The Ministry of Defence has published its Defence Nuclear Enterprise 2025 Annual Update, outlining progress across the UK’s nuclear programmes — while also acknowledging rising delivery risks in key areas such as the Dreadnought submarine build, warhead infrastructure, and skills availability.
In the introduction, Defence Secretary John Healey reaffirmed the government’s commitment to nuclear deterrence, stating: “The Defence Nuclear Enterprise protects the British people from the most extreme threats to our national security. In a more contested and volatile world, our independent nuclear deterrent remains the bedrock of our defence.”
The update confirms that the Dreadnought programme remains within its £31 billion budget with a £10 billion contingency. However, officials acknowledge that “risks remain on the Dreadnought programme and across the enterprise, notably in infrastructure delivery, the workforce, and the programme to replace the UK’s nuclear warhead.”
Significant progress has been made on construction of the first Dreadnought-class submarine, HMS Dreadnought, with the hull joined into a single unit at Barrow. Work is also under way on the second boat, HMS Valiant.
Yet the MOD warns: “Despite progress, we continue to monitor risks to cost, schedule and performance on all major programmes, including the Dreadnought class.”
The update identifies infrastructure as a critical area of concern, noting that “there are significant cost, schedule and delivery risks associated with our infrastructure programme.” To mitigate this, the MOD has made additional investments to “de-risk critical milestones.”
On workforce, the MOD concedes that “recruiting and retaining sufficient specialist skills remains a challenge,” and outlines efforts to expand apprenticeships and STEM outreach. Over 4,000 people are now working directly on Dreadnought, with an additional 400 apprentices recruited in the past year.
Warhead development and related infrastructure also present risks. The report states: “We continue to mature the programme to replace the UK’s nuclear warhead. However, this is one of the most technically challenging programmes the UK has ever delivered.” It adds that risks are being actively managed, particularly around AWE’s capacity and facility upgrades.
A separate section of the report confirms that the Astute-class submarine programme remains on track to deliver its final boat, HMS Agincourt, though the MOD is “reviewing risks to support infrastructure” that may affect its long-term service life.
In terms of cost oversight, the MOD says it is working closely with the National Audit Office and Infrastructure and Projects Authority to strengthen programme assurance: “We have made substantial changes to how we manage, monitor and report performance to Parliament.”
Healey closed the update by pledging continued transparency: “This Government will be honest with Parliament and the public about the state of our nuclear deterrent. That includes acknowledging where there are challenges, and demonstrating how we are addressing them.”
The next annual update is expected in spring 2026.
HMS Agincourt? Yes there are certainly risks when the MOD aren’t even aware of a name change. Do I feel reassured that this project will be delivered on time, on budget and clear of defects?
Yes, the name is wrong, it was changed several months ago to HMS Achillies. A story also covered by UKDJ…….
Let’s get the facts correct, the words … HMS Agincourt are not in the report.
Read the article again.
“ …A separate section of the report confirms that the Astute-class submarine programme remains on track to deliver its final boat, HMS Agincourt, though the MOD is “reviewing risks to support infrastructure” that may affect its long-term service life.
George did not quote HMS Agincourt in italics or quotation marks, consequently the HMS Agincourt wording is a UKDJ mistake. Not an issue untill someone uses the details incorrectly to malign something or someone.
So, feel reassured.
It seems the SDSR is going to be published on Monday.
🤞
Great news that we are to get a fifth boat added to the already named Dreadnought, Valiant, Warspite and King George V1 and that It will be called Agincourt.
“I fart in your general direction”.
I think a fifth boat should be the major added project in the SDR. It would be a real game changer for UK and ENATO forces allowing three boats at sea at all times between us and France.
How much of a potential enemies country do you want to turn into a nuclear waste land?
I would suggest that the combined devastation caused by U.K. and French boats is enough of a deterrent for us and if Europe requires more then these countries fund the extra boat but remember that will slow production of AUKUS boats at Barrow.
We have way more important conventional defence priorities than a 5th bomber but we do need to move away from a dependency on the US for the next generation of the nuclear deterrent.
NATO’s nuclear plans very much rely on the USA doing most of the heavy lifting in a counter force strategy. With around 9 or 10 boats and 500 warheads each Britain and France combined would be able to achieve a similar effect to the US trident fleet which is the main counter force asset of the US Military.
So that’s the kind of numbers you need to look at to be truly independent of the USA in NATO.
Our current system and the French system operating independently is only capable of counter value strategy.
This may or may not be enough to deter an autocrat like Xi or Putin with unchecked power which is very different to the Cold War were the Soviet Union was run by a committee post Stalin.
One boat at sea is easily knocked out in a pre planned attack, two is very difficult, three is impossible.
I totally disagree with Jim on this one and not just because I am ever so slightly biased when it comes to UK Nuclear Subs. Europe and NATO have to change from relying on the US to standing on our own 2 feet, only the UK and France can provide a Nuclear detterent sufficient to make Putin pause. You just need listen to Russias retoiric to realise they aren’t afraid to waggle their big stick at anyone that they aren’t afraid of (hence they don’t dare threaten USA).
So yes I’d add a Fifth Dreadnought, yes I think France would match that and yes I’d like us to develop a Tactical Capability. Also I do think we need to start to speak to France and coordinate properly becuise with 10 Boats we would have a very Big stick.
Of cource we need to spend more on conventional weapons but I’d prioritise the Nuclear, the RN and RAF and that includes missile defences. As for the Army equip it properly at its present size but make sure it has enough Troops and reserves, no going back to the BAOR.
ABCR,
As stated on several previous occasions, a UK tactical nuke capability could be achieved relatively cheaply, quickly and painlessly by acquiring:
1.) SLCM-N for RN SSN-A and/or
2.) A Wing of F-35As (or Squadron of B-
21s) for the RAF
The general proposition being that more weaps are better. Deem this to be entirely feasible w/in foreseeable future because MoD will soon have some additional coin available to spend.
Taranis is an ideal tactical delivery system.
The new Anglo-German weapon seems possible.
Are we talking about Russia, North Korea and China?
Level the lot of them; instantly; would yesterday be possible?
Hi Jim, Both France and the UK follow a very similar replacement timeline and build strategy for SSN and SSBN, we build generationally with as much tech leverage and commonality as possible. The SSBNs are replaced followed by the SSNs and then repeat on a cycle, that avoids the US and Russia problem where they are doing both at the same time.
The real tragedy is that if France and UK each had 4 Boats and coordinated their Refit, Upgrades, Training and Refueling schedule and stuck to a 25 / 30 Service life, 3 SSBNs being deployed would be very do able (plus a surge to 4/5).
Unfortunately at present that just isn’t possible due to both Governments deciding nearly 30 years ago to delay their SSN replacement schedule and exetend the existing SSN / SSBN fleets.
Simple rule is that extending a service life may look short financially attractive but in practice its very expensive and availabilty levels drop.
Personnaly I’d add a 5th Dreadnought ASAP and I guess on Monday we will know, but I will not be too surprised if thats on the cards.
Thanks for insight on the combined fleets. Fingers crossed for Monday.
My bad on another reply I said disagree when I meant agree. 🤷🏼♂️
Transparency? How about being transparent around conventional forces? I read several sources online and X saying the previous regular equipment updates have vanished.
Stop the smoke and mirrors and give Parliament full oversight on the equipment program and force levels.
Well it would have been the government past or present that would stopped them, if true,, not the military. Parliament under first past the post is controlled 100% by one party and therefore it was parliament that stopped them.
Joy of our electoral system is a party with well under 50% of the total vote has 100% of the power.
It’s not that unusual though , Donald Trump has less than 50 percent of the vote and look jus now much more power he wields!
It’s fairly unusual. UK and US have it and a handful of African and Asian counties.
Clearly it’s not working well in the US currently where trump is just ignoring congress and constitutional judges.
My concern is the capacity of the USA to leverage our nuclear deterrence against us.
Given the way in which the US is conducting itself, we shouldnt rest until our nuclear deterrence is truly independent – by which I mean not at all reliant on US involvement.
A lot of details have been leaked and released highlighting the resilience of the Trident weapon system and the UK’s ability to operate and maintain it without US support (up to 9 years by several accounts) but I agree that we should develop our own missile to replace D5. We never signed up to operate the same missile for 80 years anyway.
Is this really a priority, given all the problems UK armed forces have at the moment?
If you don’t order boat 5 now you never can. Nuclear weapons is identified as the number one capability we can provide to ENATO.
AUKUS and SSN A is all about supporting the US in the pacific.
Dreadnaught is all about supporting ENATO in Europe. Depends on where your strategy lies.
You did not mention a fifth boat, you were talking about producing our own missile.
Sorry was not clear, I would advocate for a fifth boat above all else, UK SLBM is likely a fantasy.
It’s not all about strengthening the US in the Pacific, that’s just the immediate Physical outcome. What we get out of it is a massive uplift in our entire DNE with largely 3rd Party investment, so it’s a win win for our industrial capacity that looks likely to continue for as long as Australia wants SSNs.
The other thing is it gives that same industry an uplift in mass which gives us an opportunity to enlarge our fleet of boats due to the economies of scale. Depending on the Donald and how he sees the US supplying 3/5 Virginias we will end up with 5 or 8 sets of components above those we build for our own use.
You just hope our midget minded Political Numpties take the opportunity to buy more SSNs due to the lower cost per hull, 12 would be very nice but I’d settle for 10.
Most folks will think that is inadequate compared to the Cold War numbers but fact is the newer ones will have a higher availability than the old ones, hence you don’t need as many hulls to have the same number operational.
I’ll pose you a question “Do you think SFM would have been Nationalised and received £400 million in investment without AUKUS ?”.