small, densely populated country like UK, any system other than SSBNs would mean a launch on warning posture, with greatly increased risks of a catastrophic mistake.
Agree on our own storage and maintenance, but our current deal with US entitles us to an allotment of Tridents, we’d just relocate those rather than building more?
Also, my understanding is that our D5s can take up to 8 UK warheads and Dreadnought being built with 12 launch tubes, so a maximum warhead count of 384 is possible. If we upped to 500 it’d imply the rest would be air-launched, tactical, warheads.
If we build more then we have a good forty years of Service life in them. I have no idea if existing agreements would allow us to divert a certain amount but we need to take any reasonable steps we can to ensure long term independence and it’s very much in the interests of the next US administration and congress to help us do this as we can provide and important back stop for NATO.
Or spares.
So he signed a bit pa paper but NO new money as the money was already there for this project. New pushing at a faster rate as the old boats are getting well long in the tooth and need replacing ASAP. How about ordering a dozen new OPV’s using the Norwegian designs on offer so to better patrol our home waters? Its what is needed NOW.
Do we have any idea when dreadnaugh will leave the buildhall? Also I wonder if they will allow photos, I always struggle to grasp how big equipment is just on measurements alone. It would be nice to see it next to people.
Article on UKDJ;
“New British attack sub set to leave Barrow by end of year” 25th June 2026. It is a head on view of an Astute class SSN leaving the build hall and the people on the casing and on the ground in front of it are tiny..!
I searched Google “astute ssn leaving the build hall” , then clicked images and the picture came up on the second row.
Enjoy, it’s impressive.
Cheers CR
This is all over the No10 website.
“Burnham does.”
1. This is not new money.
2. It has been announced multiple times before, including by Starmer in the DIP, so the standard reannouncement as the next step is taken and not the “I’m doing” as stated.
These are long term projects.
3. The DNE is hamstringing Defence, if 25% of the budget is going on it, until Defence is funded as agreed with NATO.
4. Burnham is already avoiding questions on the 3 % by 2030, so what’s the betting he turns out to be no different to Starmer? Hopefully not?
I think what Burnham ( and Streeting) are doing by these sort of announcements and photo opportunities is to establish in the minds of the public, but more importantly the left wing of his own party, the link between defence spending and apprenticeships; and the re-industrialisation of Britain. In order to reduce the benefits bill for the ‘Neets’ ( for example by disqualifying justifications like anxiety, ADHD etc) and making it mandatory to take an apprenticeship or lose your benefits, you need to be able to argue that you have ‘created’ lots of apprenticeship opportunities which pay as well benefits. So, I would expect the contracts awarded for manufacture / assembly of army vehicles or Type 91/2/3/4 vessels etc to be conditional on creating apprenticeships and UK jobs. I’m not a finance wizard but it also might make it easier to sell the idea of borrowing to ‘invest’ in new facilities and training. Just my take.
Thanks, Paul.
All that sounds good, playing the slow game.
My takes the reverse, they’ve no intention of going to 3% because they’ve no idea how to.
Maybe those who suspected that Healey’s resignation was less than honourable and was planned in the knowledge that Burnham might make him Chancellor were correct.
I read today that Streeting is talking about fully funding the DIP.
He probably means the missing money to get to the below minimum level, not the full DIP Healey resigned over or the one reinforced by Starmer’s endless grandstanding about war.
I don’t trust any of these people, sorry, seen this playbook repeat itself since 1995.
Good that you remain optimistic though. 👍
Absolutely! Glass half full mate.
“After decades of using overseas production lines in Romania, Britten-Norman has resumed manufacturing of the STOL stalwart Islander aircraft at its historic UK home of Bembridge on the Isle of Wight”. The Aviationist.
The return of manufacturing to the UK was confirmed in 2023, and since then the company has invested significantly in its facilities to provide modern computer numerical control (CNC) machine tools along with a more than 40% increase in its workforce. 😀
Yes! I saw that on X.
This is the UKDJ though, it often seems that it’s the UKIJ, UK industrial Journal, and that folks would happily have 1 ship, 1plane, 1 helicopter, and a Regiment of troops, as long as they’re “world leading” and UK industry is smashing it!
And yes yes, I’ve heard all about how that trickles down and thus there’ll be more money in theory for Defence and industrial capacity will win us wars.
Great. Until I see that reflected in force size increases and enhancements, it’s the same words as HMG use, they’re too busy chasing votes with welfare bribes.
Everything’s connected though. My own view is that the benefits issue is more stand alone rather than a limitation on defence. Surveying the growth in our industrial base over recent years – RBSL, Sheffield Forgemasters, national shipbuilding strategy, Navantia, Babcock, Dreadnought, AUKUS, GCAP, equipment clear out to Ukraine, QE, T26, the new SMEs developing drones, missiles and USVs, nationalisation British Steel; its clear to me that we have been and are rebuilding as a nation. Maybe its something to do with the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, maybe its year 2000, maybe its Brexit- who knows. But I feel Blighty is at a turning point and we are on the up. I’m deffo confident the capability of our armed forces will reflect this pretty soon, as will our political influence. Feel free to remind me what I said in a year or two 😂
Indeed mate, and in reverse, come and tell me you were right, I’d be delighted to agree.
GOOD NEWS..!! First (Healey) Budget will be on 28th of Òctober..!
Were all will be Revealed as to whether Healy was Gaslighting us or Not..?
Extra 0.1% of GDP per year! until 2035..!!
T83 and other Projects that Starmer binned back on the table !
I can but dream you now..!
Budgeted spend into contracts signed.
How long is the boat in the banner pic. Looks like 128 tubes worth. Or enough space for a hybrid sub / carrier with cats and traps.
153m, 3m longer than her predecessor despite carrying four less vertical tubes, only 17/18m shorter than the Ohio and Columbia class despite the Ohio carrying eight more.