Astute class nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine HMS Anson has completed her first practice dive in dock.

According to the Royal Navy here, the trim dive – carried out over two days – allows architects, experts and engineers calculate the boat’s precise weight, stability and centre of gravity, all key factors in Anson’s performance when she formally joins her four older sisters already in service with the Royal Navy’s submarine flotilla.

“The dock at BAE Systems’ Barrow-in-Furness yard – where Anson has been built over the past 11 years – features a giant chasm or ‘dive hole’. Long and wide enough to accommodate a Royal Navy nuclear submarine, even at 25 metres (82ft) it’s not quite deep enough to cover an A-class boat entirely, but it does leave only the conning tower and tailfin protruding from the cold waters of the Devonshire Dock.

The dive is a slow process as the 60 crew, engineers and shipwrights check for the hull’s watertight integrity and move around trollies collectively carrying 16 tonnes of lead weights so naval architects can confirm the stability of the 97-metre-long nuclear submarine at sea.”

undefined

John Moorby, BAE Systems Submarines Astute Programme Director, was quoted as saying:

“It demonstrates the continued successful collaboration between BAE Systems, the Submarines Enterprise, and our suppliers on delivering this national endeavour for the UK Royal Navy.”

BAE are now preparing the boat for her maiden voyage.

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

126 COMMENTS

  1. First-class bit of kit, we need more of them.

    Tomahawk V should be on the shopping list for the Astute class.

      • NO deffinately mot, overpriced too slow to build internally rusting already. none of the class has reached the projected maximum speed. my son is on astute and says the crews hate them. ba and q plug sockets and light bulbs, corners cut everywhere, i’d sooner see half a dozen diesel ssk’s instead

        • SSK’s can only stay at sea for about 30 days before running out of fuel.
          The only limit of endurance of the SSN’s are the amount of food that can be carried.

          • There is more than one factor to consider when assessing a submarine’s suitability to be in the inventory. It seems we can only afford 7 attack subs, a pathetic number – we had 28 in 1982. We could afford more SSKs to SSNs, but we should hav eboth types.

          • I was on HMS Osiris for about 11 years and believe me, they can do twice that by ditching sea water from 3and5 port and starboard ballast tanks filling them for a longer patrol.

        • How often does a sub ever travel at its maximum speed in combat, though? Stealth is far more important and the Astutes have that in spades.

          Also, the quality of internal plug sockets is far, far down the priority list. I doubt they cut corners in terms of stealth and fighting capabilities, which is what really counts.

        • I think you will find that the plug sockets are from Screfix…they are cheaper…
          And no I am not being pithy…we used to get loads of stuff from Screwfix on the RN Credit card because it was to UK Standard , cheap and available.

        • Not a good sign. Whilst on the surface, who cares about internal plugs, but if that is an indication of wider corner cutting then the subs might not be as capable as advertised. We certainly found out the hard way during the Falklands that cost cutting on ships results in significant loss of life.

        • My opinion I don’t think you should have said that especially at a time of acute tension with Russia. There is an official secrets act and you are doing no favours, for what seems to be frivolous reasons.

    • Personally, i think fitting the Astute class with cruise missiles was a blunder. As soon as you have fired them, you have given the boat’s position away. Better to have saved the money and use it to build another Astute. They are designed to hunt down Russian/Chinese SSN and SSBN. Shore bombardment is a surface fleet function

      • Hello David,

        I was thinking more along the lines of its anti-ship capabilities.

        Sorry, I should have been clearer in my eariler post.

        Raytheon’s Tomahawk Block V, when fully realized in its Block Va and Block Vb varieties, will be expected to hit surface ships at Tomahawk ranges – in excess of 1,000 miles – with the integration of a new seeker. It also will integrate a new warhead that will have a broader range of capabilities, including greater penetrating power.

        The missile has been able to stay at the $1 million price range, which is on the low end for missiles. Raytheon’s supersonic SM-6 can reach speeds of Mach 3.5 – with future iterations believed to be capable of reaching hypersonic speeds – but cost more than four times as much per shot and have less range. That’s the Tomahawk’s key differentiator, said Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain and analyst with Telemus Group.

        Tomahawk’s range is especially important in the Asia-Pacific, where China’s rocket force has extraordinary reach with its DF-26 and DF-21 missiles, with ranges of 2,490 and 1,335 miles respectively, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The missiles are destined not just for the VLS launchers of surface ships but also on attack submarines. Read more here:

        https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/12/14/the-us-navy-has-an-upgraded-tomahawk-heres-5-things-you-should-know/

      • A Submarine will give it’s position away regardless of what Weapon it fires – are you suggesting they aren’t equipped with Torpedoe’s too ?.

        • I believe the Navy likes to swim the fish out quietly nowadays, instead of blowing them out with compressed air. Spearfish has a range in XS of 40 NM and has a terminal maneuvering capability. No reason for an Astute to give it’s position away when engaging a Russian Typhoon SSBN for example

          • FYI, no our SMs don’t swim the fish out or blow them out with compressed air, they use what’s called Water Ram Discharge to send them on their merry way – and yes it’s a fairly noisy system.
            Spearfish does not have a range in XS of 80 Kyd’s, not sure where you are getting this from, but it’s less then what you quoted.

      • another atute? no wonder theres such a big hole in the defence budget i’d sooner see all ships with a cruise missile silo

        • A sub armed with tomahawks can surprise the enemy. A ship armed with TLAM will be tracked, so little surprise then, the enemy can prepare defences depending on amount of time between arrival and launch of TLAM.

  2. Hi folks hope all is well.
    Better hurry up and get her combat ready the way things are currently going!
    Still good news though, could do with a few more Astutes that would be better.
    Cheers
    George

    • If anything esculates to war with Russia there will be nothing of this whole planet left. I think you are forgetting the priority of the Astute class is detergent and hopefully never to be used which is the same for the Russians and Chinese, Americans etc. If one ever fires anything the Planet is gone. Thankfully every government knows that fact which is why nothing has been used on the Nuclear front. Pray it never is or Climate change and Plastic in the Oceans will be the least of our problems along with Covid.

      • Do you really believe that little Emperor Putin would retaliate against military action taken against him? He has got a lot to lose, a whole life of luxury etc! Compared that to someone who would do something desperate and even commit suicide because their life is so grim anyway?

  3. Cant disagree, but I’m not sure the can squeeze another one in the build planning before they need to shift over to the new ballistic missile boats.But If they could they should.

      • not this side of 2050 with all the other building projects planned t26, t31,drednauts e.t.c additional LIFEX work on what we have

    • we’ve got all the ssn’s we’re going to get maybe a full survey of all the retired boats at devonport and rosyth should be done wouldn’t hurt and could be benificial.

    • The last Astutes are basically built, it’s now all about fitting out and setting to work across all the systems. Barrow have already started construction on the first Dreadnought, albeit in small stages. This build programme is the MODs no.1 priority so everything else at Barrow will have to wait.

  4. This is good news and perhaps signals that things are getting back on track after the delays with HMS Audacious.

    11 years build time, however, is not so encouraging and suggests that the UK has struggled to rebuild the expertise lost after the ‘gapping’ of the submarine build programme after the Vanguard class.

    It may also reflect the Treasury’s penchant for drip feeding funding for large scale long term programmes. Something that needs to change if we are to make the best of our infrastructure budgets across government. I ain’t holding me breath though.

    Nevertheless, well done to all involved and hopefully momentum can be built on for the new SSBN’s and SSN(R).

    Cheers CR

    • what would be really interesting to see and I hope its the first thing the new CDS is doing, is to work out what the optimal cost/run rate is for all equipment, as the way we are doing it now is painful to watch and so inefficient that we can’t sell anything

      lets decide what we want and fund it properly, I would rather sell Chile a 15 year old frigate for £100m than a 30 year old one.

      there is also the social and economic benefits this work provides to some of the poorest areas of the UK – if the government is sincere about levelling up this is a great, low cost way to start.

      • “lets decide what we want and fund it properly, I would rather sell Chile a 15 year old frigate for £100m than a 30 year old one.”

        That was what the Parker Report suggested.

        With the pace of technology moving ever faster it may well be better to not have the very expensive and slow mid life major refits that actually reduce the active fleet size a lot and instead focus on having newer vessels with higher availability and the very best technology in them.

        • absolutely, the Parker report seems to me to be an exercise in common sense.

          Who in their right mind thinks people want to leave their loved ones to work on a 30 year old ship that is on its last legs… and worryingly its not just the surface fleet in this state.

          Making the military a viable option for Gen Z means we have to provide a better working environment, more training and improve the facilities for families and veterans.

          Although we are talking about ships here – the Warrior and Challenger upgrades are both high cost upgrades that are costing as much as a new product and in the case of warrior now cancelled due to those costs.

          time to stop over specifying everything, decide what is critical to over specify and spend the money on those systems offering real value add. Everything else should be off the shelf.

          An example for me is I don’t care if we put Seaceptor in a container and load that container onto a ship when it deploys. It may not look amazing, but if it brings the capability and that capability can be shared with the Army and airforce then it means we can have more. Instead we have too few VLS on both T31 and Sky Sabre when a really simple solution would improve both and allow us to buy more.

          • another example is the CTA40, we have bought a load of them and there is a marinised version, but the RN have gone bofors

            this shouldn’t have been allowed to happen, one product many uses should be the mantra.

          • The marinised version is still just a concept. The Bofers cannon is a reality. There is no point in doubling down on an expensive experimental system. If anything the army never should have selected CTA40 and gone for the bofers 40mm in its warrior and scout replacement vehicles

          • Another way of looking at it is why was the army allowed to go for a totally new design not supported by NATO, when 30/35mm alternatives were readily available, thus having no development costs or the huge expense of the new causeless ammo that they require…..

          • The Army demanded bespoke. The cost, time and risk involved in delivering it wasn’t considered because that was someone elses responsibilty. Explains an awful lot with the emphasis on awful.

          • Doesn’t it just!!
            If they had gone with say 35mm, that would have bought the RM AA cannon into play for our VSHORAD requirements, again saving on development costs, and we could probably have had something in service now if required as opposed to whenever/never having something…..
            Obviously this procurement stuff is more difficult then rocket science…….

          • Well at least Brimstone has been made more flexible in this respect so they are common to what and whoever the end user, though limiting the number of end users hardly helps I guess exploiting such flexibility.

          • every ship in the navy is under fit weaponwise take for instance the carrier group other than a dozen or so f 35’s and a few tomahawks lobbed from a submarine, what do they have? our capital ships Q.E P.O.W, ALBION AND BULWARK SHOULD BRISTLE WITH SYSTEMSTHE WHOLE UPPER STRUCTURE OF THE ALBIONS AND CARRIERS ARE FULL OF VAST AREAS WHERE CEPTOR SYSTEMS COULD BE FITTED. AND WHICH POOR SAP IN THE BOWELS OF PARLIAMENT WOULD BE TRUCKED OUT TO EXPLAIN WHY A MAJOR UNARMED ROYAL NAVYSHIP AND ITS CREW AND EQUIPMENT WAS LOST? AN INDIGENIOUS CLUB K SYSTEM COULD GO ON EVEY SHIP WE HAVE. IF THE RUSSIANS ARE PROBING OUR COASTLINES WHAT ARE DOING TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM IT? BUILDING A FEW FRIGATES THAT WILL STILL BE IN BUILDING 20 YEARS FROM NOW WE SEE WHAT OTHER NATIONS ARE DOINGFOR EXAMPLE THE THAI NAVY HAS DDED A 76MM RAPID FIRE OTO MELARA GUN TO THEIR BATCH 2 RIVER AND TWO EXTRA 30MM CANNON AFT OF THE BRIDGE WINGS these are called corvettes and if we did the same,most nations include corvettes in their front line numbers so the R.N could be increased in side by four ship very quickly with those ships ALREADY BUILT. so 13 type 23’s 6 type 45 destroyers and say 4-5 corvettes would give the R.N a better sized front line of 22+ and thats with the type 31 and 26 in building. even the damn iranians and singapore navy’s have put a single asw torpedo tube onto trawlers! maybe we could that to the archers working in squadrons off the coast in tandem with a frigate, would provide a potent mobile anti submarine force.with anywhere for a base. its time the admiralty started looking out of the box with the aim of doing the best with what we’ve got.

      • Yes we simply need to have production lines churning out these vessels and let the navy sell on the second hand market.

        All our issues are down to gapping production for in year savings.

        We should have:

        a T26/83 production line of one per year ( 15 year cycle, sell off after 15 years old and plan for 15 of these surface warfare/mother ship escorts to be in service).

        aT31/32 production line of one per 2 years ( 30 year cycle, sell on year 30 ,as these are expensive niche ships your selling when knackered, this gives a fleet of 15 high end specialist escorts).

        So a surface fleet of 9 high end ASW frigates ( with some area AAW ability and ASuW function), 6 high end AAW destroyers and 5 general purpose ASuW vessels ( type 31s) and 10 mothership adaptable frigates ( type 32).

        so two common hull types, that are changes as function and need changes but not a complete redesign from the keel up for every new RN ship type ( even the US are planning to run the production line for Burke’s for 50+ years and Russia are still knocking out hulls designed by the USSR).

        I know it’s fantasy fleet stuff, but that would be a sensible industrial strategy

        a nuclear submarine line of one per 2 years That will give 12 boats over a 24 year life so 4 Ballistic missile and 8 SSN in service.

        If you commission your nuclear submarines in flights of 4 that means the design team will have 8 years for each new redesign.

        a further line for low complexity warships 1 per year, for 25 boats every 25 years selling off at 20 years, which would give 20 boats, which is about where the RN is now for its small ships/boats fleet( constabulary, mine warfare, survey ), the rivers are good useful boats, with new autonomous systems coming on line we should be investing in the next tranche of rivers that can cover mine warfare, constabulary, special forces insertion, disaster support and survey/science stuff and flag waving)

        a large warship/RFA production line ( Carrier and amphibious, stores etc) around 1 every 2-5 years ( depending on size obviously), but the RN and RFA need around 17-18 large hulls ( 16,000 to 70,000 tonnes) which is plenty to keep an entire ship yard going on its own.

        Small boats: finally the RM, RN and RFA nee a plethora of small craft, which could form part of the industrial strategy to support boat building in the U.K. ( it’s this bread and butter stuff than can support a dynamic ship building industry).

        • couldn’t agree more and the knock on effects of this would be.

          1. Better retention and morale of those serving as they have good kit
          2. An industrial strategy that will benefit some of the poorest areas of the UK
          3. a clear requirement for British steel – even more so if we apply this to the whole vehicle fleet and whilst it is not going to support the whole industry it will probably enable 1 steel works to survive and thrive.
          4. payback in taxes and improved social benefits as some of the communities will go under without this work.
          5. We can supply allies with really good ships that are not knackered and still have a good life in them whilst updating our own fleet on a constant basis.
          6. Economies of scale and standardisation, our PM really should have go the US onboard with the T26 being the standard frigate for the 5 eyes alliance. I fear the opportunity is lost but the same reasoning behind everyone using the F35 could have been used for the US adopting T26 at which point the cost of production and maintenance all round becomes incredibly efficient.

      • linking a still fuelled retired ssn to the national grid and giving free power to the citizens around the base would be a huge vote winner.

    • “11 years build time, however, is not so encouraging and suggests that the UK has struggled to rebuild the expertise lost after the ‘gapping’ of the submarine build programme after the Vanguard class.”

      Undoubtedly true and widely acknowledged to have been a massive mistake. Thank Gordon and Tony for that piece of stupidity. It was mainly about not stirring up Labours tribal politics and Gordon having more money to ‘invest’ in pay rises in marginal constituencies.

      “It may also reflect the Treasury’s penchant for drip feeding funding for large scale long term programmes”

      Yes and no.

      It is about:-

      • cash flow curves
      • drum beat of orders
      • making sure there are no production gaps

      So the net result of balancing all three of the above is the glacial production rate that we now have.

      The only way you get a faster drum beat is to be able to have a bigger fleet.

      If you simply build faster you have gaps again and skills fade.

      • It was the John Major government that close down the Vanguard design team in the early 1990’s, which resulted in a gap between the end of Vanguard program, and start of build of Astute in 2001, and the team had to be reformed by the incoming Labour Government after 1997.

    • It’s more a function of building the boats to a time line so that there are no gaps between the end of building say the attack submarines and then the next gen ballistic missile boats. That way you are not left having to support the infrastructure whilst doing no work and hence losing capability.
      This was found out the hardest before the astute program began, or the program before.
      Either way, they found they had lost skill sets and had to rebuild them, causing delays etc.
      Better to have the right staffing levels and increase them if necessary, rather than carry high staffing levels that then sits idle for years….

      • Hi John.

        I would agree with you if it was not for two things. The first is that it take at least 15 years to train an engineer to even a junior, mid level of qualification and experience. So the Astutes were the first boats ordered after the gap in the submarine programme. As such the yards are probably just about getting back to the level of experience they had built up, and lost, since the 1960’s.

        Secondly, the Vanguards are going to have to extend past their planned OSD. The oldest boat has been in service since 1993 so is rapidly approaching 30 years old. Deap diving an old boat is not something we should be expecting our sailors to do – the pressure hulls have a limited number of dives in them and extending them is very difficult.

        In short, the replacement SSBN should be on sea trials right about now not in tens years time.

        So whilst I can see where you are coming from and agree with the principal that a nice even build programme would avoid another gap in the programme, I do not think we are past the fall out from the 1990’s gap yet. It will and has taken decades to do that and demonstrates how important our engineering industry was and how difficult it is going to be to rebuild it.

        Cheers CR

        • I’m confused by your timeline: I met a jnr nuc engineer out of Uni in 2004ish, last month he made Captain…

          • Hi David,

            I was referring to design engineers working in industry. I trained as a mechanical and aeronautical engineer which consisted of a 4 yrs apprenticeship, 3 yrs HND and 2 yrs Masters. It then takes a few years to practice using the ‘tools’ you have acquired during education.

            Designing systems is very different to running and maintaining them. Both are vitally important. Design engineers, however, could well be designing something that goes into a ‘fleet’, like the guys designing stuff for Typhoon or F35. If they get it wrong, and they do from time to time, the whole fleet may be impacted whilst fixes are developed and implemented.

            The maintenance teams are responsible for the kit in front of them. If they get if wrong then that one unit is impacted, although in the case of a nuclear reactor that could have very serious and wide spread implications as well.

            The thing about design is that you may start with a blank piece of ‘paper’. I designed one thing that actually went into production (before my career went in a different direction) and apparently some of my drawings were still in use about ten years later! I started with a blank sheet of paper and it was a challenge to try and anticipate a future without something physically in front of me. It was nothing particularly complicated to look at, but I was still in training and it worked so yeh I put it down as a modest achievement. It does give me some insight into how long and complicated the design process can be.

            Cheers CR

  5. we need another 5 of these as a lengthened or enlarged batch 2- carrying strike length VLS for tomahawk- similar to Virginia class payload enhancements

    • What for?

      Massively expensive and what does it offer us?

      Equally you could say that we need a fleet of B52’s?

      I’d rather see Mk41 VLS on all RN surface combatants with a big load of TLAM – it would far cheaper. And also putting Ceptor on the Albions and some of the bigger RFA’s. Ceptor might also be useful on the Albions for shore softening up work/taking out anyone with a ManPad.

      • But you can ingress quietly and the opposition wouldn’t know it was there until it fired all its missiles and then quite some distance away. The Americans see the logic in this when they converted Ohio class into some SSGN’s.

    • Just think what the cost would be of modifying the Astute design, not to mention the timetable.

      Adding a further boat or two would be the more realistic option but even that may not be feasible given the programming of the current order book.

      I would be interested to know what the ramifications would be for squeezing in one extra A boat alongside the Dreadnought builds (I think unlikely but not outside the realm of possibility). I assume the cost implications would be significant but other than that???

      • Given that the A boats are all built weo fitting out, work has started on the Dreadnoughts, I would assume that costs/delays to Dreadnoughts which in turn impacts on V boat OC are the major implications of trying to squeeze another A boat build in. Agree not outside the realms of possibility, but v costly overall.

        • Thanks Deep32.

          Given the difficulty of ordering an extra Astute, an extra £1bn or so would, in my view, be best spent on 3 to 5 small-ish SSKs to supplement the SSN force, taking the burden off the A boats for duties in coastal waters and nearby.

          I wonder if that type of money would allow a UK yard to set up and license build an existing design. Would need a lot of expertise to get the workforce up to scratch/speed.

          • Making submarine pressure hulls isn’t something that you just start doing because you feel like it.

            It would take years: maybe a decade to get an SSK yard started up from scratch.

            Whilst there is a lot of experience in making Insustrial process pressure vessels both in UK and Germany there are special issues with the cycling of pressure that is pretty unique to submarines.

          • A new build/design SSK comes in at around £500 million give or take even if license built.
            Birkenhead built our last SSKs some 30 yrs ago, unfortunately we just don’t have the spare capacity in experienced workforce to pursue such a project should we even be able to find the £ to build them.

          • Better to buy from Sweden as part of a broader deal with them committing to Tempest participation…at least on development, software, technology, engines, sensors etc

        • Yes it’s a shame an extra boat was not squeezed in when it could have been at the beginning of the Order/build cycle, but I imaging the long order items would not make it possible now. But beyond that squeezing in an extra boat I don’t see there is any real way the U.K. can up its capabilities to build more nuclear boats beyond keeping 12 in service. What do you think Deep I suspect you would have more insight into our ability to build more if we wanted a larger nuclear fleet ?

          • We could easily have built another 2/3 A boats in between Astute and Agincourt had we had the will and desire to do so. That didn’t happen so we are where we are now unfortunately.
            Realistically we are now stuck with our numbers until we start building SSN(R), Dreadnought as a CASD replacement will always take priority.
            When Radakin was 1SL,he did allude to replacing the A boats with 8 new SSNs, which still isnt enough given all the current and future tasking they will recieve. We really need 12…..
            They aren’t expected to enter service until the early 40’s, which is somewhat at odds with the expected core life of the PWR 2 reactors in the Astutes – 25 years. Astute will be 30 yo in 2040, given that they are not expecting to refuel the A boats (current Vanguard refueling is proving a nightmare several years late and upwards of £200 million over budget and climbing!!!) means that we would need the first boat in service by the mid to late 30’s and not early 40’s.
            That’s would be my take on it, for what its worth.

          • So it looks like it, that another shed needs to be built at Barrow, because Devonshire Hall will be full of Dreadnoughts until late 2030’s. First out of the hall HMS Dreadnought by 2030. Only 3 D’s at a time will fit in the hall.

          • Originally, DDH was designed to build 4 Vs at a time; maybe changed due to way they are built being changed.

            What I’m missing in the timetables being posited here is any reference to Australian boats!

          • I don’t believe that they can build another large shed at Barrow, might be wrong though, not sure where it would go!
            If they could and did, have to wonder where all the extra skilled workers are coming from? As @CR has pointed out many a time, it takes years to get a engineer upto speed with experience.

      • Interesting question, if the glacial production of these subs is primarily because of gapping in orders as has been argued and certainly be an important factor, then one could argue that doing this might actually speed up those build times overall fitting in an extra boat. However I doubt it will be as easy as that and the first thing that comes to mind is the pre ordering of all the facets that go into the submarine that in many cases will have taken place many years back and likely would not be easily or simply done again unexpectedly now and would have serious cost implications in the doing at the very least as everyone has long been planing for a different design.

  6. “and move around trollies collectively carrying 16 tonnes of lead weights so naval architects can confirm the stability of the 97-metre-long nuclear submarine at sea.”

    Shows just how fine the trim is on even such a massive sub that 16,000kg has any effect at all on her.

    Fantastic bit of engineering.

    Now all we need to do is to figure out how to build them twice as fast!

  7. Would I be correct in assuming all that smoke is coming from the diesel engines? At this stage would the reactor be running/providing any power at this stage?

      • There are two photos showing two different things.

        The headline photo shows four plumes of what looks like compressed air venting from the top of the casing.

        The photo in the middle of the article does appear to show the diesel being run up. I don’t think it will be that smokey on a modern diesel that has warmed up. Lets put it this way: the efflux gasses would be cooled as much as possible, countercurrent with the inflow air to reduce the IR signature so they will look smokey but it is really condensed water.

      • Yes have often noticed that on active boats too, a very common thing that I have often wondered the answer to.

    • The ‘smoke’ is air rushing out of the ballast tanks as they flood with water. The diesel exhaust is on the sail.

    • See @SB post and others as to the photos.
      The Reactor isn’t providing any power yet, that comes a little later in the testing when they finally pull the rods and turn the kettle on so to speak.

  9. At the risk of delay to the Dreadnaught CASD programme, we should just carry on building more of these. Historically, the MoD pours taxpayers money into cock-up rectifications and then scraps the program anyway. Why not make a revolutionary change and spend the money on something we still excel at? Like building more Astute SSN? The RN certainly needs at least three more.

    • Because Pound for Pound the CASD Capability is the best way of guarranteeing our National Sovereignty and Security. – lets face it our Conventional Forces alone either now or in the future won’t.

    • It would delay the Dreadnought programme, with the result the Vanguards would be so old that CASD would not be possible. The choice is CASD or more Astutes.
      Once the Dreadnoughts are built they need to start building the Astutes replacements.

  11. I’m going to be very controversial here. I’d rather have built 12 of these and no aircraft carriers. Much more useful piece of kit. Terrifies the other side in ways a carrier never will. There, I’ve said it. Now you can all shoot me down. Cheers

    • I’m with you!
      I’m a supporter of the Carrier capability and what it can do regards flexibility and projection of air power.

      But these are the ultimate sea denial and ASW assets.

      • Room for both. Astute is deadly, and 2 or 3 of these at sea would be a massive headache for any fleet. And they are engineering marvels to be proud off. But a large capable aircraft carrier is a very good visible deterrent, with all the flexibility air power can provide. The success of QE’s 7 month deployment was an excellent showcase of flag waving and power projection, with much more to come in that area. But the Astute class beneath the waves is the silent assassin most Navy’s fear the most, and it’s land attack capability is another ace up our sleeve 👍More of both please. 🇬🇧

        • There is, and we have them. And we both support them. But to answer the question by SR, would you forgo them for 12 Astute?

          • For 12 Astute? No, 20 Astute, maybe 😄 But i can fully appreciate the strategic value 12 Astutes would bring. And not so very long ago we did operate 12 nuclear hunter killers, and 3 Invincible class. 10 Astute with the two QE’s would be perfect. 👌

          • Wow, greedy….! 😅It would be perfect! We both know it ain’t going to happen though!

          • No, unfortunately. Unmanned assets operating alongside Astute seem to be the way to increase our reach and capability under the seas. Just like Vixen UAVs for the carriers with F35. But if we make it through the other side of this Ukraine crisis, it might be the wake-up call to up the defence budget to 2.5% and aim for 3%.

          • Sure we will. People just need to stop the hysteria and marching to ww3.

            I think a further rise in the budget is inevitable, even the public, the opposition, and the current lot should be able to see that, surely??

            Agreed on the unmanned. They are, as always, moving too slow for my liking however.

          • We aren’t going to start WW3 over Ukraine, but the economic impact for us all could be pretty scary. We think fuel is expensive today; god knows what it will be if Russia steps a toe across that border. Let’s hope diplomacy works its magic, and Putin pulls back from the brink. It must be getting pretty scary for Joe public in Ukraine; they deserve better.

    • I would like see 15 a boats and keep carriers
      cancel type 26 pour money in to a boats
      and build about 25 type 31/32

    • As I will say again, the capacity to build Astute’s is limited without affecting other sub program, the D’s.

  12. The “Battleships” of the RN, one of our aces, and one of many reasons that sets the RN apart from most navies despite the lack of escorts, ASM, and so on.

    SSK are a poor imitation for these strategic assets.

  13. Wouldn’t fancy the job of moving all the “lead” ballast around to allow them to check the trim.

    • Don’t understand why they wouldn’t pump water into temp inflatable tanks. Can even rapidly simulate flooding

      • Pete,it comes down to accuracy. Trim and COG calculations have to pretty much perfect or it could go horribly wrong at sea, hence testing in a basin just deep enough to submerge, if it does go to the bottom it’s an “easy” recuse.

        Waters mass changes depending on a huge number of variables, so just to get a stable mass BAE would need a distilled/deionised water generator, whereas lead is a relatively stable mass, used widely for calibration and really the only thing that can easily change that is damage dust and dirt, which are all easily checked by eye.

    • No it shouldn’t take that long. Both the Swiftsure and Trafalgar class SSN’s took on average between 3 and 1/2 and 4 years to build (from being laid down to commissioning).
      Successive governments did lots of things (well documented) wrong to get us into this awful position.

  15. Fantastic piece of engineering, some of the most complex machines man have built, but incredibly difficult to get right, as I fear Australia will find out over the next decade (and I say that as some one who fully supports the goals and ains of aukus)

  16. Surely we need to bite the bullet and get another 4 of these underway on an emergency “war footing” basis, as there is such a big gap across so many potential theatres. 2 could go to the Aussies, whilst we help set up a parallel production facility in AUS for the new replacement design when its ready.

    OK, assembly line space, and manpower would be issues, but surely the simultaneous ordering and manufacture of sections and parts would cut down time and cost?

    We should then be thinking along the lines of at least 10 for the UK of the new replacement type on a continuous production basis as the need won’t be going away for a generation at least.

    OK, its all going to cost, but think of the wider benefit to UK and AUS industry too – let alone world peace.

    • I don’t see how that is possible even if HMG stumped up the money. Barrow is still building Agamemnon and Agincourt, and has started the first 2 Successor bombers. We don’t have the trained people to build another 4 boats simultaneously.

      The build in Australia is going to take a long, long time, starting something as advanced as this from scratch.

      If HMG had not screwed up the drumbeat they could have been building these quicker after Vanguards.

      • Yes, Daniele and MerionX. I’m not saying that it is not a big issue and yes any AUS set-up would take a lot of time. However, are we just accepting that no matter what happens now in the world we are never going to be able to produce any more A-class design than already ordered? Surely with a bit of will and imagination on a “war-like footing” we could expand production to some facility with engineering expertise overseeing production whilst training additional manpower? This could also be run in parallel with any facility set-up in AUS. My reasoning is that the world is getting more dangerous for the foreseeable future and we must prevent conflict, and malign pressures, by the UK becoming even stronger.

      • Hi Meirion
        Where did we build all the nuclear powered boats in the Cold War ?
        Government’s of all parties cuts are now coming home to roost….
        Loss of crews…. Loss of skilled engineers to build them
        Thanks Ian

  19. I like the name Anson. I have a beautiful picture of a 45.000 ton battleship named HMS Anson is docked in Sydney Harbour with the iconic British built Sydney Harbour bridge in the background. My uncle who was in the Royal Marines was based on this ship when it went to liberate Hong Cong at the end of WW2.

  20. Look at the work that goes into these and indeed any military hardware – jobs right up and down the spectrum, people need to sweep the floors in the factories and someone needs to calculate the neutron flux distribution of the reactors that power them. No one is going to move all the way from the latter to the former, but in such an industry there is headroom for promotion and improvement – jobs for people from uni, and the hubs of such an industry act as unis themselves.

    Bojo has talked up daft projects like billions upon billions spent upon silly bridges – and then the ‘national ship building strategy’ is about half a dozen vessels; how about investing in this industry, making it a conveyor belt both for our own designs and vessels (civil and military) for export? It would make money, and have a massive impact on technology and education in the country as a whole.

    Selling military hardware has not been fashionable in some political circles for a while, but look at the most recent headline deployments by the navies of UK, AUS and NZ (forgive me if I am missing any nations) – delivering aid to a very hard to reach region of the world.

  21. If it was possible the transfer of the production to Australia would be of great benefit if Australia wanted them. My view is that it’s just to complicated to do this. Possible yes but difficult. The main issues being the power plant and other unique items.
    Australia seems to be in a tricky situation with timescales of joining ssnR unless they are building the first boats.
    Maybe they take the virgina boat and the US build the nuclear compartment. They do the rest. If America has any spare capacity.
    If they want to fiddle with designs and put there own kit inside things could get very complicated, very fast.
    Things have went quiet on the sub deal front. Work is probably on going. Not sure how much work the french had already arranged at the shipyard that can be utilised or what the Australian shipyard already have.

  24. Sorry, posted in the wrong thread.

    Some more positive news!

    “The United States and United Kingdom have signed an agreement to share information on the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) programme.

    Signed on 14 February, the FVL Co-operative Program Feasibility Assessment agreement will see both countries work to ensure the future interoperability of their rotorcraft requirements and programmes, at the same time as exploring and analysing new concepts for the employment of such air power.”

    https://www.janes.com/defence-news/defence/latest/us-uk-sign-fvl-co-operation-agreement

  25. For the editorial staff. It’s not a conning tower, but the Fin (the conning tower is an extension of the pressure hull in the fin). It is not a Tail Fin, it is a rudder.

    For those in the discussion please never refer to a submarine as a ‘sub’ – it is either a boat or a submarine.

    For the record it is not a practice dive but a Trim Dive. HMS TRAFALGAR’s trim dive the Project Manager (who stood on the fin) had the water half way up his wellies – ended up painting a line for future reference.

    • Hi Paul, the information and terminology come directly from BAE. They’re building the submarine so we’ll call it by the terms they’ve used. Also, people can call a submarine what they wish, you’re not the king of submarines.

Comments are closed.