It is very easy to write fiction about submarines but rather more difficult to come by the facts. It is strict MoD policy that “We don’t comment on submarine operations” and while operational security must obviously be first priority, this information vacuum allows journalists to say whatever they like on the subject with little accountability.
Inevitably the majority of media stories focus on supposed failures. For journalists straying into this secretive world armed with limited knowledge, there is the added frisson of excitement that comes with anything that includes the word ‘nuclear’. Meanwhile a blanket of secrecy must shroud the frequent successes of attack submarines (SSNs) that can deliver vital intelligence, sometimes straight the desk of the Prime Minister. The SSN is the ‘big stick’ of naval warfare. Aircraft carriers can project enormous and obvious power but the SSN exerts a strong deterrent effect even by the possibility of their presence. The RN’s seven boats are simply not enough and when availability is reduced by technical problems or sod’s law, there is a profound effect. For those keen to promote the submarine service to the public, it is a restricted and difficult job. Details about current or recent operations remain mostly hidden, indeed if you read the news on the Navy’s official website you would get the erroneous impression that submariners spend most of their time doing charity work and cycle rides.
Media field day
By rather optimistically declaring 2017 “the year of the Royal Navy” perhaps the Defence Secretary has unwittingly made the service a particular target for negative press. CND, the SNP and the extreme left, together with certain foreign powers have a concerted agenda to undermine the submarine force in any way possible. Despite their role as Britain’s first line of defence, they want to mislead the public into believing that nuclear submarines are unsafe, don’t work and are too expensive in the hope they will be axed. Individual journalists will doubtless claim to be only acting in the ‘public interest’ but just 6 weeks into 2017 and there have been three major press stories calculated to undermine confidence the RN submarine service. On 22nd January The Sunday Times revealed a failed Trident missile test in 2016, giving the false impression that the Trident system is unreliable.
No SSNs at sea
On Friday 10th the Sun published an exclusive claiming all of the RNs attack submarines were inoperable. It would seem there is a grain of truth in this, all 7 boats were in Faslane or Devonport, at least for a time. This is unusual with at least two SSNs typically at sea at one time. The commitment to keeping a ‘duty Tomahawk boat’ stationed East of Suez has clearly had to be abandoned. With Russian submarines operating with increasing tempo near to UK waters, having no SSNs at sea is very serious, not least for the protection of the nuclear deterrent submarine. However informed naval sources state that, while not desirable, this is a short-term blip in the maintenance cycle and more usual patrol patterns with resume in the near future. Although rather more significant, the situation is akin to the storm that erupted last summer when all six Type 45s were alongside in Portsmouth .
Trafalgar class reactors – beyond repair?
On Sunday 12th February Marco Giannangeli writing in the Express “revealed” that a major flaw had been discovered in the reactor of HMS Trenchant. He claimed the fault is so hard to repair that all four remaining Trafalgar class boats will have to be scrapped immediately. If true, this would be catastrophic and leave the RN with just 3 active SSNs. Mr Giannangeli vehemently defends his claims and trusts his “source” who must be feeding him detailed information that is either very loosely based in fact or made up.
‘Nuclear expert’ John Large is extensively quoted in the Express article. Mr Large has previous form. Although undoubtedly knowledgeable, his views are partisan. He has acted as a hired gun for Greenpeace and has critical views on much of government nuclear policy. When a major fault was discovered in the reactor of HMS Tireless in 2000 she was forced to limp into Gibraltar. Mr Large did not “help with the repair” as stated in the article, but was on hand to advise the governor of Gibraltar about risks. In fact with incredible ingenuity, it was the RN engineers serving aboard HMS Tireless who eventually developed a solution to the problem which they carried out with assistance from a Rolls Royce Team. All ten of the SSNs in commission the time had to be inspected and repaired where needed, severely reducing their availability for almost two years.
The Trafalgar class are ageing fast and their captains must be used to having discouraging meetings with their Marine Engineering Officers. In vessels of this age and complexity, unfortunately, defects both large and small, are common. Against this background, the alarming report in the Express has a veneer of believability.
The MoD has denied that there is a problem that would prevent T-boats from deploying again. Other naval sources say they do not recognise any of the statements made in the article and no other credible media outlet has taken up this sensational story.
Where are the boats?
HMS Astute has been at sea on trials, seen on the Clyde in early February after completing a lengthy refit in Faslane. HMS Ambush was pictured still under repair in Faslane at the end of January, the damaged conning tower cover still shrouded in scaffolding more than 5 months after an embarrassing accident. While conducting ‘Perisher’ Commanding Officer training, she collided with a merchant vessel off Gibraltar, damage was obviously more than cosmetic. This accident was the last thing the RN needed but perhaps one should consider for a moment the lunacy that has forced the navy to conduct CO training using a £1Bn submarine that represents 33-50% of its available strength. HMS Artful was pictured in Faslane at the end of January fitted with the CHALFONT Dry Deck Shelter (for use by special forces divers) so it would seem likely she is preparing for deployment.
HMS Triumph was refitted in Faslane 2014-15 and has been active around Plymouth in 2016-17. Our friend Mr Giannangeli at the Express published an extraordinary story on New Year’s day claiming she had tracked two Russian submarines for four days just before Christmas with a special new non-acoustic sensor made by Thales (Possibly based on wake-tracking technology that has been around for decades). The MoD itself remained silent but reliable naval sources are quite bemused and say the article was just a fantasy. HMS Trenchant recommissioned in August 2016 after a major refit and upgrade in Devonport. It seems unlikely that a terminal problem with her reactor would emerge now. HMS Torbay was a very busy submarine in 2016 but is scheduled to decommission this year after 30 years of service. A rare and excellent piece about the role of submarines and life on board Torbay was published in the Mirror in December 2016. HMS Talent made the headlines when she suffered minor damage after “colliding with ice” in 2015. She was undergoing major refit in Devonport during 2016.
When HMS Torbay decommissions, the RN will be down to six SSNs at least until HMS Audacious is operational. Audacious is effectively a “Batch 2” Astute with significant design changes and upgrades that rectify some of the issues with the first 3 boats. The MoD reported that her commissioning had been delayed 10 months until November 2016. Sources in Barrow suggest the delay, caused by late deliveries of electrical components and materials may be reduced to 4 months. Either way, the new boats are needed at sea as soon as possible.
Conclusion
Let us not pretend everything is fine. The RN’s SSN force is far too small and fragile. The legacy of flawed government policy, funding cuts, industry cock-ups and MoD mismanagement going back more than two decades is being felt on the frontline. There is a small army of politicians and Civil Servants who should be on trial for the gross negligence that has created this mess. With their hands tied by circumstances beyond their control, those serving today (and many of the civilian workers in the supporting infrastructure) should be commended for continuing to get submarines to sea. RN submariners retain an outstanding reputation for skill and aggression and the service does not compromise on nuclear safety. While it is obviously not quite business as usual, we can look forward to Trafalgar class submarines at sea again soon and their eventual replacement with the outstanding Astute class.
Main Image: HMS Torbay. Photo: Thomas MacDonald via Flickr
Related articles
- Attack submarine force – sinking below critical mass (Save the Royal Navy, 2014 )
- Why we should have every confidence in the Trident missile system (Save the Royal Navy)
- SSN14 – By Ryan Ramsey, CO HMS Turbulent – Book Review (Save the Royal Navy)
- At sea with Britain’s secret submarine defender as it plays cat and mouse with Russians (Daily Mirror)
Nothing to see then move along, there is absolutely nothing to see
As per the article, this is a failure of governance particularly the MoD. All the SSns wouldn’t be in port at the same time unless there was some problem.
We should not be relying on 30 year old platforms no matter how exquisitely built. Technology moves on and so should hull and systems design. These boats primary function is to protect our deterrent, which is a non negotiable necessity.
The admiralty , mod , bae and the last few PM’s and Defence ministers should be hauled before parliament.
We could have had a fleet of 12 astutes and 12 arleigh burkes rammed to the gills with cruise / anti ship weapons and aegis bmd instead we have 6 destroyers that need major work and with only anti air capability , a few functioning subs at best and the gin palace carrier that wont be a fighting ship till till at least the mid 20’s and then will be void of enough escorts.
The idiocy is criminal, heads and penisons should be cut.
Scrap the carriers and F 35,it’s never too late to back out of a bad idea. The navy won’t be get itself back into balance until they’re gone or defence spending increases by 300%
Don’t be silly the carriers are paid for and the planes will arrive in time. Running costs for these ships have been thought through to keep them in line with the previous carriers. We actually pay Bae to build the subs slower than they can. We pay a premium for less ! That’s what happens when bean counters run defence.
The planes will arrive in time! Please tell me where you get your drugs. My uneducated guess 5 years late and 300% over budget. Also with ’90’% capability.
Gerry please read my comment again I said ‘in time’ and not ‘On time’ for the ships we have built. These have been deliberately built slowly costing an extra billion or so in the process thanks to our wonderful political leaders. As for the planes we could have used harriers and transitioned to the f35 over time but again the political elite scuppered that idea. I don’t actually think I made any observation about either the cost or capability of the f35 and you seem to be an expert but there is no real alternative aircraft now whatever you or I think. My point was about waste and scrapping ships we have just spent billions building would not seem a good idea and would just add to the long list of bad MOD decisions. Anyway back to the drugs
A good article cheers.
Paying the price for not building subs between completion of Trafalgar and start of Astute.
Programmes were cancelled with the lose of construction skills also .
We should have had a class of improved Trafalgar batch 2 as a stepping stone to Astute.
This would have retained construction skills lowered the average age of the sub fleet and give us a more operationally sustainable fleet.
Absolutely true. The RN is paying the price for the delay between the completion of the Vanguard class SSBNs and the beginning of the Astute programme [January 2001]. By then, the workforce at Barrow had fallen from over 13,000 to circa 3,000. The loss was of skilled trades, and engineers and constructors with submarine construction experience. What were these people supposed to do? Sit about twiddling their thumbs while the MoD and Government agonised over design and contract. The last SSN [Triumph] completed in 1991, so it was a decade since a boat was built, and well over two decades since the T boats were designed. The rest is history, including General Dynamic Electric Boat Division having to rescue the programme in 2003.
Totally agree .
I hope these mistakes are not repeated after Astute and Dreadnought construction is done.
Now is the time to be planning for follow on future sub construction .
The idea that we should be planning ahead to the time after the Dreadnaught class is ridiculous. The MoD are a specialist short term organisation and proud of it.
They have spent years ensuring there is no coherent long term vision. Their proud plan is to continue to destroy the defence manufacturing base block by block and they are succeeding beyond the most pessimistic projections. That is why they are now actively working to ensure their hands aren’t tied by any long term planning for ordering RN ships especially any being built by contractors other than their preferred supplier.
Remove harpoon and Sea Skua the RN have a serious gap that simply can’t be filled by SSNs. Top brass should be ashamed that they are letting RN get into this state, on their watch. Year of the navy is in danger turning into year of a 3rd class NAVY that is inferior to that of Italy, Spain, Turkey and simply couldn’t stand up to a SLAVA or UDALOY
Taiwan could wipe the floor with the RN if this continues…they build their own ships now and their own ASHMs 😉
I think there is definfitely a problem.
But first, the press is merely a very dubious propaganda agency and nothing they write is worth considering.
But the RN in general has been run down over the past 50 years. We need 3 or 4 times the number of surface vessels that we have. They dont need to be as exotic as the current destroyer but they do need to be there and available for deployment as required. We need more dedicated aircraft for the navy (why did we cancel the Harrier? This aircraft is still one of the best sea deployed weapons in the world)..
Politicians spend a lot of time truying to convnce us of the ‘perceived threat’. But they are not qualiified to make that statement. …..and is the PM cleared to receive that security information?
It’s absolutely ridiculous that we have been paying BAE NOT to be build more subs at Barrow when the Royal Navy said for years it had a minimum requirement of 8 SSN’s.
The 10 year gap between the last Trafalgar and first Astute was another disastrous move fueled by a post Cold War illusion of safety. When will the decision makers get it into their heads that the only products of this kind of dithering are inflated costs, a critical loss of skills/experience and our Armed Forces left with increasingly clapped out hardware.
A regular drumbeat of orders is good for the industry, good for cost control and good for our military capability. The fact that the Royal Navy has only received 3 new SSN’s and not a single new frigate since 2002 is a disgrace!
Well said. We need permanant production lines of everything without gaps. One sub build every two years with a reactor life of 24 years will get us 12 sub builds + 12 sub recycles + 288 annual maintenances periods + 12 mid-life refits over those 24 years. Plenty of work for Barrow.
If we had or get a cut-down Trident of 10 tons instead of 60 tons then 8 of them could fit into an Astute with a modified forward weapon handling room and they would still be good enough for 4,000 km with 3 warheads. So that’s 12 Astutes with 8 as SSKs and 4 as SSBNs.
We should also have QEs with Astute reactors, probably 2 each. That makes 16 reactors. Add on a couple more on land plugged into the national grid and used for training and we would have very good economies of scale and cost per unit would probably come down.
The cost of an Astute is quoted at £0.75bn making it less than a £1bn T45 and predicted £1bn T26 and perhaps more useful. If we got sub launched NSM at 400kg then we could hit more targets than just a max of 38 x 2 ton Tomahawks.
Once again all the usual comment concerning RN, spending, designs, lack of this that and whatever. The facts are simple. We spend more than anyone else in Europe on defence and yet get so little. The top heavy military and Whitehall mandarins are to blame. They are all protecting their little empires and cosying up to the yanks. Hard decisions are avoided because of my comments above. Why do we have our capital ships based at Portsmouth which has a narrow harbour entrance hindered by commercial traffic when Devonport is under used and much further away from threats. Sell Portsmouth and use the vast amount of money obtained to buy some of the shelf ships from Japan or Germany. Please get real. The press are right what is going On in Whitehall and Admiralty.
It’s about choices, money isn’t an issue. Build a base in Bahrain or have anti ship capability. Have another frigate or 3 OPVs or fit T45 with anti sub weapons. Spend £10£bn on overseas aid or hollow out the armed forces. It’s called incompetence and no-one has the courage to call it.
You are worried about the vulnerability of Portsmouth but don’t think that relying on others to build our warships is risky?????
Should have kept the diesel-electric boats (sold after just four years service) for UK coastal waters, freeing up the SSNs for missions that really need the range and endurance that nuclear power provides.
A major lack of stability must be the weight of the tons of paperwork posted or hand-carried onto the boats. This must affect the trim? One one occasion after a 15 week trip I was confronted by a snivel servant waving the latest prices for WRNS clothing at me.
The article is welcome. However, there is a problem with our ships today. They are wearing out and nothing was planned by way of replacement following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. I am told a Type 23 replacement has taken eighteen years to design. Eighteen years! The author correctly cites the role of some anti-defence pressure groups (very influential but a minority) who have a dog in the fight. The media also thrives on bad news; the Daily Mirror goes up in my estimation for it’s article against this trend.
There is a woeful lack of imagination and energy in our national defence planning; top brass, politicians and contractors. No one wants to risk their pension and or gongs. I trace this back even further than some. It began when we decided as a national we would abandon our industrial base and sell insurance instead. nearly forty years ago. I would feel ashamed to look servicemen in the face frankly. We are asking too much from the poor s*ds at the sharp end while others with desks go onwards and upwards.