The Royal Navy has bid farewell to the last of its iconic Trafalgar-class submarines, HMS Triumph, which has returned to Devonport Naval Base for the final time before decommissioning.
HMS Triumph, the seventh and final boat of her class, embarked on her final journey from Clyde Naval Base in Scotland.
Reflecting on her legacy, Commander Aaron Williams, HMS Triumph’s Commanding Officer, said:
“As HMS Triumph prepares to decommission, we reflect on her legacy with immense pride. This submarine has served not just as a vessel, but as a symbol of commitment, courage and camaraderie. Although HMS Triumph has carried out her missions with quiet strength and dedication, behind every mission, deployment, and triumph has been the sacrifice and steadfast support of the families who stood behind us.”
HMS Triumph was laid down at Barrow shipyard in 1987 and commissioned in 1991, the last of her class to be constructed. During her career, she demonstrated the remarkable endurance and capability of the Trafalgar-class submarines. In 1993, she completed a record-breaking deployment to Australia, travelling 41,000 miles submerged without support—the longest solo deployment by a Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarine at the time.
Her operational history includes firing Tomahawk missiles during the Afghanistan conflict in 2001 and participating in international efforts in Libya, targeting military positions to protect civilians. On both occasions, she flew the Jolly Roger upon her return—a tradition symbolising successful combat missions within the Submarine Service.
Rear Admiral Andy Perks, Royal Navy Director Submarine, highlighted the significance of her retirement:
“Having spent many years serving in Trafalgar-class SSNs, it is with both pride and sadness that I see these excellent submarines reach the end of their career. These vessels have helped keep our country safe for over 30 years. As this era ends though, we can be assured that our Submarine Service remains well served by the Astute-class SSN.”
The Trafalgar-class submarines, initially commissioned during the Cold War, played a vital role in maintaining the United Kingdom’s maritime security for over three decades. Triumph follows her sister vessels—HMS Talent, Trenchant, Torbay, Tireless, Turbulent, and Trafalgar—into retirement as the baton is passed to the Astute-class attack submarines.
The Astute-class represents the largest, most advanced, and most powerful attack submarines ever operated by the Royal Navy. Currently, HMS Astute, Ambush, Artful, Audacious, and Anson are in service, with two more under construction at BAE Systems in Barrow-in-Furness.
Triumph’s formal decommissioning ceremony, scheduled for early 2025, will symbolise the completion of this transition.
What about a nice graph showing the RN hulls retired against the number added. Guess it would be too embarrassing.
When HMS Triumph is decommissioned, we will have 6 commissioned SSNs. Rule of 3 would mean that 2 could be at sea at any given time. Not many, given that there are ‘Seven Seas’.
Although apparently 7 is all we need, even though the last time tensions were this high we had 32 ( 1990) the 97 review said we needed 12 for a peaceful unipolar world in which the west had won….now with a potential war in the pacific within the decade and Russia pushing…well I bet they wish they had closer to 32 than 12….whoops I mean 7.
The sad truth is that during the hight of the Cold War we would have 32-35 attack subs ( mix nuclear and electric)..with 21 SSNs in 1990. Even after the massive stupidity of the end of history and last man culled it down to 12 in 1997, the defence review at that time said we needed 12 for a peaceful happy world…well due to massive miss management in the 1990s to 2011 we have 6 at point in history even our deny everything politicians call a pre war age…
What should have happened without the idiots in charge is that we should have had that baseline of 12 build from 1993 with extra builds from 2014 as a reaction to the decreasing security situation..so moving to a fleet of 15 for 2025.
We never managed 21 SSN’s – 5 X V & C’s, 6 X S class and 7 X T Class. In 1990 We has 7T, 5S and 4 V & C (Warspite had just paid off) Dreadnought had already gone. Of those in commission I would bet at least 2 were in refit Splendid being one as I placed her in Refit at the end of 1988.
Realistically, virtually any gradual increase from this nadir of capability, w/ the eventual introduction of the SSN-A class, should be considered at least a moral victory. Various increased target numbers have been floated, but it will require a Hurculean effort to achieve, especially w/ the funding limitations of expenditure of ~2.5% of GDP for defence, for the foreseeable future. Very few Western politicians appear to be willing to advocate for additional defence spending, at least until a crisis engulfs them personally
Looks like European NATO will be moving to 2.5% in the next round. Assuming Elon doesn’t close the pentagon that’s a massive boost in defence spending given the combined economy of Europe and North America.
Yes, but 8 of those were old Oberon class, and 4 Upholder class that entered service for about 5 minutes. And earlier generation nuclear SSN’s, plus the Polaris nuclear deterrent. I don’t think the RN would swap Astutes and Vanguard class for any number of the above. The Russian fleet is also vastly smaller compared to the early 1990s.
Yes but the Soviets had 400, not really the same threat environment today.
I think we will only have 5 for the best part of a year. Although Agamemnon was launched a couple of months ago it isn’t due to be commissioned until end of 2025.
a joke an embarrassment and a clear reminder of how far the nation has fallen in just about everything you can think of
Don’t want to be whinged but it still baffles me how in the past there was more than one somewhat heated debate whereby some argued it was the job of the attack submarines to take out enemy surface ships so escorts didn’t really need anti ship missiles. What with only 2 or best 3 operational at one time (geez none for a recent period) I really don’t comprehend such arguments. We would indeed need at least a dozen to give even the remotest credibility to that argument.
If you list today’s capabilities. Then it’s far from embarrassing.
That’ll do Triumph.
Just refit her and keep her going. I think the last 2 Trafalgar class could potentially serve as a useful second line subs for deploying specials forces and as smaller than astute class close inshore work
Her pressure hull and reactor are at the end of their lives. You can’t just simply refit them. And no such thing as 2nd line SSN’s.
Well. I’d suggest having them thoroughly inspected and if viable then refit them and keep them going. They can run on the surface for a decent period of time and submerge when necessary to put less strain on their hulls. Keep them going for as long as possible. The RN needs 2 more SSNs now so it seems absolute madness to be retiring 2 subs that can still serve the country until 2028 when 7th and final astute enters service.
a thank you for all the Trafalgar boats which did their jobs for so long as the envy of most of the worlds navy’s
Can the HMS Triumph be kept in service for another year or two?
I would not be decommissioning any SSN’s until 2028. 2027 is the high risk year for China invading Taiwan and even sitting at the dock she can serve’s a purpose.
Agree. That’s what I’ve been saying for sometime now. Retain the last two Trafalgar class, they are still superior submarines to 98% of our enemies submarines. Much quieter and better sensors than any Chinese SSN and probably superior to all but the very latest Russian subs. Which can then be dealt with by Astute or Virginia/ Sea Wolf class ships.
When comparing current fleet size to that of the cold war it makes sense to do the same for the Russians. The problem is that the Russians don’t seem to have grasped the concept of decommissioning. I suspect that the bulk of the ships / submarines built prior to 2000 haven’t been to sea in 20 years and / or their crew have retired or gone to fight in Ukraine.
Would I be correct in assuming that the reality for the Russians is far worse that for NATO.
The real Russian navy, that can actually go to sea is smaller than the RN and largely a costal defence force. The Russians just lost a sea battle to a country with no navy and almost no airforce. The UK has built more SSN’s since the end of the cold war than Russia much less what the USN has done.
Well the crew of the eternally crippled aircraft carrier have been sent to Ukraine it seems, I assume as ‘highly trained Marines’ or cannon fodder by any other label.
When comparing current fleet size to that of the cold war it makes sense to do the same for the Russians. The problem is that the Russians don’t seem to have grasped the concept of decommissioning. I suspect that the bulk of the ships / submarines built prior to 2000 haven’t been to sea in 20 years and / or their crew have retired or gone to fight in Ukraine.
Would I be correct in assuming that the reality for the Russians is far worse that for NATO.
last unit of the old Royal Navy……
She’s getting on but sad to see her go ,specially now when she’s well needed 😥
well done.
I wonder why they didn’t think to donate it to philippine government to help them boost their sea trainings?
As it’s taking years to train the Australian navy to be ready to handle a nuclear sub I really don’t see that as feasible I’m afraid. Could you imagine the reaction from China mind that would be a sight to behold ☮️💨😱🤯