The Ministry of Defence has declined to estimate how far the completion of the submarine HMS Achilles has slipped as a result of the 2024 fire in the Devonshire Dock Hall at Barrow-in-Furness, according to an answer given in Parliament.
Ben Obese-Jecty, the Conservative member for Huntingdon, asked for the estimated length of the delay, following an answer of 8 September.
Luke Pollard, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, said: “Work to recover from the impact of the fire in the Devonshire Dock Hall is progressing well. Achilles, the seventh and last boat of the class, remains at an advanced stage of build in Barrow-in-Furness.
“The planned in-service dates for Royal Navy submarines are withheld as disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness, or security of the Armed Forces.”
Because in-service dates for Royal Navy submarines are withheld, the schedule Achilles was working to before the fire is not public either, so the size of any slip cannot be worked out from the published record, and the department gave neither a length of delay nor a cost.
The Devonshire Dock Hall is the covered building hall at Barrow where British submarines are assembled, and the fire there in 2024 interrupted work on the yard’s output. Achilles is the seventh and final boat of the Astute class. The Astute class are nuclear powered attack submarines armed with Spearfish torpedoes and Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles, built by BAE Systems at Barrow-in-Furness around a Rolls-Royce pressurised water reactor fuelled for the life of the boat. Seven were ordered, and the first of class, HMS Astute, commissioned in 2010.
This is bow locks. I would suggest its in the public interest to know the projected date of rollout to within 12 months of at the very least. We the tax payers dislike being treated as fools.
Some Achilles heel!
It seems to me that the damage to the Achilles could have been quite severe. There were suggestions from some on here and elsewhere at the time of the fire, that if the hull had been directly exposed to the fire then there could have been significant heat damage both to the steel and possibly internal equipment as well.
My guess, is that there has been significant inspection work undertaken which, given how advanced the submarine was at the time of the fire, would likely involve a lot of work if systems and equipment were indeed damaged and extent of that damage would have needed to be identified and the repair work might have required replacement parts and or systems.
Clearly, we are very unlikely to ever be told any of the details.
Whatever the truth is the fire was a very significant set back it seems. Hopefully fire prevention and suppression systems have been improved since.
Cheers CR
We do know that the DDH was filled with thick toxic smoke for a day or more. This would have rendered equipment and systems dangerous and probably inoperable without either replacement or careful cleaning, testing and recertification. It’s reasonably speculated that the decision was made to prioritise the repair of Dreadnought over Achilles. The likes of wiki editors guesstimate that the fire caused a two year delay to the roll-out of Achilles, but the only hard evidence in support of that is the passage of time since the fire. Given no sign of a roll-out this year, she surely won’t enter service until 2030 – a crazy 20 years after Astute commissioned, i.e. a build rate of one sub every 3.5 years! No wonder the Aussies are reportedly getting nervous about the UK’ ability to deliver SSN-AUKUS.
Of concern is the EFFECT on the DREADNOUGHT And AUKUS Programs … just shows how vulnerable and The lack of Resilience the current set up is at Barrow..!
I would Hope some Goverment Committee gets hold of this…!
Unfortunately every country that makes nuclear submarines has basically the same problem. One maybe two facilities that can produce them. Factories and shipyards are always a high fire risk.
Just look how many ships Russia and the USA have lost to fire recently.
As a rule HMG do not comment on submarines. The fact they have bent over backwards and given positive news suggests things are indeed positive.
We will get this submarine when we will get it. I see not basis for negativity.
I agree Mark, much as I and everyone else in the UKDJ comment section would love to know we must now accept we live in a new world order where such information is very useful to bad state actors and HMG is quite right to keep it secret.
If the fire was severe enough, to have a serious impact on a submarine hull, using one of the strongest steel alloys invented by the human race then, I seriously doubt the dock hall (built from the cheapest sheet metal the contractor could find) would have survived.
This is probably a good news story for HMG and the MOD, they can quietly leave Achilles in the shed, blame the fire for a very long “repair” period and utilises the cost associated with the build in other areas in the DIP which lack the investment (we all know, but some wont agree the DIP was a con, a mostly unfunded wish list out to 2035) This platform will not be in service for a very long time. Yes I’m being negative, do I want her out and doing the job, of course, but the continued shite and dis-interest and ignorance from successive HMGs in various departments and of course defence, leave you mentally exhausted.
Agree that HMG will delay or redistribute funds but if that priotizes something like project Euston and improves availability of existing boats that could be be described as a positive.
Having a Strong intrest in Euston it’s not likely to Enter Production any time soon..
Nuclear Certification Rules and then Design and production Tendering have some Way to go before any Production starts and that will alone Probably last at least 5/6yrs before delivery of No1 Dock…!
Possibly mate but unlikely 👍
What I am missing is the cause of the fire.
Nothing has been said and therefore there be pressure brought on the Govt to deny this was an act of sabotage by foreign State actors just as have seen in several NATO States over the last few years.
Has anyone claimed responsibility? I don’t think so. If Russia or Iran had don this then it would be quite a coup.
Exactly, we are so reticent to apportion blame on the Chicoms and Russia that that is probably the cause; heavens, leave toxic nerve agents in a city and get a strongly worded letter; attempt to burn down our only yard capable of building submarines and we will bury it.
Someone should be held to account and retribution sought; that includes taxing TEMU products under £132(?) and telling China to foxtrot oscar and perhaps enabling the Ukrainian minehunting force to host UKR forces to intercept Russian shadow fleet tankers.
Hi mate, unfortunately there is very little good news coming out of this saga I’m afraid. If I recall correctly Achillies was originally due out mid 27, obviously that date is now in flux, can’t see much before 29 at the earliest tbh. Granted things could change dependant on how the remedial work is progressing, how much more in terms of £s they need to sort it. The bill is high, double digit millions then some. A further issue is the longer the repairs take, the more she will conflict with Dreadnoughts comissioning, a case of whom takes priority maybe, who knows, all subject to speculation of course.
This is your area of expertise mate, glad you have popped back up! As you say the long and short of it is that it will cause even more of an expensive cluster fuck further down the line! As if our forces and force planning isn’t in enough of a shit show already! Cheers mate, stay weird and chat again 👍
Don’t think it will work quite like that. The pressure will be on to finish the boat and get Aukus moving ASAP.
Once a boat is started the client cannot really simply shelve or cancel it. The wording will be in the contract so I doubt we would ever get to see that.
I would say it is in all parties interest to see the boat built and paid for as quickly as possible.
Despite my negativity I do hope your correct mate.
The pressure is on to get Dreadnought out is just as big if not more so. We are spending big, really big just to keep CASD going. AUKUS won’t make an appearance until mid/late 30s, even though work has already started. The big push is for V boat replacements soonest. Hopefully Achillies/Dreadnought won’t conflict, but who knows they are both a long way of being ready.
Two years to come up with no answer. About right for the MOD I suppose.
To me the problem has always been the undercover name change. Always considered a risky business with ships. HMS Agincourt would have perhaps upset our French Navy friends but at least it would have got a conversation going.
As it is Renaming the boat Achilles will undoubtedly upset the Trojans and one wouldn’t want that would one? Who knows they might decide to copy and start building submarines for their Channel crossings.
Russian, Americans or our own civil service?
Need to get the rest of the fleet back in service first.