Babcock has confirmed it has begun long-lead work on the UK’s future SSN-AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines, with new contracts secured during the past financial year for the first elements of the vessel’s weapon handling and launch systems.
The company disclosed the update in its preliminary results for the year ending 31 March 2025, positioning the announcement as a key milestone in its growing contribution to next-generation submarine programmes.
“Our Mission Systems business was awarded two significant contracts in FY25,” the company reported. “These included a contract for Long Lead Items for the Astute replacement, Submersible Ship Nuclear AUKUS (SSNA), enabling us to place orders for the first elements of the Weapon Handling and Launch System.”
The contract represents one of the first known UK industrial contributions to the SSN-AUKUS programme, which will deliver a new class of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines to the UK and Australia. Babcock’s involvement in providing early components for the launch system suggests a continuity of expertise built up through its work on the Astute and Dreadnought programmes.
The SSN-AUKUS class is intended to replace the UK’s Astute-class submarines from the late 2030s, and form the basis for Australia’s first fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines under the AUKUS security partnership.
Babcock’s experience in complex submarine manufacture, integration and sustainment across both the Royal Navy’s and US Navy’s strategic deterrent fleets has underpinned its growing role in transatlantic collaboration. The company is already a long-term supplier of missile tube assemblies for the UK’s Dreadnought and US Columbia classes, and this year secured an additional order for 36 tubes from General Dynamics Electric Boat.
“Our leading position in advanced manufacture of missile tube assemblies led to a further contract award of 36 missile tubes by General Dynamics Electric Boat, who is responsible for the design and the construction of the U.S. Naval Columbia submarines programme,” Babcock noted.
The Mission Systems division was also awarded “an additional contract to supply Integrated Tube Hulls in support of the US Columbia Class programme,” further broadening its role across allied submarine programmes.
Babcock’s participation in SSN-AUKUS comes amid a strategic push to increase UK industry’s role in submarine component development and systems integration. As part of AUKUS Pillar 1, the UK and Australia are jointly developing the SSN-AUKUS platform with support from the United States, and the UK is expected to deliver the lead boat for the Royal Navy in the late 2030s.
Babcock is one of several UK defence firms expected to contribute heavily to the design, supply chain, and construction of the class. These initial contracts reflect the early-stage investment now being made to prepare UK industry for the scale and complexity of the SSN-AUKUS build and sustainment programme.
There I was thinking Bae designed and built these subs, shakes my head
They do, Babcock are more responsible for support and maintenance once the subs are in service although do make some of the weapon systems and components I believe. BAE is the primary contractor for design and build
Is Bae mentioned even once?
No, but this article is just about these particular items ordered for Babcock’s contract. Perhaps these items have the longest lead time and so are ordered before others, including any that BAE will need? Or it could be that they were bundled in to the order that Babcock made for US sub missile tubes. Either way, money is changing hands and that’s a good sign
The Component of an SSN with the longest Lead Time would be the Reactor from Rolls Royce i would have thought.
Who is on the other end of the contract?
Replying here cause it won’t let me directly respond.
Paul T – Rolls Royce make the SSN reactors, so Babcock wouldn’t need to order them.
Grinch – I believe it’s GDEB
The RR reactors, cores, fuel, turbines and coolant system are always the first item ordered and this one has some unique features. Up till now it was build / assemble at Derby and then Trucked up to Barrow for installation. But what makes it unusual is this system has to very tightly controlled / secured as it has to comply with NPT and be installed, fuelled and commissioned in Australia.
As for why Babcock are near the front of the queue is what a lot of folks don’t realise is that Babcock are probably the number one independent designer and producer of WHLS (Weapons Handling and Launch Systems) in the West.
Its not anything to do with VLS but the storage, handling and launching of everyone that gets launched via the torpedo tubes, so that’s the Torpedos, Mine, TLAM and in future UAVs. They have been building them for the RN for decades and export to Spain, S Korea, Australia and Canada.
What probably makes it even more important is the unique extra requirement for SSN(A) boats. They have to be able to handle all future UK and US weapons plus incorporate UAV launch & retrieval as that will come to the fore.
So if I read this right, BAE get the missile module from General Electric, and GE get the tubes for the module from Babcock. Babcock were talking about placing orders so presumably the chain goes further, to steel suppliers, perhaps.
Sorry, I meant General Dynamic not General Electric.
Just to complicate issues, I’m sure I read that General Dynamic had subcontracted the missile tubes for the Virginia Missile Modules to BAE.
We are going to have to see steel cutting soon given the typical ten plus years we see firms tell cutting to launch these days.
Probably getting too late to order Dreadnaught 5 now.
Yeh they’re not ordering a 5th
Why do we need a 5th dreadnaught?
Because 4 barely keeps 1 at sea and leaves little room for a 2nd to be deployed
We can get two at sea at a push. Combined with France we can ensure three European SSBN’s at sea at all times.
France is better at getting them to sea than us.
We could not get 2 vanguards deployed without massive repercussions
Dreadnaught will be a significant improvement over Vanguard. The Reactor issues are much better worked out.
In what way is France better at getting them to sea then us?
Would presume, all other issues being equal, that it would be more feasible to surge an additional Dreadnought class during a crisis during the earlier years of class deployment. Virtually intuitively obvious. Presumption includes the relatively seamless transition from Holbrook to Astraea A21/Mk7 warheads.
Virtually intuitively obvious????
Grinch,
Yes, after FOC and before mid-life refit/life-extension process begins, would presume there are periods of lesser intensity maintenance requirements. Not absolutely guaranteed, but odds may be favorable. That would facilitate a surge.
never going to happen, especially when starmer starts talking bolloxks about air launch nukes.
Expect delivery in service if last boat around 2050. Late and over budget. Those are the only two things which are guaranteed.
Talk of missile tubes in this article, are they intending to incorporate VLS (to house Tomahawk et al) into this design? Is this part of any initial design requirement?
It’s expected, though I imagine it won’t be TLAM but rather FC/ASW.
Have you watched the Naval News interview on FC/ASW? There’s no mention of submarine launch anywhere, and they went through the options pretty comprehensively. The SSN fleet might just have to soldier on with Tomahawk, until AUKUS starts bearing fruit with regards to hypersonic missiles.
There are no more Tomahawks being build for sub tube launching they are only being build for VLS now. – side note: this implies that RN have to do a careful use of its numbers for current SSN’s.
I expect next RN SSN to have VLS, there is no alternative to that.
It’s expected, though I imagine it won’t be TLAM but rather FC/ASW.
Fantastic to see this actually continuing to be a thing, fingers crossed there will be no more interuptions.
“This is only the beginning, they won’t stop now”.
With several contracts for long lead items such as reactors, weapon handling and launch systems etc it seems to me that the design of the new boats must be further along that what we might think. I am not sure but there must also be some ideas of numbers of subs to be built as numbers equate to cost. I wonder if this contract is for the weapons handling forward e.g torpedo handling or if it is for the vl-modules or both.
If we the Uk do get vl-modules and 12 SSN-As I would like only four boats equipped with four to six vl tubes each with 7 cells. The other eight boats I would like in the pure hunter-killer form.
The reason for the break down of two versions of the SSN-A is as follows, the sub with the vl modules would be the carrier escort sub. A carrier group makes a lot of noise so it will atract attention, the SSGN-A could hide in this noise, be able to carry out strikes on enemy shore based radar systems thereby reducing the risk to the F35Bs. The pure hunter-killer SSN-A s would escort the SSBNs, and operate in the far North.
It’s possible we will never get all seven Astutes working. If something serious goes wrong with a PWR2 reactor, would RR be able to fix it? We know they wouldn’t easily be able to replace it as they’ve transitioned to working on PWR3 only. The relacement core for Vanguard was the last and it pushed back certain aspects of PWR3 delivery by years. That along with infrastructure issues and maintenance backlogs night mean we never get a full working set of Astutes.
I hope that’s not the case, but the faster we can start building SSNA the better.
Fix yes, replace err no and although the PWR2 is out of production I’d never say never to being able to refuel an Astute. But TBH given the amount of time they are tied up they really shouldn’t need a LOP(R). The biggest issue with Astutes is nothing to do with the reactor, it’s the small matter of the length of time it’s taken to build them, they are essential a common design with multiple sub classes.
I think you have that completely the wrong way round, the SSN(A) will all be equipped with VLS either for TLAM or a successor. We are not going to design and build a VLS boat for Australia and just 4 for ourselves plus 8 pure hunter killers.
Fitting VLS has zero impact on the operational ability of the Boat as a Hunter Killer, in fact it enhances its ability by freeing up space for extra Torpedo load out and UAVs. Future versions of TLAM aren’t being developed for tube launch so why would you cripple the offensive ability of 2/3 of our Submarine force ?
What makes it worse is that chopping and changing slows down the build cycle and increases overall cost, if there is one single lesson from the Astutes it’s to build to build on a constant drum beat and at pace.
And by the way it’s the Hunter killer ability of an SSN you need escorting a CAG as its job is to hunt and destroy enemy submarines, launch a missile you just gave away your position and your ability to do your job. If the surface warfare escort force isn’t up to the job then a single SSN isn’t going to help much. And if you look at the latest classes of Attack Submarines of the USN, S Korea and Russia they are all equipped with VLS so they agree with just one common class.
I don’t think we’ll ever get twelve. Asking for twelve means there’s room in the future for government to make the political gesture of cutting the order and ‘saving taxpayer’s money’. I imagine the RN would be happy with eight, especially with the improved maintenance facilities coming on line soon, and with Aus being able to look after their neck of the woods.
We will see, ‘if’ we get to 3.5% on the core budget, then 12 can be funded, along with upgrading and expanding facilities, plus funding the increase in personnel.
I would say that 12 boats would allow 8 to be fully operational at all times. That’s a powerful big stick to wave about!
It is. But it’s a powerful big ‘if’ in your first sentence!
True, but I really don’t think there’s any other option than pushing to 3.5% now, the government is being dragged, kicking and screaming towards it..