The UK government has announced the awarding of contracts worth £4 billion, marking significant progress for the AUKUS submarine programme.
These contracts will entrust UK businesses with the design and manufacture of what are to be the world’s most advanced submarines.
The Ministry of Defence highlighted that the “Detailed Design and Long Leads (D2L2) Phase” contracts have been signed with renowned defence and engineering firms including BAE Systems (BAES), Rolls-Royce, and Babcock. This collaboration will pave the way to construct the next-generation nuclear-powered attack submarines, which will be recognised as SSN-AUKUS.
A press release states, “The contracts totalling £4 billion will progress the programme through the design, prototyping and purchase of main long lead components for the first UK submarines, allowing construction to commence in the coming years and ensure the stability and resilience of our domestic supply chain.”
This strategic move leverages over six decades of British expertise in the nuclear-powered submarine domain. As the Ministry of Defence emphasised, these contracts are expected to support thousands of skilled jobs, aligning with the Prime Minister’s aim to stimulate the nation’s economy.
The development is also set to expand existing infrastructure to accommodate the project’s requirements. Notably, facilities at the submarine shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness and the nuclear reactor manufacturing site in Raynesway, Derby are slated for enhancement.
The ambitious timeline set by the Ministry targets the deployment of the first UK submarines by the late 2030s, which will subsequently replace the existing Astute-Class vessels. Australia will receive its advanced submarines in the following decade, by the early 2040s. These submar
ines are anticipated to be unparalleled in terms of size, technology, and capability. The release highlights, “They will be the largest, most advanced and most powerful attack submarines ever operated by the Royal Navy, combining world-leading sensors, design and weaponry in one vessel.”
In terms of construction logistics, the UK submarines will mainly be assembled in Barrow-in-Furness. Concurrently, Australia will invest in building its submarine industrial base over the next ten years. Notably, the nuclear reactors for all UK and Australian submarines will be supplied by Rolls-Royce.
If these are long lead time items, then why are we not being told of how many, and why is the Australian order left off?
Hello David,
Australia havent been left off of any order, this is just to get the ball rolling so to speak and for contractors to start gearing up with materials/equipment that is going to be required. EG RR will need to start looking at numbers of fuel rods etc and when they will be required to be fitted and such like.
Numbers wise, I don’t think that our Govt have decided on final numbers just yet (8 for UK is current belief, but may be 10/12?). Aus wont require any until early 40’s, so, UK RN will most probably receive the first 2-3 SMs before Aus receive their first reactor. Depending on how you interpret whats been said and by whom, Aus are going to get between 5-8 new build SSN’s from early/mid 40’s onwards. They have a lot of work to do to get everything ready for building/operating/maintaining a nuclear SM fleet.
10 to 12 boats would be fantastic as it really would represent real growth for our SSN fleet. Hopefully it will be possible to take advantage of economy of scale.
8 boats only would truly be an opportunity missed as it really doesn’t shift the needle that much above what we have now with the soon-to-be 7 boat Astute fleet.
Deep,
Curious, is the appropriate ratio of total SSNs to those sustainably continuously deployed 3:1 or 4:1? Evidently 4:1 ratio is appropriate for SSBNs. One SSN assigned to high-readiness CSG, one for GI-UK gap patrol, one for Indo-Pacific and one for detached missions/support of CASD? Decisions re ratios drive multi-billion £ investments. 🤔😳
Afternoon mate,
For SSN’s we have always really gone for a 3:1 ratio, despite them operating at a far higher tempo than SSBN’s.
Back in the days of the cold war (when we had on average 12 SSN’s 70’s – early 90’s), we had enough SM’s to cover our requirements, including 2 assigned to ‘High North’ work with the US for want of a better explanation.
The demise/collapse of the Soviet Union saw our numbers reduced to 7 T boats. However some of our forward tasking also went, so it wouldn’t really have been a problem, save for GW1 and beyond! The continuous requirement to keep a T boat (Tomahawk shooter) East of Suez killed the T boats and showed the adults that 7 wasn’t enough for all our tasking. So, despite evidence to the contrary we went ahead and only ordered 7 replacements!!
Fast forward to present day, and no 7 is still not enough, as the SSN fleet is getting tasked with more as you say. When all 7 are in service, one will be lost to SURF -W for at least 5 years, which leaves us with 6.
Hi readiness CSG support is one task (ok if they are going to Pacific, Surf -W will assume that role).
High North running/GUIK gap will still be a task, although not sure how rigid those requirements are.
Med deployments as and when.
Perisher course/ Ex. Joint Warrior SM still required.
Ready SSN (24-48 hrs notice) which is essentially the SM version of QRA.
CASD support is really something that is being done by some of the other tasking and not a stand alone role per se. Despite what some choose to believe.
A SSN might actually full fill two roles at once, ie the Ready SSN might well be taking part in Joint Warrior or such like, and perhaps said High North deployed SM might well be in the trail, thus providing CASD support.
It has become somewhat complicated over the years,as we have more tasking than hulls available (Audacious 1 year Med deployment means she will require a 4-6 month DRP and probable docking) We really need to get back to 12ish SSN’s, to comfortably sustain our current tasking, despite the lack of cash.manpower and infrastructure support. GS is the wrong DS, we need someone with vision, determination and drive to get us where we need to be.
Of course the elephant in the room is ‘When will we actually receive our first SSN(R) hull?’ Astute will have done 25 years by 2035, its not meant to be re-fuelled (Vanguard’s didn’t really go well!). Ambush in early 38 and Artful in early 41. They are being run very hard,so something will have to give, so not really certain of the current decision making to drive investment if we are ignoring established ratio’s?
A bit long winded I’m afraid, will try to cut to the chase earlier next time!🤔
Great explanation mate 👍
Deep,
I completely forgot to factor in training/exercise requirements, in addition to operational taskings…duh 🙄! It seems apparent that at least 12 SSN boats would be required for an optimal sol’n for RN. It is probably damnably heretical to suggest both RN and USN consider co-production of some additional latest gen. diesel-electrics w/ a reputable foreign yard, for close in patrol (both UK and US), closed in bodies such as the Med, and shallower areas (e.g. Gulf). Undoubtedly, this would increase logistics, training and manning burdens but may be fiscally more sustainable. Eventually, UUVs may be able/suitable to augment some taskings, but that is an indefinite aspirational goal IMHO. In the meantime, the USN has an improbable schedule to meet, building the Columbia class, expanding Virginia class to (66?) boats, and oh by the way, providing Oz w/ 3-5 Virginia boats during the 2030s, given a recent production rate of 1.2 SSNs/yr. 😱. Interesting times…🤔 😳
Morning mate,
I also totally forgot to mention that back in the day when we had said 12 SSN’s running around, we also had some 10ish Oberon class SSKs to add to our tasking.
They did a lot of the grunt work in the Med/Baltic and further afield as well as supplying assets for training. Might be mistaken, but believe the promotion pathway used to be something like this;
Complete/pass Perisher (Lt/Lt. Cdr)
CO of O Boat as a Lt. Cdr/Cdr.
CO of SSN/SSBN as a Cdr.
If we don’t get more than 8 SSN’s, would be extremely happy with an additional buy of 6 SSK’s to supplement the fleet, regardless of potential financial/manning/logistical issues.
Using broadbrush current pricing you get approx 3:1 if you purchase a modern SSK instead of a SSN (UK prices). Crew wise its about 2 1/2:1. So a small uplift in manning would meet that requirement when compared with a single SSN crew.
Not sure how something like this would pan out for the USN, but, believe that there would be sufficient merit and valve if they did decide to introduce SSKs again?
For the cost of 2 SSN’s, my preference would be either 6 x A26 (split 3 Pelegic, 3 Oceanic-ER with 2-3 VLS modules), or, 6 Japanese Taigei class SSKs. Delete the AIP system and replace with extra Li-ion batteries.
You would get some change out of £3.5 billion and crew wise to man them would be <300. To me its a bit of a no-brainer, but then we don’t really get a say in such things, so playing fantasy fleets it is, unfortunately….
Always appreciate cases when a SME is able to substantiate what is essentially a SWAG on my part! 😁👍😊
‘SURF -W’..?
It’s actually SRF -West, or Submarine Rotational Force-West.
The idea is to have 4 SSNs temporarily based out of Perth by 2027 (3×US & 1xUK) in the build up to Aus acquiring their own SSNs. Temporarily basing and rotating SMs in Aus gets round the issues they have with permanent basing SSNs in Aus.
Thanks Deep, appreciate your prompt response.
Oh how I love Civil Service understatement “slated for further enhancement”, it makes it sound like a fresh coat of paint and a new canteen !
The Raynesway site here in Derby is being doubled in size and has to expand outside its land footprint. And that’s besides flattening a lot of old buildings and replacing them with new ones.
So more land has been acquired PDQ and a bridge is going to be built over the Railway line to the new Car Parks and other Facilities.
I’ve never seen a major industrial uplift like this one, plans published, land acquired (it’s interesting how that happened), planning permission granted and work started all at break neck speed and not necessarily all in the usual order.
Only downside is the noise, dust and folks will have further to walk to their cars.
But Hey Ho they avoided building on the Alvaston Cricket ground which is next door.
Here is the company blurb from earlier this year and it is written in simpler language than Sir Humphrey speak.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/discover/2023/rr-submarines-to-create-jobs-and-expand-site-in-derby.aspx
Hi folks hope all is well.
I may have missed all relevant information, but have we named the class for these subs? So far I may be wrong, but we just seem to see “AUKUS” is that the class?
Cheers,
George
Hi George,
Not seen or heard anything about naming this new class yet mate. Might well be a few years before we officially hear anything just yet. Having said that, the MOD will probably name the class tomorrow!!!!🤔
We have already had a T class?
I’ll get my coat.
😂
Is this different in substance from the article of two days ago (BAE awarded $4bn for next phase of nuclear submarine project)?
I assume it’s the same contract and the same money.
Meanwhile Australia will probably reduce the T26 order, or even cut it out outright and is now talking about destroyers with 150 missiles (can be a T26 destroyer variant)
Sydney Morning Herald