HMS Anson, the fifth Astute Class nuclear-powered submarine, has sailed from Barrow-in-Furness to begin her journey to His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde near Glasgow.

The vessel, designed and constructed by BAE Systems, has departed the shipyard located in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, and embarked on her inaugural voyage to His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde, the UK’s Submarine Service headquarters.

Following her guided departure through the shipyard’s dock system and passing Walney Island’s tip, HMS Anson will commence sea trials before joining the operational fleet alongside HMS Astute, HMS Ambush, HMS Artful, and HMS Audacious.

Steve Timms, Managing Director of BAE Systems’ Submarines business, said:

“It’s with enormous pride that we bid farewell to HMS Anson as she departs our site to take up her vital role helping to protect the UK’s national security. This is a truly national endeavour, so delivering the most capable attack submarine ever built for the Royal Navy is a tremendous moment for our company, our employees, the Barrow community and the whole of the submarine enterprise, not least our vast and crucially important UK wide supply chain.”

Capable of defending the UK’s interests at home and overseas, HMS Anson will be armed with up to 38 Spearfish Heavyweight Torpedoes, and Block V Tomahawk land attack missiles, able to tackle targets at a range of up to 1,000 miles.

Powered by a Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor, the boat will also be operational for 25 years without refuelling.

Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, said:

“HMS Anson will play a vital role in defending the UK, providing a competitive edge for decades to come, and I am proud to see her make her journey up to her permanent home on the Clyde. supporting tens of thousands of jobs across the UK, our Astute-Class submarines are a leading example of our commitment to defence manufacturing, continuing to boost British industry for decades to come.”

Upon arrival at the Clyde, HMS Anson will begin sea trials.

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

86 COMMENTS

  1. Excellent, time to get the final two into service hopefully a bit quicker!

    I believe Anson is effectively a batch 2 boat, with some significant changes to her sisters already in service.

    • She is a Batch 2,but Audacious was the first,and for whatever reason suffered serious delays in getting finished and rolled out holding the others up on the line.

  2. 5 Astute class in service is good news, obviously, it would be nice to have a few more to say the least.

    With the third Dreadnaught being started recently it seems that the submarine enterprise has a good work stream thankfully. Lets hope there are no [more] delays to the SSN(R) class and the work stream is uninterrupted.

    Good news.

    Cheers CR

    • Getting some pace on with SSN(R) is essential. There is a looming gap coming up sooner than you might think from a casual inspection of the high level submarine Gantt chart.

      When Dreadnought IV starts fabrication then there is a limited window to get other pressure hull fabrication works started before those specific skills and work teams fade.

      It is all very well saying that the ‘build’ of the sub will dribble on for X years with the pressure hull fabrication team shifting to other fabrication duties. Pressure hull fabrications is the crux of the complexity of submarine fabrications.

      • When do we find out what is happening with Australia, aren’t they meant to be releasing the finalised agreement soon.

        • August report about the plan going forwards is due out before the end of March. So not long now. I think they will go for a lease or loan of a few older Los Angeles class to get used to nuclear operations then select an Aussie Astute or Australian SSNr.
          If we can offer to build the first 2 in UK there is a chance of some revenue coming back into the UK.

          • Meant AUKUS. Not sure how the dip shit auto correction spelt out August. AuKUS report is due out in March. Be prepared for Russian and Chinese righteous indignation. They can both sod off. The Aussies wouldn’t be going nuclear if it wasn’t for the clear and present threat from China.

          • Mr. Bell,

            Sorry for the unintentional rip-off of your comment re “clear and present danger” from ChiComs. Deep’s comment attracted my attention as I was scanning article and comments. Good to realize there are kindred spirits out there. 🤔😁👍👍

          • There will be no more Astutes after hull 7. RR are no longer making PWR2, and have moved onto PWR3 for Dreadnought/SSN(R). If RAN go for UK design it will be a version of SSN(R).

          • Agreed, the AUKUS master plan for production of SSN(R)/SSN(X)/SSN(OZ) will all utilize PWR-3 in a modular design which shares as much commonality at a systems level as economic/industrial base considerations determine to be feasible. Anticipate modular VLS load out w/ hypersonic weapons eventually. The devil, as always, is in the details, including work share distribution. The ChiComs have already realized that they have made a massive medium/long term strategic error in aggressively goading the democracies into a common enterprise, on an expedited timeline. ChiComs’ window of opportunity to prevail militarily will only extend until mid/late 2030’s.

          • Though few apparently recognize this, massive credit should be accorded the Aussies, for although acting primarily of self-interest, first approached the Brits w/ the conceptual basis for AUKUS w/ a persuasive “clear and present danger” warning of ChiCom intentions in the SCS, in the form of a “Houston, we have a problem” juncture of military/foreign policy. Once the Brits were on board, it was a relatively straightforward proposition to convince the Americans. Who knows how long it would have taken the Brits and Americans to come to the same conclusion, if left to their own devices?

          • Yes, totally agree with you there.

            Only fly in the ointment from my view wrt construction of Aus SSN, if it is a SSN(R) derivative, is that surely they will want UK to have built/tested/commissioned hull 1 before they bring any into service. 1st of class always the trail blazer so to speak. I know I would, especially if Aus are potentially going to sink $Billions into the project.
            I can see UK building Hull1 -UK, Hull 2+3 – Aus, then UK and Aus parallel building rest of class. If that transpires, then UK may well get 10-12 SSNs instead of the forecast 8, with Aus also building another 6-8 for themselves. Ah but to dream…..

          • Believe USN will also join the design/build party w/ SSN(X). Everyone intuitively understands the logic and potential benefits of a common modular design; the art/science of bringing it to fruition IRL will be the master stroke. Hope the March reveal is not all smoke, mirrors and happy talk. 🤔🤞

          • Interestingly I was speaking to a demographics expert who said ChiComs window of maximum capability in terms of human resources and military aged workforce has already passed.
            The West needs to rearm to prevent any further Russian territorial claims whilst having one eye on China and the threat they are rapidly developing.

          • Yes the Chinese population is in decline, fldeath-rate outstripping birth-rate. I believe India is due to overtake China in terms of population size this year.

          • If the UK can build the first two for Australia then maybe an additional 1-2 could be built for the RN using some of the revenue as a lead-in for SSNR.

        • It will be announced in the US; jointly by the leaders of the US, Oz and the UK. No firm date has been decided but it seems it will be between 10th-19th March 2023.

      • It’s looking highly likely Australia is going to be joining SSN(R) and from what I hear everything is get more boats in the water ASAP. So hopefully there won’t be any gaps this time.

        There is even talk of a second UK production line although I doubt it under the current PM.

        • The Aussies are more similar to the UK that the US, they like the UK can’t afford massive subs with enough cruise missiles on them to destroy a country – even with a Los Angeles class size they couldn’t afford to fill it with weapons so SSN(R) makes sense for both countries and the good news is there will be pressure on the MOD to move forward as the Aussies will be waiting for it

        • It all depends.

          If you can up arm simply by being more efficient then the spreadsheet guys understand that.

          So that is, my best guess, the way this goes. 30% uplift in capital budgets plus the extra volumes from AUKUS reactors etc then gets you twice as much **if** you then get commercial build pace.

          This then gets NAO green light and isn’t going to upset the bond markets whilst addressing the real security situation.

      • Too true. We can only hope that the lessons expensively learnt in the early years of th astute program have been learnt by the decision makers. wish I was sure about that though!

    • They have stopped production of the reactor so no more added the the last batch no producing a larger one for the dreadnoughts

  4. great News, now to start on SSNR immediately.

    I am sure we can create a smaller version of the new dreadnoughts, implementing lessons learned from the latest Virginia class.

    With aukus we probably need to standardise the overall design with the US to keep costs down, but clearly we are doing plenty right as astute are very good and VFM in the scale of things.

    6/7 in build seems to be current pace. But I would like to see 1 SSBN and 3 SSNs every 7.5yrs as a future drumbeat giving us 4 SSBNs and 12 SSNs which is probably closer to requirement. Overall costs could come down dramatically, especially if OZ goes with our design, making this affordable. Also means we always have an upgraded sub coming out and not letting them all get to 30 yr old at once, which is critical as the SSBN fleet is on its last legs all at the same time. Got to have 1 in the oven all the time going forward.

    • >now to start on SSNR immediately.
      Full scale (i.e. expensive) engineering design work started on SSN(R) in 2021! The main challenge at the moment is whether the basic design will need to be adopted to incorporate key Australian requirements, and if so who will pay how much. Presumably there will be RN and RAN versions, the later fitted with very different (i.e. American USN standard) sensors and weapons systems. There seems to be an emerging consensus that the hull of the lead Australian boat should be built at Barrow, even if final fitting out is in the USA or Australia. In order for the first of class to enter service around 2040, very long lead items such as the PWR 3* reactors will need to be ordered by 2025, and first steel cut by 2030.

    • That will just never happen the designs are very different so you would lose continuity of production. The other deciding factor is that we joint purchase the launch tubes and missile developments with the US so staying in step with them is both financially and politically expedient.
      We tend to drive our newest developments to coincide with the SSBN and then into the SSN designs. We have one production facility and block building is the most efficient way to go. It’s why the 1st of class tends to take the longest to build and then it speeds up as the line gets more experienced and costs can fall (see T26 for example).
      No different to the surface Fleet really BAe Glasgow T23 to T45 to T26 to T83. The killer is if we have a break in production, then it gets sticky.
      We need SSN(R) development to run smoothly, but they are leveraging a hell of a lot directly from the Dreadnoughts but adding VLS for the Surface Strike a La Virginia.

      • That’s my point really. We are currently building 3 SSBN and 2 SSN with another seven to start.

        The savings are in scale and a skilled workforce. So we can build SSBN and SSN side by side to the required scale as we are now. Many of the parts and components are shared and we can iterate every 5 years, meaning every iteration will be improved.

        We can also introduce new designs whenever we want to but every 2 iterations min.

        Given the price of these things continuous improvement is the way to go.

        The savings of this approach should outweigh any negatives. BAES can do this. We need to change

        • There is very little commonality between an Astute and a Dreadnought they are different generations of design and technology. At present we are in a transition period and there are reasons why it has to be done like this, space amongst others.
          Later on you will see another transition once Warspite is out of the Shed. Then it will be Dreadnought and SSN(R) and then…….10 to 15 years of SSN(R) and maybe a few others.

    • Just reread your post and the last sentence regarding upgrades, well FYI the present Astutes have already had 3 major equipment upgrades on build. All the upgrades are backwardly compatible on refit. The hull, accommodation, weapons all stay as is, the upgrades are CMS, Comms, software and an even more advanced and lighter weight sonar array.

      • Personally I would like us to always be producing new SSBNs and SSNs. I do not like the fact that our single most important weapons systems is on its last legs (ssbn).

        • The only reason our systems are on their last legs is because our Political Masters took their foot off the Gas in the 1990’s. Vanguards were in build and the design of the next SSN wasn’t really happening.
          The design team went elsewhere in industry towards the end of their build Barrow went down from 13k staff to 3k.
          So when the Astutes started to be designed there was a 7 year gap of building and then it all had to be reinvented.
          So the old T class had to soldier on, and on and so has the Vanguards.
          I believe that lesson has been learnt, the same thing happened with the surface Fleet hence the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
          The system is logical, it is designed for incremental evolutionary improvements between iterations within each class. It cannot be easily tinkered with and increasing the throughput will require investment on a colossal scale from infrastructure right back to the base of the supply base.
          To give you some idea of the scale I will tell you that the cost to change RR here in Derby from PWR2 to 3 is more than the cost of a T26 Batch 1 Frigate.
          Have you ever been inside the Devonshire Hall ? It is presently full and believe it or not it is being used in the most logical and efficient way possible. To build and design successive classes of boats SSBN followed by SSN using PWR2. Each is designed whilst the other is in build. And then with PWR3 repeat the process but without a gap.
          As for AUKUS we await the official announcements but it may just be a huge challenge.
          Australia has no Nuclear Industry, legislation has to be changed and perhaps their expectations will have to be tempered by reality.
          Exciting times.

          • Great response thank you and agreed.

            The fact we have 5-7 ships in build is a testament to the work done to turn this around.

            Let’s hope for more investment in the future

          • RR and the PWR supply chain are there, just need orders for long lead items ASAP.
            BAe at Barrow may be a challenge but if the Politicians can get a wiggle on and fund it, then we shall see.
            There may be a window of opportunity and daft as it sounds Astute delivery being a bit late may be a godsend.

  5. Our Interim review should be out, published by the Party of Defence.

    Now, call me old fashioned, but, on Excel when I drag across production numbers and pull down costs, hey presto, building 24 hulls will be how much more expensive compared to 7 and when we could have probably had 13 T26 for the, prolonged, cost of 8, having 12 of those platforms paid for by Australia is a no brained.

    Now, any one got any issues with finding the Australian and British crews?

    • Completely different kettle (pun 😁) of fish with very different hull and ancillary requirements, is all I will say.

    • No it is too big for the Astute hull just like the PWR2 wouldn’t fit in a Trafalgar. The simple reason is that a technology has advanced the reactors and ancillary equipment has got far resilient. That combined with larger cores means we do not need to refuel the boats during their expected life spans.

      • Fair enough. I wasn’t sure if the reason was simply that the redesign costs were too high to justify the work or if the problem was more fundamental. Cheers.

      • PWR3 is based mechanically on the US S9G with some British tweaking to improve performance through more advanced materials. While the British version was designed with the 12.8m diameter Dreadnoughts in mind it wouldn’t necessarily completely fill out the hull as the main dictator in SSBN is the size of the missile tubes.
        The PWR2 which was designed for the 12.8m diameter Vanguards was then fit in the 11.3m Astutes. Meanwhile the S9G which is said to be more compact with 30% fewer moving parts than the PWR 2B design they were considering fits in the Virginias which are a slim 10.0m in diameter.
        Worst comes to worst you could simply slot a S9G steam raising plant into an Astute with some repiping but it would probably mean the Astute had to be slightly longer.

        • It is going to be pretty interesting to see what AUKUS looks like, it is governed by the limitations of the 3 partners.
          Australia has zero Nuclear industry and Laws that will need to be scrapped for it to do so. For it to even assemble Nuclear boats it will require a massive investment in infrastructure, recruitment and training of Engineers, skilled workers and crews. So Challenging.
          US is building Virginia and Columbus boats simultaneously and at pace but is struggling to meet force levels. But due to the contraction in the supply chain post Cold War it has very limited capacity to build more boats. I do not know if GE has capacity to add extra orders for AUKUS 🤔
          UK isn’t able to build SSN / SSBN simultaneously. And I need to explain that although we have both in the Devonshire Hall the Astutes are essentially already built but being assembled prior to roll out and delivery.
          Build capacity is now focussed on Dreadnought and once Warspite is out of the shed Valiant will start her assembly.
          The next class is SSN(R) and is in design now so it is ahead of the curve compared to the US SSN(X) by @10 years.

          What I think is a significant difference is the US essentially assembles at 2 yards but using blocks from both. That could just be key to AUKUS production.

          Next month we find out.
          If I was a betting man I’d foresee an expansion of U.K facilities at Barrow and possibly here in Derby. But use that to accelerate the SSN(R) build ahead of what the U.K itself needs. We already know that they will have a VLS capacity so maybe the US supplies those and the other weapon systems which RAN prefers. Who knows we could even see blocks being floated across the pond. And in future expand the block build method to include an Australian build facility.

    • I doubt if that has ever been seriously studied. The PWR 3 was designed for a pressure hull probably 1m wider in diameter than the Astute’s, so it would probably be very difficult to squeeze in. Also it would be very difficult to build any more Astute’s – the last unit’s are being fitted with materials and components that have often have been in store for 15-20 years, hurriedly ordered from companies that were going out of business and are no long around. Even building more PWR3’s is a challenge. The reactor and engineering plant is having to be be modified for a radically different use profile from the slow speed plod of an SSBN on patrol, obsolete components replaced, unreliable components redesigned, hard to manufacture components replaced with 3D printed items, redundancy and safety systems upgraded to modern rather than 1990’s standards.

        • It would be completely impossible given the massive changes that were needed to upgrade the RR facilities here in Derby to build the PWR3 and they have now been in the production process for a while. When all is said and done the PWR2, Vanguard and Astute are technology from the last Century. Things have moved on and can’t go back.

      • Hi Richard,
        building more PWR3’s isn’t really an issue, you just build them. There are no real design mods required just because a SSBN plods along at 3-4 knots all day, while a SSN goes around in a more frantic manner. It doesn’t work like that, all you need to do is change power states is go from 1/2 PS to 3/4 PS and adjust rpm accordingly. If you really want to tone it down, you can always ‘shut down one side of the loop’.

        • I’m not an engineer let alone a nuclear engineer, but I don’t think its quite as simple as you indicate to modify a PWR 3 based propulsion system designed for a 17,000t SSBN, with a rarely used max speed of c.25 kt, to work in a 8,000t SSN capable of 30+kt sprints. Mismatches between key systems will be inevitable – reactor, turbines, gearing, pump jet, etc. You mention adjusting rpm – but that again seems simplistic. Settings optimised for Dreadnought are unlikely to be suitable for SSN(R), but changing these might cause unexpected and undesirable problems in regard to efficiency, mechanical stresses, and [worst of all] noise.

          • Hi Richard, I’m no nuclear engineer either, but was a submariner for several decades.
            That is how it works in simple terms.
            The reactor when running in the full power state produces over 100MW of power, far in xcess of what is actually used/needed. The machinery is all the same, as SSBNs are longer/heavier, they take longer to accelerate up to speed, and both don’t go as fast as you allude to. As they pootal around at slow speed for most of their life, they tend to utilise the lower power states more, whereas SSNs speed more time in the med-higher power states, which is also why SSNs burn through their ‘core’ life so much quicker then a SSBN.
            Different power states afford you a different amount of available RPM,which affects your speed, the lower the power state the less RPM available the more restricted your speed. If you want warp drive, you need the Full power state and maxi revs set. The downside to using the FPS is burning through ‘core life’ rapidly. UK SMs very rarely go to the FPS there is normally no real need to. It’s not to say they don’t.

          • it wont matter anymore, dreadnought does not use direct steam propulsion, according to available sources it will be intergrated electrical propulsion system. so be leccy motors similar to t45 and qec. probably 4 TG’s. SSN(r) will use the same system, i suspect the only real difference between ssbn and ssn(r) wil be the centre section size/tubes.

          • That’s interesting wasn’t aware, but that’s technological evolution for you cheers fella. Always good for some binbag perspective especially on things nuclear, if nothing else then to help a dabber out.
            Obviously the critical factor will be getting your midnight baked potatoes done!!🤣🤣

          • Its what they did with the Astutes, using the powerplant from the previous SSBN and they did encounter early issues with more power than the propulsion gearing could handle but they did resolve that.

      • Not really the case that equipment has sat in a warehouse for 20 years waiting to be installed, they completely changed most of the interal equipment including the tactical management computers in Boat 4 then went back and progressively refit the earlier boats with the newer equipment, meanwhile each Astute is said to be virtually a one off as they have always fit the latest kit available.

        • You are talking electronics. I’m talking about about mechanical parts and components, even steel plates, which were ordered and manufactured especially for the Astute’s. Barrow is still fitting items that have been in storage since the mid-2000 as any changes to the design or spec would have been be an expensive nightmare. In many cases the original manufacturer has long gone. Google for Sheffield Forgemaster’s to see how bad the situation has become. The company recently completed it’s highly specialist manufacture of parts for the Dreadnought programme – although it will probably be a decade before the last of these are fitted to Boat 4 by Barrow. To avoid the company closing (SSNR?), the MOD has extraordinarily had to resort to buying it!

          • No, the new 12,700m2, 13,000 tonne press for making Dreadnought parts at Sheffield only received planning permission last November and isnt due to open until the end of 2025. They certainly havent ‘already completed’

          • I’m dubious that the completion of HMS Dreadnought and the UK’s ability to maintain a continuous nuclear deterrent rests upon the completion of the new forging press in late 2025.

            But time to halt this sub-thread.

    • I’m pretty sure I read that it was looked into as an option for the last few Astutes, and the differences in the Astute design would have been too great. The hull is not big enough and wasn’t simple to scale up.

      This was several years ago and I don’t know how accurate the reporting was; if I had to guess I’d say it rang pretty true, both at the time and now.

      • I think was an earlier iteration of SSN the proposed Batch 2 Trafalgar’s were at one point going to have their pressure hulls bulged to take the PWR2. Thankfully someone realised that having extra discontinuities in a pressure hull is not a good idea. So Astute was born, using as much design leverage from the Vanguard’s and Upholder as possible.
        Unfortunately the 7 year gap in design and production really kicked the whole programme in the teeth.

  8. Ok, great to see these outstanding platforms coming to fruition! Love the names, so much more “fighty” than previous, but, are there enough of those strange, highly trained, very pale, smart, intelligent people available to crew them? Deep, come on my son what’s your professional thoughts on this? And do you get vitamin D tablets while on board and free sunbed sessions when off……..😇?

  11. Some rumours going around in Barrow at the moment with BAE investing in the new training centre in the town centre, that the company is planning for the training capacity to grow the size of the workforce at the shipyard from 10,000 to 17,500.

  13. More required!

    “China’s navy has significant advantages over its US rival, including a bigger fleet and greater shipbuilding capacity, as Beijing seeks to project its power across the oceans, the head of the United States Navy said Tuesday.

    Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, US Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said China “consistently attempts to violate the maritime sovereignty and economic well-being of other nations including our allies in the South China Sea and elsewhere.”

    “They got a larger fleet now so they’re deploying that fleet globally,” he said, adding that Washington must upgrade the US fleet in response.

    “We do need a larger Navy, we do need more ships in the future, more modern ships in the future, in particular, that can meet that threat,” he said.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here