HMS Anson is the fifth of seven Astute class nuclear powered submarines being built for the Royal Navy.

The submarine is named after 18th Century Admiral George Anson who delivered an impressive victory over the French at Cape Finisterre in 1747 and went on to reform the Admiralty.

HMS Anson was officially named in a ceremony at the BAE yard in Barrow-In-Furness in December last year.

More complex than the Space Shuttle - the bow section of HMS Anson is lit up at the naming ceremony

Anson’s first Commanding Officer, Commander David ‘Bing’ Crosby, said recently that it was now time for the ship’s company “to bring HMS Anson to life”.

“It will require all of us to work together to achieve this goal, but we are ready for the challenge – and we are determined to succeed.”

Anson will enter the water shortly – there’s a basin next to the Devonshire Hall not only large enough to accommodate her, but also to allow a practice dive which almost allows the boat to completely submerge.

Her punch, say the Royal Navy, will be delivered by Tomahawk cruise missiles and the newly-upgraded Spearfish torpedoes being introduced to the Fleet from 2021.

Anson is due to remain in Barrow for completion until 2022 before leaving for sea trials and joining her older sisters at HMNB Clyde, while BAE finish the final two Astute-class boats: Agamemnon and Agincourt, completing the programme in 2025 after a quarter century of work on the entire programme, say the Royal Navy.

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

105 COMMENTS

  1. Let’s hope the drumbeat of the successor class is a little faster.

    25 years is crazy, OK we all know that drumbeat pause caused it, but even so it is inevitable if you build things that slowly that technology overtakes them; hence the, effectively, split class.

    • Ain’t that the truth….. At least after cracking on with Dreadnaught, the design and build teams will be able to turn to the Successor class SSN without the massive issues caused by the delay in building the Astute class.

    • wait will the Trafalgar be fully replaced by then by the astute? if so then who will replace the astute? otherwise we would have a 4 boat gap.

      • We are currently at 6 SSNs, with Trenchant about to be decommissioned, both Talent and Triumph will be kept in service a few (2ish) years longer to cover for the last two Astute class being commisioned-at least that’s the plan I believe.
        Astute has been in comission since 2010, so theoretically is good until 2040, by which time she will need replacing and so on.
        I imagine the plan would be to have the first SSN(R) in the water and ready to go by 2038/9. Who knows!!!

    • Yes. They are open to the forward ballast tanks and allow them to flood when the vents at the top of the tanks are opened for the boat to dive.

  4. The successor Class will likely end up just as long and drawn out, late and over budget

    Think we really need to look at building diesel-electric submarines as we just take too long building these fancy but too few Astute Class

    The new Japanese 3000t Taigei Class is only taking only 2 years to build!

    • Japanese defence sees a very, very rapid process of building, operating & retiring. I suspect they are already working on the next class of boats, beyond the Taigei (which itself is the product of the Ōryū). There are two things here, 1) the speed the JMSDF like to do things. 2) Nuclear powerplants do take more time by definition. Japan has a lot of littoral waters to defend, not really blue water. The RN, blue water, totally different anticipated use, offensive defensive etc. It would be wiser to compare our build speed with peers like Virginia or Yasen, though the latter usually makes me bow my head in sympathetic amusement.

      • Interesting on the fast production/operation cycle, I wonder if that’s to do with the L-ion batteries they use (I think they do?); maybe they get knackered quicker from all the cycling?

        • Hi Joe, not entirely sure what @GlynH is referring to with rapid process of retiring units, especially SMs, they currently have 3 classes now in service, although the Taigei is brand new and a test bed for new technologies (sonar and propulsion).
          They have just invested heavily in L-ion battery technology, and have substituted AIP systems in the last two Soryu class for more L-ion battery capacity.

    • Hi John. We have zero requirement for diesel boats. We stopped operating them over 30 years ago. It would just take away money and personnel that could be much better spent on equipment we actually need. So 7 Astute boats it is. And they are incredible feats of engineering and capability.

      • I think that point could be debated Robert. Diesel electric subs do have their strategic uses and if bought could free up the SSN subs for other roles. Albeit I do not think they should be purchased at the expense of another piece of more important kit, which I think is one of the points your alluding to.
        I’m by no means an expert, but I do understand diesel electric subs are used in litterol zones and can be exceedingly quiet. With China having such a large navy and not being a particularly benevolent global partner, I think the UK government should seriously consider looking to invest in some kind of defensive naval technology, and for me diesel electric subs would fit the bill very nicely. Not only could we use them around our country they could also be used around allies shore lines and at strategic choke points.
        That said, if the UK ever does end up seeing China as a global military threat, I think they will end up having a very long shopping list, on which diesel electric subs will be only one item.

        • Money is limited and reality is the surface fleet is more useful during peace times (policing roles /, showing the flag) which makes them better value for money. If you build more subs, then something else has to be cut, which for the navy would mean either less man power or surface ships.

          • Yes that’s the rub isn’t it. Trying to balance a ‘peace time fleet’ as you mention it, with having serious war fighting capability if required.
            To be fair, I think we have done pretty well at this in the past, the issue now is the speed at which China are building their navy and the way the country is behaving. Our old model doesn’t work with China as a strategic rival so something has to change. Current strategy still seems to pretend China aren’t a rival and pretend their massive military build up poses minimal threat to our country.

          • My assumption is these will ultimately replace existing platforms and help justify cuts in sailors, like appears to be happening with soldiers. Sub surface unmanned tech is still in its early days though.

          • Thanks exact, wasn’t aware of these, will look into further.
            Also, counter to my latest post, there does seem to be some understanding that China now poses us a threat, hence a planned increase in our nuclear stocks, but I get the impression our gov don’t have the best idea how to deal with them. Imho increasing naval assets would be a good place to start. Here’s a link to the guardian talking about the above (no endorsement of the paper, just came up first in Google search)

            https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/16/china-is-major-threat-but-uk-will-keep-up-trade-links-says-defence-review

          • I dont think the increase in nukes is real. The government is increasing the max we can hold but declined to confirm the actual number.

            Realistically considering the relative buying powers of China vs UK, what exactly can we do to counter them.

          • So you as a consumer is happy to pay significantly more for everything? I read its cheaper to send fish to China to be packaged before sending to the EU to sell, than it is to do in the UK. We live in a consumer world where race to the button in prices wins. The only way we stop making China rich is they hit the same wage/health&safety requirements of the West, at which point another country will under cut them.

          • If it were made a better quality and will last longer then yes, I’d be happy to pay more.

            Much of what is made in China is cheaply made and cheap to throw away and replace. If we made things of better quality design and build that are made to last, then yes, I’m happy to pay more for it.

          • I think you have rose tinted glasses there. Build quality was not really a standard that Britain was famous for, remember the shoddy standard of build quality of British cars vs their German or Asia counter parts in the 70s. However shorter life span and cheaper materials come back to consumer demand for cheapness. Better built stuff generally still exists but is a massive niche market.

            Also if something is only made in the west, the base price for the same product would be significantly higher even before you take into account improving material or quality. The two are not mutually exclusive.

          • For our economy it’s better to tackle the way US companies keep buying up all our tech firms. High tech industries in the service sector is the future for western nations and no nation can now take on silicone Valley as its been left to be super uncompetitive both in practices and taxes.

          • We are or were talking about Chinese products. I am happy to buy from any country if their products are of better quality to anything made in the UK, just not Chinese stuff, too much experience of their cheap rubbish over the years.

          • Hello mate, you don’t know anything about me, what I do, how I make money, what I do for a living, but a simple answer is Yes. I’m happy to pay for quality and happy to avoid buying anything Chinese as far as I can. I also apply this to my three Business’s as far as possible. Buy cheap, buy twice.

          • I was more talking the general population than you personally. I fully agree with the sentiment of raining in Chinese economic power, but I don’t see how that is possible. Decades of consumer culture and race to the button, means that its now impossible to unwind, as it would mean mass inflation (prices would sky rocket).

            The example is the US made iphone that was launched a few years ago. It was i think somewhere between 50-100 dollars more expensive and no one brought it, even though the US is always talking about buy American, but when it comes to it and their actual pocket they brought cheap.

            If we can build stuff significantly better outside china, then there might be a market (German cars did well against cheaper US/Japanese cars, because of build quality / luxury), but unless your talking premium products, most people just buy cheapest (another example is of mass franchise restaurants vs much better quality but more expensive family run businesses). Plus large parts of German cars are made in China.

            Then there is the multinational corp problem. Think craft beer, it became a huge trend and lots of new breweries arrived, and then they were all brought out by the big 4 breweries and the quality dropped because there was extra profit to be made. Each time the tax rate goes up on beer, rather than increasing the prices, they reduce the alcohol content which makes the drink taste worse, but its what the consumer prefers.

            This has been progressively happening for the whole of my life time, and to unwind it, you would probably need 30-40 years to do it, and no politician is going to put in place policies that only have benefit long after they leave office.

            Which ultimately comes down to how does the west combat China, after letting them take over economically decades ago.

          • Exactly how I see it too, That’s why I’m trying to do my part, just like re-cyling my rubbish, It’s a tiny drop in the ocean especially when you think about the 7 Billion others but, it’s a start.

          • There are a number of other places that do compete with China. Vietnam and Taiwan spring to mind. Have you heard of the Raspberry Pi computer? It was designed in the UK but made in China, in 2012 there was cist exercise done which found Sony UK could make the product cheaper, production was relocated back to the UK.

          • Which uses Arm architecture which is owned by softbank of China and most of its chips are from chinese chip makers.

            The UK still makes plenty of things, its one of the top exporting countries, they just tend to be more complex stuff and not generally consumer items, plus of course the service sector.

            Its the mass market stuff that china excels it, because it has almost zero wage costs and same in regards to cares around health and safety of its staff.

          • Softbsnk of Japan, the point is the cost analysis was done and it was cheaper to make the Pi in the UK. If you want avoid buying Chinese you can most people just aren’t interested.

          • Call that one out for two reasons.
            1. Operations manager has closed a plant in China and relocated to Latvia citing high cost of Chinese labour.
            2. Latvian fish cannery were in China last year on trade mission: price, quality, safety.

            (They supply Princess fish).

            So, China is changing but is not improving manufacturing standards nor keeping labour overheads down.

      • Robert, in reality we do have a need for AIP boats.

        1. The Med, yes we can use a SSN but a big sub in the Med is a target, even during WW2 the RN had large losses of their big subs whilst the smaller subs ran riot.

        2. North Sea and Baltic, not really the place to operate a big 7000 ton sub, in many areas to shallow.

        3. The West coast of Scotland, with all the Islands and our Nuc base they would be useful in area patrol, we do not need to use a SSN in this type of function.

        4. The GIUK Gap, yes we could use SSNs in this area but it would be a waste to have SSNs on a patrol line AIP boats could do the same job and cover more area as we could get 5 AIPs for the cost of 2 SSNs.

        5. Littoral areas and choke points, a AIP sub would be the ideal sub for these types of operations, they are smaller so can get closer to the shore for SBS operations and a AIP sub in a choke point could close that route.

        6. Electronic information gathering, again you could use a SSN for this but a AIP would be better. You need to remember to gather information you need to stick some form of mast up.

        7. Strangley enough a AIP sub would be better as a Carrier Group Escort than a SSN. They could refuel/ replenish and possibly recrew from the Carrier escort tanker. A carrier battle group makes a lot of noise, not only that but a potential enemy would at the moment know that there is one possibly two SSNs in the area. With AIP subs the enemy would be left guessing what is there.

        8. What many people don’t know or understand is that many AIP subs are quieter than a SSN. They can now stay submerged for several days if not weeks and can travel underwater at 20+knots if need be.

        9. A SSN is a hunter killer, a preditor, her friend is space and depth, she is able to roam, only limited by food supply and crew endurance. By placing her in situations that is not suited to her ability you are putting her at risk. In football it would be like using a striker in defence. You can do it but it will not go well.

        So it is my opinion that we should go back to a mixed sub fleet, I would even except 6 SSNs if we could have 9-12 AIPs to work with them. I would prefer 12 as we could have three based in the UK, three in Gib or Cyprus, three in the BIOT or Brunei and three undergoing refit repair training etc. That then leaves the 6-7 SSNs to do the job they are designed to do, roam and hunt. My personal liking for a RN AIP submarine would be the Swedish A-26 Blekinge Oceanic Extended Range. We could then mix the build with some in the basic sub outfit, some with the 18 vls cells for cruise missiles and the option of the recess for a SBS carrier or Multi mission module for ROVs UUVs even a two man torpedo delivery vehicle. With these subs having the cruise missile VLS modules it would also mean that the SSNs would not need to use there torpedo space for this weapon. By using the Swedish design or for that matter the Japanese design we could still build them here in the UK, we would save money in development work, install UK equipment and possibly link in with the Tempest program. The question would then be if we had the money do we want to build an extra 4 Astues or 12 A-26 OERs. There is one more issue to think about, yes a surface ship is good to see in flying the flag operations. It is what the public see and the media, however, potential enemies will see the threat of the submarine as you don’t really know where they are.

        • Hi Ron, an interesting post, lots of good points, however, I think you may have points 7+8 a little mixed up.
          SSKs whether AIP or not, do not make good CSG escorts, as they don’t have the speed endurance required to keep pace or indeed get ahead of the CSG.
          Yes you are correct that they are quiter than a SSN especially at low speeds, and yes they can do 20kts dived, but, that’s only for a relatively short period, as it would drain the battery very quickly.
          AIP systems allow them to stay submerged for longer periods, but cannot re-charge the battery quickly enough if battery usage is high.
          To rapidly re-charge the battery, they would have to use their diesel engines, so either snort or surface. Either method imposes speed restrictions. At PD snorting, they are restricted to 8ish knots, much faster and they will bend the mast/masts, whilst on the surface the hull shape limits them to about 14kts.
          I like both the choice of A26 or Soryu class as SSK for us, if it ever came to fruition, but, I wouldn’t go down the AIP route, I wold follow the Japanese with the last two Soryu”s and go swap the AIP system for more Lithium-ion batteries. We can but dream!

          • Hello Mate, once again I must say how much I enjoy reading your posts and informative replies here, you obviously know your stuff and I applaud you for your honest and non aggressive approach. I also enjoy your comments on other sites. Some other posters on here would do well to take heed and contribute in a much nicer fashion too. Just sayin like !!!!

          • LOL Capt, you’re not too shabby yourself, always enjoy the humour. Yes, have to agree with you, there are some rather unpleasant types about on said sites, all a tad un- necessary if you ask me, must be something in the water!!

          • Interesting conversation re ssk speed, however, would the answer not be to forward stage rather than the sub trying to keep up?

          • Morning, in regard to forward staging, both yes and no.
            Yes get the SSK out to where you want it, and if it were a static patrol area then it would probably work to a certain degree. Any such patrol area would probably be very large ,so, you still run into the same problem of repositioning your SSK where time is a factor.
            Unfortunately with the CSG going from A-Z via all points in-between, any sudden course/destination change along said route for whatever reason, can place any pre positioned unit in the wrong area, again having to shift itself in any given time frame.
            CSG support is the SSNs area of excellence, it’s what they thrive at, unrestricted power and global reach at speed. Their ability to reposition and conduct asw ops at the same time is unmatched even by our surface units.
            I personally believe we are missing a trick by not having any SSKs in our fleet, it’s a bit like the need for both T26/T31 requirements in the surface world, but money or the lack of it talks loudest.

      • The Astute class are indeed great boats. But the reason for not continuing to operate SSKs was financial, not operational. Just as the number of SSNs was cut from 12, to 10, to 8, to 7….

    • Diesel boats don’t really fit our needs though. We need subs that can dive once they leave port then potentially travel to any point on the globe without coming to the surface again. Diesels just don’t offer that.

      The deterrent effect of the possibility of one of our untraceable nuclear powered subs possibly being in an area can’t be underestimated and in some ways could be considered a force multiplier.

      • When a Submarine leaves Port it will Dive as soon as there is enough Water Depth for it to do so,this applies to either an SSBN/SSN or SSK,and SSK’s don’t necessarily have to Surface on route,they have Snorkels for Replenishment of Air and Batteries etc.

        • Well yes but I seem to recall an incident with HMS Asstoot, a while back…. something to do with a submerged Continental Shelf wasn’t it ?

  6. Would be nice if all the German subs weren’t stuck at their docks so a few British subs could help out in the Pacific.

  7. A bit like an iceberg!! There is sooo much of the boat which is below the water line, whilst surfaced. The are good looking boats, though. About time they got on with the others.

  11. Why would we not just keep delivering one of these every 2 years or so for the next ten, upgrading them them as they come – always the most up to date kit onboard? They are without doubt the most effective spend of military budget for the UK in it’s unique political position globally. A fleet of 12 or so would be a far better and useful number than 7.

    Oh but the costs! (at 1 billion ea….)

    In May last year NHS Test and Trace (NHST&T) was set up with a budget of £22 billion. Since then it has been allocated £15 billion more: totalling £37 billion over two years.

    there is still no clear evidence of NHST&T’s overall effectiveness; and it’s not clear whether its contribution to reducing infection levels – as opposed to the other measures introduced to tackle the pandemic – can justify its “unimaginable” costs.

    https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/150988/unimaginable-cost-of-test-trace-failed-to-deliver-central-promise-of-averting-another-lockdown/

    • Cost per Boat is one thing but Cost to Crew and Run is something else, as is Maintenance and Upgrade all over a probable 30 Years, then they have to be Decommissioned. 14 Boats would have a huge cost when you add it all up.

    • The Test and Trace budget includes the vaccine. Every test center that has been set up across the country, the deployment of rapid local testing. The detecting of new strains of the virus. It is not just for the NHS app and a call centre. If we don’t get on top of COVID-19, then it’s a bigger hit to the economy, which will mean even less money for defence.

      • Not my opinion – just that of the parliamentary committee – either believe them or not:

        Yet despite the unimaginable resources thrown at this project Test and Trace cannot point to a measurable difference to the progress of the pandemic, and the promise on which this huge expense was justified – avoiding another lockdown – has been broken, twice.

        Quoted from the report.

        Also I cannot find that T&T includes procuring the issuing the vaccine. Pease advise your source on that one?

        • I’m not doubting the committee. But spending huge amounts on protecting the public against a global pandemic cannot be used as a leveraging stick to justify spending equally huge extra sums on defence.

          • The committee statements indicate strongly that indeed no significant positive effects were gained for the money spent, so there was little or no ”protecting of the public” going on at all.

            This was money flushed away on a farcical psuedo scientific jaunt into la la land, for the benefit of private consultants mostly.

            My point is that whilst we whittle away our defence of the realm capability, on a hair shirt approach to every spending decision, we merrily pee it up the wall when the nonsense factory (House of commons) feels like it. The report concludes that MPs should not treat the public purse ”like an ATM machine”. Quite.

          • The 37Bn hasn’t all been spent. 37bn is the budget over two years from last April 2020 up to April 2022. Only 5.7bn of that has been spent up to November 2020. 93M tests have been carried out. 50,000 staff have been recruited for the whole project to date. It’s worth remembering. No amount of Astute class boats can save us from a global pandemic. And 190Bn on defence equipment is hardly defence on the cheap.

  12. The land attack capability of these is great capability. US have gone a step further converting 4 Ohio class for land attack capable of launching 154 TLAMs. I know the answer to this but I guess there’s no chance of us getting one more Dreadnought for land attack only. I can see the capability being expanded to launch drones in future and anti air missiles.

    • Being able to launch a TLAM covertly is a great asset, realistically though if you’re looking at launching hundreds then you’d be better sticking them on an RFA/large merch and having an escort. Certainly a lot cheaper.

      • The political clout of the potential enemy not knowing if they have a sub with 100+ land attack missiles shouldn’t be underestimate. It doesn’t even have to be there, they just have to think it is, subtle leak to the press would do that. Preventing a war is cheaper than fighting one. I think the latter idea of using an RFA is useful once you’re in shooting match.

        • This is where we enter the realms of ‘fantasy fleet Expat, at least for me and no offence intended. I agree, its a great ability but its not one that I’d expect the UK to maintain. As it stands we have very limited submarine platforms and to have one (what happens when its tied up alongside with defects) dedicated to this just isn’t feasible when we’re talking about UK numbers. We have the capability to throw up to 30 or so into a country’s infrastructure its not a bad option that can be relatively quickly achieved with a new weapons load in a friendly country (Z berth etc required).

          Personally I’d rather have more Fleet boats that have a dozen TLAM stashed away at the back of the bomb shop (well outer racks) and let them do their traditional thing but we’re back to that fantasy fleet thing, you can only piss with the cock you’ve got I suppose.

          • Not disagreeing. Its fantasy fleet stuff. We’d need to invest in more than one as you pointed out, that’s why the US converted 4 Ohios class.

            I’ll wait to see how the UK will field hypersonic land attack missiles. US will use the silos on the converted Ohios and new vertical luanch tubes installed on the latest Virginia class boats to field boast glide hypersonic missiles. We have no such option. Mk41 vls to be fitted to some of the surface fleet is too short for a boast glide weapon. Perhaps there’s no interest or intent to venture into hypersonic strike weapons other than those to be deployed from a Tempest jet.

            Oh well.going to take a leak.

    • I suppose we should look at it from another POV though….. what if these had all been built within a few years, Would we still have had the T class Boats as well ? At least they are being built to replace on a Like for like basis (almost) with additional upgrades to each Boat.

      • 25 years is just too much. The tech might be half a generation behind or more because of it. We could order more boats when we complete research/design to keep the yards churning and holding onto skills.

        Get them all out to see within 10-15 years.

        • I agree about time scales mate but I can also see that despite this, they are pretty impressive when compared (on paper) to others. Some might say they are better even. Lets just hope we never have to find out.

          • I think it’s also just about our place in the world. We can’t flex our muscles, when we have to; (hopefully never have a PM/govt that feels it needs to flex). We should have the boats and all of our new kit in a timely order so we can project our force most of the time when the times arise.

            Right now, if it kicks off at the Ukrainian border, in Taiwan or South Korea, we’re kind of in the position of needing at least a decade for all our upgrades and new kit to tested, built, integreted and then finally trained and deployed with. We cannot be at the mercy of drawn-out timeframes. Nor should we be like the Americans i.e. get semi-good kit out quickly, hope that future upgrades turn it from good to great. F-35 is good but its halfbaked. So many upgrades needed before it reaches 80% of what its designers and developers claimed it can do. No good waiting for your ‘new’ kit to do what it says on the tin either.

            Again, you can probably guess, it goes back to political willpower and funding.

  14. So this costs a billion? Quick sums in head time and? Two fat aircraft carriers = twelve hidden submarines. I know where I would put public money.

    • When the wokes get on the ship naming case it will be back to Dandy, Rainbow and a few other less aggressive names. I quite like HMS Pink Cloud and HMS Larry Grayson myself.

      • Well a few years ago myself, the Captain and Mr Bell annoyed others by having a SOH and having a laugh about my VERY stupid idea of firing Pink Dye at Spanish vessels at Gibraltar.
        So HMS Pink Cloud might have some legs in it!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here