Rolls-Royce has revealed ambitious plans to substantially expand its Raynesway site in Derby, which is expected to generate more than a thousand jobs.
The British engineering giant announced that the expansion is primarily aimed at catering to the increasing demand from the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy, as well as to commitments made under the recent AUKUS agreement.
Back in March 2023, “it was confirmed that Rolls-Royce Submarines would provide all the nuclear reactor plants that will power new attack submarines as part of the tri-lateral agreement between Australia, the UK and US”.
This agreement has led to a surge in demand for Rolls-Royceās services.
The expansion, backed by funding from the Ministry of Defence, will take place on recently acquired land surrounding the existing Raynesway site. Notably, it is expected to “create 1,170 skilled roles within Rolls-Royce across a range of disciplines, including manufacturing and engineering.”
Steve Carlier, President of Rolls-Royce Submarines, expressed his enthusiasm about the development. He said, “This is a truly exciting time for our business, with work secured that will see us support UK and Australian submarines well into the second half of this century. It will see thousands of jobs created across the UK supply chain, many of which here in Derby, and weāre proud to be playing our part in this international endeavour.”
Carlier also highlighted Rolls-Royce’s long-standing relationship with the Royal Navy, stating that they have “provided the power to the Royal Navyās nuclear submarines for over 60 years”.
11 present UK submarines plus likely at least 1 more for a UK total of 12 plus 8 from Australia is a minimum of at least 20 reactors.
The plan is stated as being 15 UK SSN 4 SSBN and 8 Australian SSN so 27 reactors. Not sure if a 20% uplift in staff will cover that.
Most BAE Submarines staff are design and theyve already submitted a planning request that increases office space by 200, this second application is doubling their fabrication facilities footprint.
There is probably an expectation of economies of scale, given those reactor numbers. Those economies plus technological improvements may mean reactor manufacturing gets a little closer to an assembly line/”mass production” model.
As you would hopeā¦.
Jim can you kindly point me in the direction of the article or source that mentions 15 SSN(R) for the RN.
It is a very odd number š¤
It would be lovely if 15 RN SSN happens but I think 12 is a more likely and, still very good, number.
12 modern subs allows 4 to be in constant use and a surge of 8-9.
Iād be more interested to see how they crews 12 SSN + 5 T32 + all the RFA crew issues that will abound with modern tanker, FSSS and Bays.
15 SSN ?
More than doubling the fleet from 7 Astutes, Yeah, I’ll believe that when I see it.
The labour force there is under utilised currently to retain skills apparently?
Would be really surprised at 15 UK SSN. Thatās more than double the present 7Astute SSN. A move to 8 as I expect, or even 10 at the outside would be stretching it. I doubt even RR doubling its reactor production (as planed) can stretch that far.
That is at least 20 PWR3 (Iām betting on 22). And the really important thing is that it all then starts again as I cannot see Australia building itās own reactors.
There are questions yet to be answered.
There has to be a decision made about either securing new long term supplies of HEU or developing LEU.
Decommissioning and long term disposal / storage of reactors / waste.
But here in Derby we are all pretty happy as they arenāt building on the cricket ground š. RR and DCC need to sort out the road access to the site.It hasnāt altered in the last 40 years and now due to the expansion itās bloody dangerous.
Morning mate, I can definitely see a minimum of 12 for the RN (4 X SSBN, 8x SSNR) and at least 5 for the RAN, which is pretty good as it stands.
Not sure if we are actually going to get many more than 10 new SSNs for the RN and that might be pushing it.
The RAN is going to rent/buy at least 3 US Virginia class SMs (likely to be BLK 4 variants), but the latest info remains somewhat unclear as to how long they will have them for. Latest thinking appears to be a requirement to last at least 20 years in RAN service, with 5 new builds from SSNR collaboration. There is a good article over on WZ about it, they seem to have some pretty solid info. Of course, it might yet all change, we might all get more units, but that won’t be known until the next decade I shouldn’t imagine.
I believe those Virginias will be replaced by SSNr, with 8 SSNr being bought.
2040s for the first SSNr to enter service in Australia. If 8 are bought itāll be the late 2050s by the time they are all built.
I think Virginias are an interim buy, of which only one will be new build.
Morning Louis,
That was the initial way I read things too, but, it appears that AUS are going to purchase at least 1 direct from the US builders, which adds an interesting dimension to the programme. Are they going to own/operate a 2 boat SSN force or will the contract have a buy back clause?
If you are going to splurge upwards of $2 billion on a asset, you aren’t just going to give it back if you can expect some 30 odd years use out of it. Especially if the time frame to get them in service is from mid 30s onwards!
Eventually those Virginias will have to be replaced by something if Australia want 8 SSN.
If only one is being bought new, assuming itāll have the longest life remaining, entry into service around 2032 would mean 30 years comes up around 2062.
I took the recent news to mean more that maybe the build rate on Aussie SSNR would be slowed.
The only option to replace Virginias would be more SSNR or the US SSNX, but given Australia would be building SSNR and already have it in service then itās surely the only option.
Having said that maybe this is an admission that 8 SSN wonāt be in service at the same time.
The whole article makes sense in part, but somewhat ‘ muddies the waters’ in others. Their aim is to have a fleet of 8 in service by 2050, with the first 3 being USA Virginia’s from about 2035 onwards.
Might just be the RAN building a bit of redundancy into the programme to allow for any unforeseen potential issues with getting SSNR into service. Which would make sense.
āAround 2032ā is the in service date for the first boat.
From what Iāve heard, the two transferred boats will be Block IV, without the VPM.
5 SSNR in service by 2050 is quite ambitious if the first is to enter service in the early 2040s. Virginias will probably be replaced earlier than expected to keep the production going.
They are buying two second hand Virginias with about 20 of their 35 years life remaining (exact boats to be decided) as well as one new build. They will keep the 3 and progressivley add AUKUS as they come off the assembly line achieving a peak 8 boat fleet in the early 2050’s and then during the following decade three more AUKUS will be acquired replacing retiring Virginias on a 1 for 1 basis until in mid 2060’s they have an 8 boat AUKUS fleet.
Agree that that is the logical path/conclusion,. Unfortunately the article just throws some timing issues up, probably unintended, as buying a new build from 2035 onwards would have it in service until approx 2060 unless they returned it sooner.
Either way, it can only be good news for UK PLC.
Or perhaps Canada could bide it’s time and bid for some ‘slightly used, one/two owner’ SSNs. By the 2040s, collective AUKUS production could become so amped that it becomes a buyer’s market, requiring incentivization of buyers w/ a toaster oven. š Willing to bet slimy ChiComs are worried re collective output in 2040s and beyond. š
…its…(autocorrect strikes again š)
Canada are certainly a bit of a conundrum where defence is concerned – perhaps having the US as a neighbour allows a certain amount of complacency?
Would agree that given their geographic location and long coastline, joining the Nuc SM club is surely the way ahead? It appears not to currently be the case, as the CAN MOD are looking at replacing their 4 Victoria class SSKs with up to 12 new ones!
Arguably they could probably do with a mix of both SSN/SSK types, failing that then SSNs, but seems not.
Believe your assessment is reasonably accurate. Perhaps a Canadian political perspective is available from a resident? Do you believe Canadians could at least contribute to their own defence w/ the purchase of 12 latest generation SSKs, or will they simply be prey for foreign SSNs? There appears to be a divided opinion re Lt kSSK performance in the the litoral region. Obviously, Canadian SSKs would have no/minimal effect in a SCS scenario, as the Aussies have already realized. š¤
Unfortunately we don’t seem to have a Canadian perspective, unlike many others both far and wide.
12 new build SSKs would certainly add much to Canadian defence capabilities, as they are highly effective assets, but, they are not really a ‘strike’ capability, and cannot compete with a SSN/GN in terms of range/speed/persistence.
It will be very interesting to see what the Canadians ultimately do, as they are probably close to having to decide on replacements now.
Given that we are expected to see a reduction in the ‘Arctic’ ice cap due to global warming over the next decade or so, their problems will continue to mount as they will have more coastline to monitor, as shipping traffic in the arctic will no doubt increase, not just the merchant variety either.
š
Blk 4 Virginia is being discontinued.
Unlikely Aus will buy a Blk 5 Virginia.
Seems plausible, or perhaps plausibly deniable. š
“…but, it appears that AUS are going to purchase at least 1 direct from the US builders…”
Is not Blk 4 Virginia build just been discontinued.
I just cannot see a new build Blk 5 happening, for Aus!
It just does Not makes sense!
More likely a late Astute to be built, but even that will require a whole new logistic and training tail for just one sub!
I think they ment 2nd hand Blk 3/4 Virginia’s.
My expectation is the two second hand Australia will get will be from among the last couple of Batch 4 as their remaining service life will line up with the Australian dates. The new build will likely be tacking on an order for one more Block 4/Block 5 minus the payload module (I dont believe there is any significant technological difference internally between Block 4 & 5 apart from the addition of flank arrays but these may well be retrofitted to earlier boats anyway). Theres more internal difference between block 3 & 4 mainly centred around construction cost and maintenance cost reductions and an expectation they will spend 7% less time undergoing port maintenance and only have 3 drydock overhauls during their lifetime rather than 4.
That’s what the article states, it also muddies the waters a bit when it states that AUS will have 8 SSNs by 2050 which includes the 3 US SMs!!!!
So not exactly certain which way it’s going, but as per post with @WZ, the logical outcome would be to have 8 SSNR class by 2050, with the 3 Virginia’s being returned as the AUSUK SMs get delivered.
Think it might be a tight schedule anyway, as I can see the UK taking the first 2-3 SMs, so much will depend on how fast RR can manufacture the RC modules as they won’t be built in AUS.
I read it as 5 SSN(R) + 3 Virginiaās = 8 SSN by 2050. Then the Virginiaās start getting replaced by additional SSN(R). I am assuming 3 year drumbeat for Australia. Now does that mean 8 in commission & ready for service at all times or 7 + one coming online? If the former, then you are talking 9 submarines in service (for a short while) before reducing to 8. It only takes a couple of years either way to make this add up.
Even the offer of 2 additional Virginiaās is only if SSN(R) does not appear on schedule. All this assumes 30 year lifespan of SSN(R). I gather the reactor is actually 32 years at normal usage (but please define ānormalā). You donāt operate these things right to the limit, because the even a slight bump can use up 2 years in replacement time & they arenāt designed with refueling in mind (you can, but unlike those designed with the expectation of refueling, it is going to be expensive.
Irs a good a read on the outcome as any other, personally believe that they will build up to the 8, then we shall see if they maintain the numbers at 8 as that would mean another 3 SSNR, as you have posted. After that it’s anyones guess, but believe they will continue to operate manned SMs just like we will.
I know some ex RN Submariners who have taken the leap and joined RAN to serve on the Collins class. They stayed out there, so must like it. I think some sort of ‘treaty’ will be in place to stop the wholesale exodus of qualified RN personnel into the RAN, although imagine that we will continue to assist them for a very long time.
Yes, this is my view too.
Where 15 SSNR for the RN is coming from I’m not sure, but even if reported in good faith, I cannot see such expansion.
Morning Danielle,
Yes, seems a tad optimistic to me, particularly as it would mean increasing RN Submariner numbers by approx 40% over its current force to accommodate the new SMs. You would be looking at somewhere in the region of 1200-1400 Submariners across the board to furnish the extra SMs,.
It’s not something you get from the local job centre, nor indeed can we just open a new box of them. It would be something we would have to start recruiting and growing in the next year or so to get the right levels of experience for use in the next decade or so. Not really something I can see happening…..
Youāll obviously know more about this than me, but reductions in crew sizes could change that.
Trafalgar to Astute saw crew size change from 130 to 98. Vanguard to Dreadnought only sees a crew size difference of 5 however, so maybe that reflects the fact that a vessel needs a minimum number, and the RN is getting very close to that number.
Differing levels of automation, US boats have minimal automation and require large crews, UK boats have some automation reducing crews (for example UK boats while having two helm stations could be fully steered by single man whereas US boats required at least two helmsman to steer with one station controlling pitch and the other controlling yaw with a central co station that could be manned in combat giving access to assist both stations) whereas the Soviet boats were highly automated with not even a single human stationed in the Torpedo room but it also meant they could do very minimal underway repairs and had to return to port to fix anything that broke as well as having low availability for deployment (literally one deployment every two or three years with some troublesome boats only seeing one or two deployments during their entire life!).
That reduction in crew size isn’t strictly correct mate.
Both Trafalgar and Astute class actually had/have a complement of around 120ish. They only take around 95-100 of those to sea at any given time, and rotate the rest around depending on the deployment. Most of the excess crew are engineering types (ME and WE) with a smattering of Logies and Warfare types. It’s called a ‘5th Watch system’ and is used to support maintenance requirements etc.
SSBNs operate in a similar fashion, despite 3 boats having 2 crews, and being slightly larger. A reduction of 5 in the overall crew number is negligible in turns of what they do, but a saving nevertheless.
š thanks for setting me straight there.
Iāve asked for a source but I could make a guess. Letās see if the source emerges.
15 is a very odd number. 10 would allow regular FE deployment, 8 would be better than 7.
Deep,
Your assessment of RAN purchase is apparently correct, per Australian ministers. Acquisition of a minimum of three, potentially as many as five, AUKUS SSN class, depending upon rollout schedule. Aussies intend to retain Virginia class boats.
It still reads a bit odd to me! However, as time progresses, perhaps the ‘muddy waters’ will become more transparent!
According to the article, Surf-West is due to become operational by 2027, with upto 4 Virginia’s and an Astute based there. Looks increasingly likely that the UK boat will be a permanent position with family also out there-thats new! Will be a much sort after posting if true.
Interesting thought: wonder whether the US boats assigned to Surf-West, will gradually, relatively seamlessly, transition to RAN control?
Now that is an interesting theory. Would make much sense also. š
RAN has to get crew for a change from 6 to 8 submarines from somewhere. Bring your family. Sign here. Schools, universities all available (military career- optional extra). Sign here. BTW, Australian pay scales in the military explain why most RAN ships have multiple ex RN crew. This could have unintended consequences.
Umm…according to a recent Guardian (Australian edition) article, senior Australian ministers have clarified the government’s commitment to purchase at least three, and potentially five, boats of the AUKUS SSN class. The Australians intend to retain the Virginia class SSNs acquired during the 2030s. Presumably, you are correct in that this purchase of AUKUS SSNs would presage continuing orders for the following class, but the official response was that that decision would be left to a future government. Still a solid double, to use a baseball analogy, but not quite a home run. Sorry to be the bearer of good, but not necessarily great, news.
There are multiple problems with this article and its plausibility. Firstly Australian politics are just full of contradictions and describing Australian ministers is just not to be trusted.
Australia has an element within all the major parties who dislike U.K. and are signed up to anything with the stars and stripes on it.
Over the last few days the US congress has overruled the stated plans for new builds and added extra orders, cancelled vessels being decommissioned etc etc.
They increased the requested order of 1 Virginia to 2 to try to increase the numbers being built to a 2 pa drum beat. That is on top of the orders for the new SSBN which will suck the life of the 2 sub builders and the supply chain.
The peace dividend did huge long term damage to US capacity to build enough subs to replace the Los Angeles and Ohio boats on a 1 for 1 basis. At present it is struggling to meet even the present targets never mind Congresses new ones.
Quite simply the US cannot afford to supply 5 new SSN to Australia and ever hope to meet their mandated force levels.
If I was to describe the article it would be somewhere between someone trying to coax a definitive answer out of Australia or something that comes out of the back end of a Male Cow,
Iād take it with a massive pinch of salt and say it will be 3.
Agree, supplying Virginia class SSNs to OZ is going to be a sporting proposition.
Presumably, whatever the number ultimately is, the Virginias would be the first boats replaced by a putative successor class. Therefore, purchase delayed, not abandoned. Predict timeline and plan changes multiple times over the next thirty years. š¤š³š
…purchase/production…
By 2050 there should be 5 SSN(R) & 3 Virginiaās. By 2060 there should be 8 SSN(R) (3 year drumbeat).I donāt think anyone has thought about post 2060.
Excellent. Let’s hope Aukus continues to provide a qualitative edge over the opposition and the RN genuinely does get 12 SSNs. The powerplant needs to come in on budget , no delays and ideally be PWR3 same as Dreadnought class SSBNs.
24 reactors is a decent undertaking. 4 for SSBNs, 12 RN Aukus, 8 RAN Aukus. Who knows maybe Canada will come online and order Aukus as well. They will need a replacement for their Victoria class subs ex upholder class in the same timeframe.
Maybe the same reactors could also be ramped up for SMR, which UK needs to transition into a low carbon, independent energy security economy.
Canada really canāt wait until the 2040s for their submarines. Their Victoria class are in worse shape than the Collins class.
Wonder whether the Canadians, at least under the auspices of the current government, would not opt to conduct a competition to select the best currently available option for SSKs? š¤
Good news for all concerned. AUKUS plus is going to be the Theatre to watch.ļ»æšļ»æ
PWR 3 reactors; 4 ordered for Dreadnoughts, 8? for RN SSN(R) and 8 for RAN SSN (Aukus)? However read the other day (when RAd Read was under scrutiny by an Australian Parliment committee) that assuming RAN purchase 3 Virginias from USN inventory that they may only build 5 SSN(Aukus) at Osborne.
Furthermore, would suggest that we should be encouraging Canada to join AUKUS as a five eyes nation. They have had even more difficulty in keeping their Upholders operational than the RAN with the Collins Class. Both have suffered severe manpower shortages. I read that the Dreadnought class will be the first RN subs to be designed with female accommodation.
Babcock has signed with the two South Korean submarine manufacturers and is intending to bid their battery-electric design for the Canadian requirement.
That article certainly casts some uncertainty into the whole programme wrt eventual fleet make up?
The Australians plan to complete 5 by early 2050’s when they reach peak fleet strength of 8 and thats whats in their 30 year 2023-2053 budget but they also intend to keep the yard building them and ultimately complete 6,7,8 during the following ten years (outside the budget period) replacing the three Virginias on a one for one basis.
Thank you Watcherzero. I wasn’t aware of the info you have provided in both postings. I’m behind the curve!
I am aware that a good many years ago Canada considered a purchase of nuclear submarines to retain control of their artic waters.
My inference was that with the AUKUS Treaty, perhaps they should be stepping up to the plate and joining AUKUS with a nuclear submarine capability of their own. The Canadian military have an auspicious and illustrious history in all of their efforts in both World wars. After the RN, and USN, the RCN had the most able of ASW capabilities in the Atlantic. it was only with their efforts that we were able to turn the tide of the Battle of the Atlantic in May 1943.
With the CSC they are in the process of developing their version of the T26 with a full Area Defence AAW capability.
Allegedly the US has in the past leaned on Canada not to purchase nuclear submarines as they dont want to share the same underwater submarine routes on the approaches to North America that they use for deep high speed runs shaking any possible pursuit when leaving port. Essentially they worry if Canada acquires them the local waters will become congested and risk collisions.
Understood
Surely, if the Allies can deconflict the delivery of nukes, they could do the same for an occasional transit of an SSN?!? š¤
Mmm you would think so but it is actually a real issue in 2009 HMS Vanguard and the French Triomphant had a major deep sea collision.
Not certain the extent to which MN & RN coordinate/deconflict CASD patrols. Hopefully, they have since chosen at least slightly different patrol areas.
The first 2 Virginiaās are expected to have something like 20 year lifespan left when acquired. So if they arrive 2032 they start going by 2052. RAN will still be building SSN(R) by 2052 based on a 3 year drumbeat. RAN is hoping for 5 SSN(R) by 2050 (plus 3 Virginiaās). Will Virginia number 3 be new (30 years) or 2nd hand (20 years)? A few changes in government in all 3 countries by then. ASC could even be building SSN(R) for RN by 2060. Most of those commenting now wonāt be around to find out!
What about terrestrial SMR business development? Any joy?
Thats based in Manchester and is in semi-stasis until the Government or a foreign one gives some contracts.
Thanks WZ – I had the impression RR were planning manufacture of SMR elements/units along the A1 corridor. A significant plant was announced approx 1 yr ago near Richmond in Rishi’s constituency.
The RR SMRs are progressing through the regulatory certification process currently. Stage 2 of 3.
Are there going to be 8 RAN UK designed SSN(R)/AUKUS boats? Interesting report from a week ago of Austrailian Senate Estimates hearings:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/australia-to-get-one-new-build-virginia-class-submarine-two-from-u-s-navy
“When specifically pressed by Senator Shoebridge as to whether he meant eight locally built next-generation AUKUS class nuclear submarines, the Vice Admiral responded, “No, eight nuclear-powered submarines. That includes three of the Virginias.”
So only 5 boats from BAES with RR works?
(Had to search to find a relevant article for this comment.) Highly recommend reading an article in the June 20, 2023 edition of the Japan Times re AUKUS. A critique of at least one of the impediments to successful implementation–ITAR. Among other points article stated one AUKUS participant currently devotes ONE PERCENT of defense budget to simply complying w/ provisions of ITAR! Unfreakin’ believable! As Pogo (character in American comic strip) once famously stated, “We have met the enemy, and they is us (or in this case US).” š¤š³šš±ā¹ļø