Royal Navy Astute-class submarine, HMS Audacious was taken into number 15 dry dock in Devonport today. She arrived in Plymouth on 1st April 2023 for a refit that necessitates work on her hull, which could not begin until facilities had been upgraded.
From early 2022 to March 2023, HMS Audacious spent 403 days away from the UK on patrol in the Eastern Mediterranean. While on this deployment, she underwent maintenance periods in Souda Bay (Crete) and Limassol (Cyprus). The RN revealed that during this time divers completed a demanding repair to ballast tanks that would usually be done in a dry dock.
Audacious subsequently spent 22 months alongside on the tidal berth at Devonport awaiting 15 Dock to become available but it should be noted that Babcock has already begun the refit project and carried out some of the work afloat. Although Audacious is a relatively new boat, she was launched at Barrow in 2017 and had already spent more than 4 years in the water before she was commissioned in September 2021.
Under contract Fleet 22, Babcock has refurbished 15 Dock for future Astute-class Base Maintenance Periods (BMP). In January 2023, the SDA reported, “design, on-site survey assessments and physical work has now commenced on site. Additionally, capability for a Hydrostatic Barrier has been integrated into the schedule in line with safety case requirements for the enduring capability ahead of the first docking”. Part of the reason given for the delays to 15 Dock work was that the refurbishment of 9 Dock took workforce priority when HMS Vanguard left in May 2023. This task was completed in September 2024 and HMS Victorious entered 9 Dock in January 2025.
Besides maintenance and upgrades to meet ever-more stringent safety standards, 15 Dock had to be converted to support Astute-class boats following the final Trafalgar-class refit. The last of the T-boats, HMS Triumph completed a 4-year Revalidation and Assisted Maintenance Period – RAMP in December 2023. The larger Astutes require a different support cradle and minor alterations to arrangements for electrical and cooling water supplies.
In a vague answer to a Parliamentary question, the MoD promised in November 2023, that 15 Dock would “gain beneficial use” of 15 Dock “sometime in 2024”. Even this target was missed, but the bigger question is why was there not more rigorous forward planning to ensure that work started on 15 Dock as soon as HMS Triumph left. It was evident that, even if the shiplift at Faslane had not suffered mechanical issues, the Vanguard-class boats have priority, and 15 Dock would soon be needed to continue support for the SSNs.
The more positive news is that in the longer term this situation should be avoided. From 2027, 10 Dock will also be available for SSN and SSBN maintenance in Devonport and floating dry docks may also be acquired for use at Faslane.
Hopefully they get it turned around pretty quick, shame Artful and Ambush seem to have no path back to service anytime soon
All
Navy Lookout has penned many similar story’s over recent years…
This is only the most recent of many, very similar, ones….
The shoreside infrastuture is absolutely essential to support the RN’s SSN and SSBM fleet
This latest story, and especially those photos (note 1), simply sums up the shocking – and I meant to just then say truely shocking – state of the critical nuclear infrastucture site at Devonport
Devonport, just like Barrow and Faslane, is simply not fit for purpose
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1
I cannot seen Fiona Bruce in the photos of Devonport. Has she been photoshopped out?
Perhaps, certainly we seem to keep bumbling along. But to replace all of it would cost tens of billions
5oooo civil servants in mod and still can’t get them to get things right!
Its the dozen or so of career TREASURY officials on secondment in the navy who slow down everything to meet annual efficiency dividend of 1 or 2% ( every year) in maintenance costs
I’m no lover of HMT’s dogmatic approach but every department has to make efficiency savings.
Where RN chooses to make savings is up to RN.
The fundamental problem is that there is a massive shortfall of cash between ambition and reality. So almost nothing is funded properly. You add to that the ring fencing of the DNO and the legal duty holder requirements for air frames, explosives and ship class rules and soon you run out of fudging room for manoeuvre. And, of course, the fudging room for manoeuvre has been progressively used up in previous years by 20 years of deliberate underfunding and now key items of ship & infrastructure are literally falling apart.
I have no idea what you mean by ‘annual efficiency dividend’ as that phrase has no meaning in HMG’s accounting.
We all agree [we includes NAO and PAC] that these mythical short term savings have huge long term costs attached to them.
In order to see these short term saving you need to wear the special rose tinted spectacles that come with the job at No 11 and mean that talking about efficiency savings means you don’t have to do the hard miles sorting out welfare.
Of course life would be easier if HMT allowed ring fenced hypothecated budgets. If NI really paid for NHS and welfare [which was it’s origional purpose] there would be crushing electoral pressure to keep costs under control.
In other (American) words:
The post-WWII welfare state is completely out of control in the UK just as it is in the US and throughout western Europe. Spending on welfare programs goes up exponentially, and far beyond original projections, not only to keep buying votes for the politicians who run those programs, but also to line their pockets. Meanwhile the barbarians are coming in over the walls, which are no longer maintained because….see the above.
It’s decision time for the West, folks. Either stay the current course and implode completely, or do what is necessary to revive the civilization, which obviously includes funding a properly sized and equipped military. That in turn requires massive reform and reordering of government budget priorities. The party’s over. It’s been over.
Faslane is old base and has NOT has much done to it since the 1960’s. Plus I would question is this the best place for it anyway.
Rebuild costs have been billions ever since Trident replaced Polaris
The ship lift was a major cost as it was built into glacial ‘rubble’
The Gare Loch is a deep Warter Loch where submarines can dive and exit Rhu Narrows and into the Firth of Clyde without being sing seen. Unlike the River Taymar and Plymouth Sound. Simples
Darby Allen RN rtd.
Robbo
In a word…….…cobblers
Faslane and the adjacent Coulport had approximately £4 billion spent on them in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s (mostly to prepare for Trident / Vanguard. Those huge costs are quoted “then current” prices)
Also Falsane is definitely in the right place for UK submarines = because it
Those three key reasons are why it was selected in he 1960’s and, again in the 1980’s why it was selected for such a major upgrade
I would however agree that Falsane now definitely needs an upgrade; especially a new dry dock (i.e. to replace the horrible s*itlift) and some proper accomodation blocks. That upgrade would not cost “billions”.
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS Victor Allen
You forgot to mention Loch Ness: which is ideal for hiding our SSBM’s!
Where are you putting a drydock. It’s been pointed out before there is no real estate to put a drydock on within the naval base.
Exactly were it was before removal
If there even was a drydock the land it probably being used for other purposes
SSBM’s ? SLBM’s or Submarine launched Ballistic Monsters !!!
One small problem might be the fact Loch Ness is pretty much land locked !!!
Jim
I believe that, that was his point. Darby Allan hasn’t got all of his facts right
Yes, I was playing along with it !!!
Might need to budget for a bit of upgrading to the Caledonian Canal and locks to accommodate the new Dreadnought SSBNs tho?
A new floating dock is being requisitioned for faslane like afd 60.
It’s very narrow there are you sure they can dive and exit the narrows ?
Nessie manages to do it.
Oh…. I thought Nessie was just in Loch Ness, It seems he/she can escape overland and end up in Gare Loch some 150 miles further south !!!!
No submarine can exit Rhu Narrows dived – being no more than 50 foot deep it is utterly impossible.
That’s got to be a bit of a squeeze given a Vanguards draught.
Jim
Can I point out that most of the aforementioned £4 billion was spent on tunnelling at “Coulport”
So I think that you might be seriously underestimating the deviousness of the RN’s submarie survice: particularly back in the 1980’s when they were specifying the new Trident works “near the clyde”
This one from late 2023….
https://youtu.be/cV_f87DOnbE
What does it look like to you?
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS And needing to enlarge that 1990’s era tunnel (i.e. because the new SSBL’s are larger than the old models) would explain why the new Dreadnought programme is esimated to cost £120 billion
Interesting suggestion you have there. So £4 Billion was spent constructing a submerged and totally flooded tunnel big enough to allow a 16 thousand ton Vanguard to transit from Faslane to Loch Long whilst entirely submerged and out of sight.
If a Vanguard was able to fully submerge in the hall, cross the loch, enter the tunnel and emerge on the other side and then take on weapons and stores this would suggest she would have to surface undercover in the building at the north of Coulport.
I think there’s more chance of finding Nessie !
Jim
This is what those two acronyms really mean:
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I think that Nessie is more of a Fresh Water monster though.
I wondering how this monumental feat of civil underwater engineering was achieved and where the ca two million tons of spoil was dumped?
Also wouldn’t this make Loch Ness rather saline?
Can’t sleep, got the Flu, I was rather confused by a couple of posts referring to Loch Ness and a tunnel from Faslane to Coulport. Said tunnel would be a couple of miles or so but when Loch Ness was mentioned, It appeared like a couple of posters didn’t have a clue where it was. Loch Ness is way further north, probably 150 miles from both Faslane and Coulport, It’s also land locked and full of fresh water.
I know it’s just a bit of humour but I do feel that people need to check a map at times.
Last week a poster said that at least one Clyde built ship and Submarine should be saved as museum pieces which is fine but Submarines have been built in Barrow for decades now, it’s not even in the same Country.
I recall another poster who stated that Rosyth and Glasgow were also on the Clyde.
I think everyone was indulging the humour TBH.
Yeah, but it would make for a great Bond Villain’s Lair.
Jim, SMs pass through Rhu Narrows usually 1 hour either side of High Tide, as its not only narrow, but very shallow too. There is not a lot of water under the keel even at high tide.
The submarines do not transit Rhu Narrows dived you Knob
You are not a navigator go and look at the charts it is not deep enough for an SSN
If one looks at a chart of the Gareloch, the depth in the narrows is circa 50/60m in the narrows channel, and 80/90m to the north into the loch. I’m a surface sailor, but have spent much time at Faslane. Submarines are on the surface until beyond the Cumbraes gap, [Cumbrae islands lie in the river between Largs on the south bank, and Argyllshire on the north side of the river]. In my day, the then smaller SSNs often came through the narrows without tugs; not so now with bigger boats.
Ha ha
Peter, what exactly in the article photos leads you to describe the facility state as “shocking”?
So… commissioned in 2021 and been along since March 2023, it’s now Feb 2025. Outsourcing working at it’s best!
Audacious has had huge issues and hull problems during her deployment (was only meant to be a 6 month deploy) but failure after failure with temp fixes to keep her active has only caused more long term faults.
She needs dry docked to fix the faults and to see the actual damage that the “fix(es)” has done….. repairs done under water has caused major issues to to the hull… it’s not going to be a simple and easy quick fix. Her hull is in need of a major fix to make her stealthy again – thats all I am going to say on that – why do you think one of the newer boats has skipped the refit queue??
2027 before she is going back to sea .. I was on her deployment and we were lucky we made it back home for temp repairs at Faslane before we went to Guzz. The damage is more external than internal – don’t get me wrong there are internal faults but the main issues are a “few” external (hull) that were “temp” repairs – the re-patching of the welding is a huge fault… put it this way – she has her own unique signature – a bit like having a bent prop blade!!!! The powers that be want this fixed — which is a major repair
Thanks for contributing these details. Much appreciated
On a serious note, Will you be taking on board this comment and looking into it’s origins/truth ? I guess this sort of info (if true) won’t actually be welcome in the public domain ?
This has got to refer to the outer casing.
If the outer casing is damaged or an internal weld springs then you can get knocking noises at certain speeds or noises that are effectively an underwater organ pipe from the fluid flow and the resonance it sets up.
Agreed.
Those responsible for this embarrassing debacle which should and could have been foreseen have invariably been promoted, awarded medals and honours, retired and now got lucrative posts in the nuclear industry. Despite being not very good at their job. Worry more…
So, will MoD learn from this? Looking forward, the ‘sheds’ in Devonport aren’t big enough for either T31 or T26. Time to dismantle or ‘enlarge’ them is now, before they are needed. The time to fix the roof is when the sun is shining!
The sun ain’t gonna shine any more…
Seriously though, we need our own version of Trump/Musk to cut through all the MoD/Treasury/Commercial BS. A different way must be found, as all attempts at improvements just result in more managed decline, of everything!
I’m not saying I like them, but their approach may well turn out to be the right one…
Apparently they are very tough to enlarge (widthwise) due to the structure. Babcock has proposed they become part of the submarine dismantling process instead, while other docks will be used for the frigates.
I don’t think that you can enlarge the Frigate sheds. Lengthening them is out of the question apparently, for various reasons I am told, as the basin is to small to turn the T26/31s around if that option is exercised. Believe the plan is to eventually demolish them.
I believe the way ahead is to refurbish all the dry docks in and around 5 basin (9-15 docks), to accommodate the larger vessels including Dreadnoughts when built.
Not sure if any are going to be coveted, suspect not, nor do we know where any future large combatants (T83s >10k tons) will be docked?
Even if the sheds were dismantled and rebuilt, it still doesn’t alter the fact that the Basin is still too small. A T23 is a tight fit as it is. I think it’s a non starter. Probably better to develop Falmouth for T31 and T26 not to mention T83.
They’re not going to open another naval base
Probably not but either way there are going to be problems down the line for T26 and T83. Same thing with the new Sheds, neither would fully accommodate a T83 any longer than a slightly longer T26 based version. The Sheds and halls pretty much dictate the future of ship designs.
The dry docks at Govan, Rosyth or H&W might have to be the refit complex with a lid over them.
It isn’t like every single one of them is used flat out every day so there is dry dock capacity.
Ok nobody will put a lid over H&W as that is too big a project. But the others are achievable.
Agreed.
The Dry dock at Greenock is little used [owned by Peel Ports who own most of the infrastructure on the Clyde] and now has no shore infrastructure. It could certainly take submarines and is close to Faslane. Big problem would probably be local politics. I was brought up in Greenock, and going back to the 60s, local politics prevented Scotts from modernising the yard to make it capable of building SSNs.
Last submarines built there were the Aussie O boats in the 70s.
Suppotive Bloke and David G
I am really not at all sure that what you two are both suggesting (directly above) is the correct solution: neither in the short term and definitely not in the longer term…
The current RN /MOD policy, of “lets just carry on bodging old shoreside infrastructure facilities” is now simply completely and utterly unsustainable. It is costing us a fortune and it is definitely not providing the right service to the fleet
Current RN attempts to service and maintain their few operational submarines in their current facilities are like trying to service a top class F1 racing car inside an old cowshed.
What the RN really needs – at one each at Devonport and Falslane – are two new identical covered drydocks. Each one must be capable of taking in any RN / USN nuclear submarine(s).
Both of those two new drydocks should be built brand-new = designed to current / correct nuclear certified standards.
However…..
In order to clear the necssary large space for one at Devonport, what is really now needed is to remove ALL the old / derelict submarines off to another location (Interestingly, this key topic is the one nobody has mentioned here!).
Accordingly, surely the right way to do what would be a major civil engineering programme is to quickly take each old decommissioned submarine up to Rosyth, and thus to store ALL the decommissioned submarines in one location (i.e. rather than the current mess of having some at Devonport and a few at Rosyth)
In the medium term, what is definitely needed is a facility to fully decommission and then cut-up each one of those old submarines.
The final decommisssioning facility needs to be located such that it is then posible to transport the complete old reactor section, off site, to the UK’s only long term nuclear waste storage facility at Drigg / Sellafield.
Only when the RN plans / designs and builds its submarine support infrastructure will this current omnishambles ever be sorted out properly ….
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Peter,
Ideally, yes. However, there is no land available on either the Kilcreggan Peninsula or on the Faslane side of the Gareloch where a drydock could be built.
I can see a new dock being feasible at the South Yard at Devonport. I often berthed on the Slip Jetty and used to wander round the old South Yard. I’m not sure how much of that area is still owned by the MoD, as it is years since I was last there.
Ha ha, I have mentioned on previous articles the current issues with parking space in no 3 Basin. Currently some 11 boats are gently humming away and awiating a move to 14 dock where they will be broken up “Nimrod Style” with girt ooge JCB’s and all the scrap will be loaded onto open topped lorries and driven up the M5, M6 and a few lovely B roads to the large recycling skips at Sellafield where teams of specialist bin dippers will sort the good from the bad and shove anything hot down the shoot where it can remain for the next twenty billion decades.
There is not enough room at Rosyth for all the decommissioned SSNs. And moving them safely probably via a loft ship would be incredibly expensive
Rosyth does have room but there are already 7 there including the four R boats (Polaris) I think the parking problem is more to do with the lack of any real disposal strategy during the past 30 years so they were just all grouped together in Devonport and Rosyth. Hopefully this will start to be addressed soon.
More referring to the fact that the Carriers have ti get in there and the T31s need fitting out, plus potential future programs.
Rosyth is now decomming subs but Devenport is once again lagging behind
Yes that’s true but if you take a look on Google Maps you will see what space there is in the basin. It’s a big old Basin ! Devonport has now just about caught up with things and dock 14 should soon be actively dismantling boats. Having said that, there are at least 11 boats in the queue ! might take some time.
Devenport may have to finished defueling first no? Before it can begin dismantling
Yes, so will Rosyth. It’s just that Devonport has twice as many N Boats to deal with….take a simple look at Google Maps, You’ll see what I’m saying.
IIRC all the Rosyth boats are defuelled so they can go straight into decom
Yes, all Rosyth subs are safety de-fuelled but some are a little more contaminated than others.
Work has been started with one that hadn’t got any significant contamination issues.
As you would hope they have started with an easier sub so that they can prove working methods.
TBH moving the *de-fuelled* submarines up to Rosyth wouldn’t be that hard or a massive regulatory issue.
I cannot see a commercial case for setting up two nuclear submarine decommissioning lines.
Much better off with one properly resourced facility with a long term workflow.
I can’t really understand why the UK are uniquely deconstructing the reactor compartment. Everyone else leaves it intact and closes the ends off.
“Much better off with one properly resourced facility with a long term workflow”
Supportive Bloke
Agreed!
That is precisely why I was proposing to move ALL of the RN’s decommissioned submarines up to Rosyth.:
Thus creating space at Devonport for modern – operational – uses…
And also why I was then suggesting long-term storage of the reactor compartment – wholly intact – at Sellafield / Drigg….
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I have to say that I’m noticing a pattern appearing here lately, It seems like every new poster has serious issues with spellings and geographical locations
On the Geographical point, The River Clyde is nowhere near Rosyth and Loch Ness is nowhere near Gare Loch.
On your spelling issues, you might need to check before posting.
Otherwise keep up the great work, It’s great entertainment.
Russian bots. Sigh.
Indeed, with a few Wolf Warriors too.
So…..right now, as we speak, how many Royal Navy nuclear attack submarines are actually in service and available for national defence in the event of the outbreak of hostilities? Two? Three?
Two. Anson and Astute have deployed recently
What you would do in peace time is totally different from what you do if there was a war.
Two ASTUTES are available for sure to peace time rules.
Could others be pressed into service if they had to be with some service limitations? Very likely.
I dunno. One is stripped for parts. Audacious needs repaired, and the heat exchangers also need replace on Ambush and Artful
Is it feasible to not decommission HMS Triumph? She’s the youngest of the Trafalgar class and bearing in mind the current situation, she would be incredibly useful.