The Government has insisted it remains realistic and strategically necessary for the Royal Navy to deploy an Astute-class submarine to Australia under the AUKUS partnership, despite concerns over the size and availability of the UK’s attack submarine fleet.
The issue was raised during a Defence Select Committee session by Labour MP Emma Lewell-Buck, who warned that recent periods without a single UK nuclear-powered attack submarine at sea risked undermining security in the Euro-Atlantic at a time of heightened Russian activity and growing pressure from the United States for Europe to shoulder more of the burden.
Lewell-Buck questioned whether committing to a rotational deployment from Western Australia made sense given the strain on the fleet, noting that the Royal Navy operates six Astute-class submarines, with one publicly known to be out of action. She argued that sending one to Australia would leave the UK increasingly exposed in critical areas such as the GIUK gap.
Luke Pollard, Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, acknowledged the concern but defended the plan, confirming that the first UK rotation is scheduled for 2026 and remains a core planning assumption. He declined to comment directly on submarine availability but stressed that the deployment was central to the success of AUKUS. Pollard told the committee that the rotation was designed to help Australia develop the practical skills needed to dock, maintain and operate nuclear-powered submarines, including those based on UK design principles.
“There will be rotations between a UK Astute boat and the Virginia-class American submarine operating out of Western Australia,” he said. “That will build the knowledge that the Australians will need to operate those boats, and in particular for a UK context, understand how they would operate a UK-designed and operated boat.”
Pollard added that the deployment would also generate training benefits for the Royal Navy that could be brought back to the Euro-Atlantic theatre. Pressed again on whether the UK could afford to spare a submarine given current threats, Pollard was unequivocal.
“Yes, it is realistic,” he said. “It is in the planning assumption for the Royal Navy that we will participate in the rotational forces. It is key to the delivery of the AUKUS programme, and we are maintaining our ability to deliver the tasks asked of our submarine fleet.”
The exchange then turned to the Government’s longer-term ambition to expand the attack submarine force to up to 12 boats under the Strategic Defence Review. Lewell-Buck cited evidence from former Cabinet Secretary Sir Simon Case, who had expressed doubts about the feasibility of the timeline. Pollard accepted that the ambition was conditional and dependent on major industrial improvements, particularly at BAE Systems’ Barrow-in-Furness shipyard.
“To deliver those 12, a number of things have to be true,” he said. “We need a new submarine emerging every 18 months. That depends on skills, housing, education and transport in Barrow. That is what Team Barrow is designed to address.”
He also highlighted the importance of sustaining the existing fleet through investment in Devonport, described as a “Team Plymouth” approach, and pointed to the £9 billion Unity contract with Rolls-Royce to underpin reactor production. While acknowledging the scale of the challenge, Pollard argued that demand for hunter-killer submarines was only increasing and justified the Government’s focus on expanding output across the entire supply chain.
Will we tow one over there then? Cause it aint sailing.
The UK Government never ceases to amaze me. Its open source information that our Sub fleet is not exactly in a great position, but sending one to the other side of the world to meet the needs of the AUKUS partnership !!!!!!!!!!!!
Well losing the AUKUS submarine deal if they didn’t just might be an influence.
It would, but as always, when does military need trump politics?
Never it seems.
The deal strategically makes sense and politically, but at what cost. I’m sure the defence chiefs and intelligence agencies will have voiced their concerns but none of that will matter as it makes the Government look good as they are doing something. Removing a tactical and strategic asset, when things are very uncertain is not a good move IMHO. Something similar happened to the Tornado Force when they went through the Mid Life Update (MLU) to GR4 standard. Removing assets from Frontline aircraft so an aircraft can go to Warton as per the agreement. And in one instance a piece of equipment was removed from an aircraft in an operational theatre!!! MOD has never really got procurement and never will, but MOD are happy to leave the troops in the lurch or the country with out a strategic asset. Defence on the cheap!!!
Fully support AUKUS, but surely we should have at least 2 deployable SSNs, and probably better 3, before even thinking of sending one to the other side of the world. This is absolutely nuts given the current crewing and availability crisis. Meanwhile Gnerals and chiefs all warning about the Russian submarine threat and predicting 2027 for imminent war with Russia, whose main front against UK would be high north. Unbelievable.
It would be called back in such a scenario.
Ok, but in terms of deterrence a continuous SSN presence in the HN is credible and would greatly change Russia’s deployment calculus. Having a 6 week lag time for the astute to even get on station is a pretty major gap. I understand that there might be earlier signs etc, but the point remains, our only SSN is on the other side of the world not deterring HN shenanigans
Russia has islands in the Pacific. In a war with Russia would a submarine based in Australia not be beneficial? It could reach them much sooner than 6 weeks and strike them forcing them to divert attention from the UK.
Going to assume you’re trolling as this is an absurd point.
It’s hardly a short trip
At the same time as service chiefs are telling us that war with Russia is imminent. The disconnect between reality and the rhetoric of the decision makers knows no limit!
The problem is that this is an important part of what the UK actually signed up to under AUKUS and one of the first major deliverables under the pact’s first pillar.
Thanks Greg for putting matters into perspective. If AUKUS fails at the first hurdle we are in deep excrement so this is probably the best bad decision. Not sure what choice they had, so get the other five as operable as possible I would say.
Which one is broken? So broken of no use rather than just waiting for docking
Astute with it seems Reactor problems earlier this year, not sure if there has been any updates since. Audacious was having problems too.
Astute in for MLU, Audacious needed repairs to hull, Ambush and Artful stripped for parts, only one coming back soon
I await someone like Deep32 to comment on the practicalities as to what this might do to the Submarine Service.
The issue isn’t so much about current crewing levels, but more about SSN availability. We currently have 1 SSN (Anson) that is deplorable and is likely to be the only one available until early 2027.
Audacious is currently.y in dock and currently won’t be out until sometime in summer 2026. She will need to go through a long package of trials, noise ranging, weapons firing and a full safety/operational workspace before resuming operational tasking. 1st quarter 2027 probably.
Agamemnon should be .having Barrow around Easter next year. She will have an even longer period of testing and trials etc before joining the fleet for ops. Again probably 1st quarter 2027.
Astute, Ambush and Artful are either in dock for a refit or require an extensive period in dock, so forget about them until 2028 at the earliest, then only one, poss a second towards the end of that year.
Achillies realistically won’t be available until 2029.
The original SUF-West rotation had the UK providing an Astute boat from sometime in 2027 onwards for a period of several years I believe.
Can we supply one, probably, will it impact on UK operational capability, most definitely. Still, I expect someone in MOD has a plan…..
Just my thoughts on the issue.
Predictive txt is s**t, should say deployable, should be leaving Barrow.
Still, teach me to proof read before posting….
2027 for a 2nd boat! Not surprising judging by available docks and state of the subs but still, throws all this waffle about meeting operational taskings out the window
Reminds me of when we had the trouser leg problem in 2000, evryone stuck on the wall till a fix could be sorted.
Yes indeed, but back then we had between 9- 12 SSNs in service depending on what year we’re looking at, then it was only the S boats that were affected. But yes, that was bad enough.
It isn’t a question of “Is it necessary for the UK to show the world it respects its allies and partnerships, and will meet commitments across the globe” – this projects power, influence and an image of reliability. No-one wants to partner with a nation that shuts up shop and hangs a “Bugger off” sign on the door.
But there’s a difference between meeting commitments we can fulfil, and making promises that we can’t realistically keep.
Every day now I’m shaking my head at the state of the UK. Look at what we were, and what we are now. Bad leadership. Bad management. All by people who should never have been in the position to do either.
Honestly glad that Australia ans the US are forcing the government to do things for the hunter killer fleet. It should never have gone to 6 boats in the first place. If we can deal with having no astutes available then we can manage with one online being at least used operationally in Australia. Not to mention the obvious benefits of the experiences in different operational environments.
So leave the UK totally defenceless underwater then.
The problem is we need 4 operational, so 10-12 in total. One riding shotgun on the Vanguard CASD, one in Eastlant, one oit-of-area, which also supports the carrier strike group deployment and now one in Western Australia.
We only have one operational and five alongside with various ailments. So there is currently nothing to send to Western Australia and won’t be for at least 3 years and even then it will be at the expense of other more important roles for the UK.
For £1.6bn a boat, the Astute has been pretty disastrous from the outset, with a heap of construction quality issues and now maintenance facilities ones.
The best answer right now would be to order a couple of SSKs off the shelf. They are increasingly capable of deep sea deployment, with lithium ion batteries extending range and reducing acoustic signature and cost under half of an Astute. Just about every other capable navy uses SSKs, we have got ourselves locked into this ‘world class’ aspiration without the deep pockets needed to pay the bill.
A capable SSK would be fine for Eastlant pro tem and could also do out-of-area/CSG adequately enough. That to me is an essential purchase, because we basically have no submarine service.at all as things stand. It will be years before we have 7 operational Astutes, therefore 3 at most at sea, so we need to plug the gap ASAP.