Rolls-Royce has signed a collaborative agreement with the Ministry of Defence to strengthen ways of working across key Royal Navy programmes.

The firm say that the Memorandum of Understanding describes a commitment of both parties to work together to deliver on-going support for Rolls-Royce MT30 and WR-21 engines and an understanding of how that will be done.

Alex Zino, Director Business Development and Future Programmes at Rolls-Royce Defence said:

“The signature of this collaborative agreement has been as a result of a close working relationship between Rolls-Royce and the UK MOD. Adopting a more streamlined approach to our ways of working, will not only deliver significant strategic benefits, but also demonstrates our commitment to providing the best equipment and support for our armed forces customer.”

The agreement will improve on-going support for the Rolls-Royce MT30 engines that power the Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth Class (QEC) Aircraft Carriers. It also covers support of the WR-21 engines that power the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers.

According to Rolls-Royce:

“The MT30 marine gas turbine has been specifically designed for 21st century ships. This is important for the QEC programme with a 50-year service life expectancy; a guarantee that the engine will be able to deliver the power demands of tomorrow, as operational requirements increase requiring new equipment and upgrades to weapon and radar systems.”

4.5 6 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
George Royce

We should also be employing RR to build our nuclear power stations instead of the CCP!


I never understood why we went with China, it was wrong on so many levels.
If its a matter of money why can’t the government just borrow it like everyone else and invest it in UK companies rather than foreign that are not even democratic.

George Royce

Theresa May, that’s why.


Yes. She like creepy, old Joe Biden must bow to their Chicom master.

George Royce

None of your yank politics here please. We don’t want cancer thanks.


That’s not been the British way for many years, more’s the pity. Irrespective of party, as far as I can tell too…


Actually we shouldn’t, we should take a controlling stake in moltex energy and build 50-100 non pressurised reactors that can also use our nuclear waste as fuel. British company that is class leading, perhaps even work with the gates foundation and pool the best of both. the uk needs to get on the salt matrox nuclear power bandwagon now, it’s cheaper and safer than the current ones we are building and much more scaleable. at The moment Canada and the USA are very interested in this company and its technology, just not the uk. I believe we need a sovereign… Read more »


Yes, I agree we need a Sovereign Wealth fund and invest in critical UK strategic capabilities and resources.

Peter S.

I think we lost our chance to build a sovereign wealth fund during the oil boom. Norway squirrelled away some £500b while we used oil revenues and privatisation receipts to pay benefits etc. We have been borrowing every year for nearly 20 years and covid has just made our situation worse. As long as we have politicians wedded to foreign aid, free school meals when there’s no school and handouts to everyone who washes ashore, we will never get such a sensible policy.


Unfortunately I tend to agree with you on this Peter S. However, the positive side of me says we must try. A small start maybe then bigger things as we go along. I would also argue for an wider organization that is responsible for protecting and nurturing UK strategic assets and capabilities. There is so much that we could capitalize on, but only if we drastically change attitudes and past behaviours in these matters. Also Rolls-Royce. Is a fantastic company. It must be nurtured and protected from international take-overs. I also suspect that we can not always rely on the… Read more »

Peter S.

I absolutely agree with the aim of rebuilding sovereign capabilities. One reason that defence expenditure in France has enjoyed consistent political support is that so much goes to sustain French jobs. When you see UK trades unions lobbying for warships, you know the same would work here. I also worry that we are too close to USA and too reliant on US equipment. Trident doesn’t matter because we will only use it once. But how certain could we be of the supply of spare parts( eg for F35) in an operation the US government disapproved of? Sovereign capability thus has… Read more »


Good that at least we are in agreement Peter S and can see the logic. Unfortunately the UK is historically seriously naive in these matters and the end result is the guts of our industries and resources have been pecked out. Also the USA has a nasty habit of hoovering up our tech in the early stages. Smells like that sort of thing with our directed energy stuff at the moment. We’ve frittered away (post-war) our close blood relationships with CAN/AUS/NZ for the glitter of the USA and EU “project.” Packman 27 has a good point about Moltext – although… Read more »

Meirion X

I agree Albert, that decommissioning costs are a big negative for Nuclear fission. I will look in to it, thanks for the info.

George Royce

I agree with everything you said except the moltex energy, as I’m unaware of this technology. I will have to do a little research before I comment about it.


It was Packman 27 that gave the heads up about the Moltex tech – thanks for that.

Absolutely everybody do your own research, but I still think RR should be encouraged and supported to help deliver the UK’s nuclear energy if that is part of the solution we go for. I myself have put my money where my mouth is and have purchased some more RR shares in the recent Rights Issue.


Firtly I’m against nuclear energy. But letting PRC do it is like giving the Nazis major state projects in the mid/late 1930s.