The Ministry of Defence (MOD) announced that it plans to spend £12.5 million for the procurement of four additional Fresh Water Cooling Heat Exchanger (HEATEX) units to be installed on British submarines as part of a focus on enhancing the operational readiness and safety of its nuclear-powered fleet.
This latest purchase follows the MOD’s ongoing efforts to maintain and upgrade critical systems within its submarines, ensuring they meet the highest standards of performance.
The contract, which was awarded to Naval Group Limited, the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of these bespoke units, is set to supply four HEATEX units designed specifically for use in the UK’s nuclear-powered submarines.
These units play an essential role in providing cooling to both the reactor compartment and auxiliary systems aboard the submarines, ensuring their safety and operational efficiency.
“Naval Group is the only entity with the necessary technical drawings, specialist tooling, knowledge, and experience to supply these replacement units,” the MOD stated in a Voluntary Ex-Ante Transparency (VEAT) notice published on 3 January 2025. “These units will be manufactured to an improved specification, reinforcing the MOD’s commitment to maintaining the highest standards of safety and operational readiness.”
This contract follows a similar one awarded in March 2024 for two Fresh Water Cooling Heat Exchangers for ASTUTE-class submarines, with the MOD continuing its investment in submarine safety systems. HEATEX units are vital to the nuclear safety function of the submarines, with their ability to provide essential cooling to critical systems.
The direct award to Naval Group is justified under the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 due to the firm’s unique ability to produce these specialized units, which are essential for the safe operation of the UK’s nuclear-powered submarines. The MOD has also outlined that the contract does not require prior publication of a contract notice, in line with relevant regulations specific to defence contracts.
Subcontracting opportunities are expected, though specific details were not provided in the notice. This ongoing procurement demonstrates the MOD’s dedication to enhancing the capabilities of the Royal Navy’s submarine fleet, ensuring it remains at the forefront of national security.
“ These units will be manufactured to an improved specification, reinforcing the MOD’s commitment to maintaining the highest standards of safety and operational readiness”
A strong hint as to what broke on the Astutes I feel!
Will have to see if any more than Astute and Anson get back to sea
This is more than essential in the current threat environment.
STOROB should be banned. We used to do it but never on the scale that it is done now. ‘Circulating’ good parts invites damage and means the fleet depth is IRL reduced.
So the answer is to keep a STOROB notification log and each STOROB is viewed as a failure that needs to be fixed with the utmost urgency.
By its very nature it’s inefficient..remove none working unit from vessel being stolen from, remove working unit from active vessel, replace second hand working unit, then when vessel stolen from becomes active remove working replacement from in active unit working unit replaced back into now active vessel it was stolen from .potentially 5 sets of engineering evolutions each with risks and costs when actually only 2 were needed.
Not to mention the risk of old parts from different ships, with reduced life and potential increased risk of breakdown..I would never stick an old part in my lovely boat.
Old saying is “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” same applies to swapping mechanical parts, it’s an added risk factor. The thing about submarines is access is limited, tolerances are always tight and unless it’s absolutely necessary should be avoided like the plague.
Plus you end up with the Daring problem of one unit that is so stripped that pulling it back together is more than a challenge.
As you say access is a nightmare and parts get damaged with repeated ‘circulation’ between hulls…
Pity Reaction Engines went bust: could have possibly used their technology.
If the technology is deemed reliable (tests show it actually works) then I’m sure it will get a second life through others, be it here or more likely in other applications such as large scale battery installations, the power generation industry, super cooling (I do wonder even in Quantum applications) and of course in it’s aviation heritage. But obviously something working and reliably working over very long periods without excessive downtime/maintenance overheads, aren’t necessarily one and the same,* so is the real test, many a technology has failed the latter test while passing with colours the former. It’s a matter of how much effort, time and money you invest to get from a to b and why so many technologies do make come backs once support technologies enable that latter. People forget that Whittle very nearly gave up on jet engines because he wasn’t given the support and investment pre war needed (unlike Germany) to make his engines not just work but get to a usable standard, only the threat of war got it through that barrier while ironically actual war forced his technology into the hands of RR, a company itself massively empowered by that war. Fate for you.
* ice build up and damage is always a problem with super cooling tech or environments, just check out Starships failures in this regard with reliable engine, fuel delivery, and general cooling tasks presenting serious obstacles.
Why don’t the English have their own nuclear heat exchangers?
it raises the question of sovereignty and independence..
That’s what I’m wondering, who made the ones the subs used to have
I guess based on what’s happened elsewhere. A company who had experience with heat exchanges supplied a cheaper quote than who ever did the vanguard ones. The company who did the vanguard ones has likely gone under, in due, to not recieving the astute ones.
I think you are probably right. Many years back late eighties I was working for a client a specialist engineering company who had done specialist engineering parts for RR and the Harier amongst many others. It had just been saved by an entrepreneur who was trying to effectively rebrand it. No idea if it was saved or exists today but in all honesty I very much doubt it, it really felt like a relic of an earlier age despite its obvious engineering prowess. We lost the vast majority of such businesses in that period sadly or they become absorbed by others and much of their capability lost or went abroad.
Just the English?
Exactly the same reason as the USN having to source certain vital parts from U.K and U.K sourcing some parts and steel from France. The lack of orders in 1st 2 decades of this entire forced some companies to the wall, and some of them made parts you can’t easily just outsource in country.
It’s the hidden outrage of the “Peace dividend”, no one can make the ring that holds the bit that oils the “Thing ummy Bob” anymore. And the Politicians didn’t care as they wouldn’t be around to take the flack.
True, after all didn’t we lose our last ball bearing factory a few years back, ironically owned by the Swedes anyway.
But when you see US Steel, if Govt intervention doesn’t stop it fall to the Japanese, you tend to see how difficult matters in this Country must be by comparison when energy costs for manufacturing is many times higher and demand much smaller.
As a general comment it hasn’t helped that industrially our heritage companies have become mired in a glorious past and lost nimbleness and flexibility and as a result investors are suspicious of investing in their equivalent new tech start ups that would replace them, despite the likes of Gilmour Space and others in Australia and RocketLab in New Zealand and (indeed some British start ups like Engineered Arts) showing that smaller economies can sprout innovative, successful and even enormously successful tech companies. Unfortunately it is difficult to grow without effectively becoming US companies or headquartered there (certainly if you need US State or military contracts) like Reaction have had to do or Arm and DeepMind have become. It makes it difficult for our economies to take full advantage on anything like a level playing field esp in a MAGA environment where we are seen as mere cannon fodder for US commercial hegemony.
Mmm the thing is that sometimes it isn’t high tech start ups that are able to supply what’s needed, it can be older more established firms that can still make some parts that are just about impossible to source anywhere else. It’s no great secret that SFM was saved from oblivion and Nationalised by the last Tory Government because it makes parts no one else can anymore (well not anyone friendly). There’s another firm down south that specialises in certain seals that they supply to the UK, France and USN for submarines.
Ridiculous comment and attempt at trolling.
You might as well ask why the whole of the planet relies on Taiwanese semiconductor manufacturing…
Who made the previous HEATEX? Or did they break because they were under spec? on going Upgrades?
More like on going rectification of design flaws in the class, seeing as at least 2 aren’t at sea for unclear reasons
thanks
The article refers to Naval Group as OEM, hence the award without competition. Improved design suggests the original units were inadequate in some way.
… and one presumes supplied by them.
Or they bought whoever did make them.
I’d be surprised if Naval Group actually made the HEATEX themselves – even for France that would be very vertically integrated!
French have their nuclear industry vertical integrated. Their civilian program – which produces 70% of their electrical energy – is designed to be maximized for military proposes and vice versa. That is the reason their nuke reactors are low enrichment ones it makes it easier change technicians.
Thankfully the French were able to help us source critical technology to help maintain our nuclear deterrent. Much like the Americans TBH. No one country seems capable now of building every single thing themselves/domestically.
Ummm…er…totally understand the logic of procuring replacement Heat Exchangers for Astute class in two batches, w/ sufficient time for installation and test between purchases. More difficult to discern the reasoning for acquisition of six units instead of seven. 🤔
Perhaps the seventh Astute was equipped with the upgraded exchanger from the start..? There is no mention of when the ‘new’ exchangers were actually designed.
The other option is that they will fit these during routine maintenance periods and the last boat isn’t completed yet so her first maintenance period is still some way off…
Cheers CR
Could this be the Astute class’ equivalent of the Daring class Northrop Grumman intercooler issue? A design-flaw in one piece of machinery undermining availability of an entire class of vessels.
TBH unless you build ships/boats using very mature (aka ‘old’) machinery and technology you always run the risk of this kind of design issue for a class. The important thing is to identify design issues from one-off manufacturing or installation issues as quickly as possible, along with remediation or replacement options.