Voices: I'm a former submariner – here's what you need to know about Britain's new nuclear fleet
During the Cold War, and for a short time following the collapse of the Soviet empire, the United Kingdom had a fleet of submarines: the strategic deterrent, the hunter-killer fleet boats, and the diesel submarine flotillas.
We could justly say that we could act – independently and with our allies – across the world, and in any theatre of war.
Yet following the end of the Cold War, political decisions were made on the assumption that we no longer needed such capable forces; the peace had been won.
We lost all of our diesel submarines with one sweep of the political pen; we reduced the number of SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines) from a combined force of 13 Swiftsure and Trafalgar class, replacing them with highly effective but limited numbers of the Astute class (seven in total); we whittled down the shore support that would keep the boats we had at sea for longer. We stopped investing in the shore facilities that would support our submarines and provide a decent home for our submariners.
Numbers matter – it is a stark and irrefutable fact. From early in the last decade, it has become self-evident that there is a resurgent Russia. The military has known this for a considerable amount of time, and submariners never believed that the Cold War had ended.
Unfortunately, most politicians have felt it unpalatable to accept the truth of the in-house briefings and the obvious facts. In reality, we have needed to make significant steps towards re-arming and increasing our fleet capability for a decade or more.
This week's announcement, therefore, of the intent to procure 12 replacement SSNs for the Astute class vessels, is a very welcome political acknowledgement of a military reality – and may, in time, bring us back somewhere towards where we need to be to fulfil our standing obligations, nationally, internationally, and reactively.
Increases in capability are important – they keep you at the cutting edge of war fighting and able to stand up in the most challenging of arenas – but so are raw numbers. You can have the most capable ship in the world, but if you only have one, it is vulnerable, either to mechanical failure or to enemy action. Only with numbers do you have some sort of tactical resilience and the ability to show that you can project maritime power and influence beyond your own borders.
Over the past few years, the Royal Navy has suffered from a well-publicised lack of available Astute-class subs. While the reasons for this are complicated, a significant factor is the sparing strategy adopted by the Ministry of Defence. Without a decent cache of spares, a routine mechanical issue becomes an operational showstopper.
A flotilla of seven SSNs provides some (but arguably nowhere near enough) strategic resilience to respond to international maritime demands. Once you have a submarine on a long maintenance period, two on short maintenance periods, two on operational stand-down periods and one with a short-term defect, you very quickly run out altogether.
When balanced against the above availability, the permanent operational demands of having a submarine ready to protect home waters, plus one ready to deploy to protect longer-distance interests and one potentially supporting carrier-group operations or Nato exercises, means that there is no surge capacity or room for contingent operations.
What this new announcement must not become is a short-term political statement that fails to materialise as a result of budgetary constraints. To give our fleet the tools to do the job of defending our nation, we must have at least 12 hunter-killer submarines. A further discussion could then be had about strengthening our strategic deterrent flotilla, and the rest of our maritime, land, and air-defence offering.
The sledgehammer of Putin's military stance has finally cracked the UK's political nut. Let us hope that we turn this intent into a reality, sign the contracts, and start the process that will regrow our defensive capability into something that can properly deter and protect our nation from an increasingly risky maritime environment.
David Bessell is a former career command-qualified submariner
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
11 minutes ago
- Forbes
Fusion Energy Is The Key To World Hegemony
What would it take for the United States to lose its hegemony to a rising power like China? Right now, America appears to be ahead economically and militarily. However, there is a stark difference between America's national strategy (insofar as one exists) and China's. The US under President Trump calls for regression. It seeks to restore a manufacturing economy that peaked in the 1950s—like an elderly man trying to restore hair where it hasn't grown for decades. It is doubling down on domestic oil, gas and coal. Through tariffs, disparagement of NATO and aggression towards allies like Canada and Denmark, the administration has alienated partners that long supported a US-led world order. Fusion will be a key element to become an energy superpower. (Wal van Lierop) China, meanwhile, has a tremendous lead in developing the economy of the future. It has a near monopoly on rare earth minerals, which are needed for electronics, renewable energy systems, defense technologies and more. China leads in solar, wind and batteries, the energy systems growing at the fastest rate. It is ahead in electric vehicles, industrial robotics and drones as well. It probably has achieved parity in artificial intelligence and may surpass the US soon. If China were to take Taiwan, it would control the global market for advanced chip manufacturing. In the background, but probably most importantly, China may be on track to commercialize fusion energy before the US or its disgruntled allies. Unlike the US, China has no domestic energy industry with vocal lobbyists (and purchasable politicians) to slow progress. It is funding fusion as a national strategy while private fusion companies in the West are at the mercy of investors that, for the most part, chase low risk and quick returns. Fusion promises cheap, plentiful, baseload energy without carbon emissions. AI, data centers and industrial robotics powered by fusion would produce goods and services at much lower costs than value chains dependent on fossil-fired electricity. Militaries built on swarms of small, cheap, electronic drones and robots—powered by small, distributed fusion facilities deep underground, safe from attack—would have an edge over competitors using large, expensive, petroleum-powered vehicles with vulnerable supply chains. I cannot overstate the ramifications of China developing fusion first. As an analogy, imagine if Japan and Germany had uncovered vast reserves of oil at home in the 1920s. American and Soviet oil gave the Allies a strategic advantage over the Axis powers. Had the situation been reversed, World War II could have ended differently. While private fusion companies in the West have raised about $8 billion total, China is investing at least $1.5 annually into fusion projects—double what the US government spends. Japanese and German investments in fusion don't even come close. Canada, for the record, has no fusion funding strategy. Moreover, the government of British Columbia, home of industry leader General Fusion, seems not to understand the value of this crown asset.* On all fronts nuclear, China is leaping ahead. In April, its scientists added fresh fuel to an operational thorium molten salt reactor—a first. The thorium reserves found in Inner Mongolia, an autonomous region of China, could theoretically meet Chinese energy demand for thousands of years. The kicker: this reactor design originated in the US. As project lead Xu Hongjie put it, 'The US left its research publicly available, waiting for the right successor. We were that successor." Moreover, in January, China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) sustained a fusion reaction for 1,066 seconds, setting a new record. Its Burning Plasma Experimental Superconducting Tokamak (BEST) fusion reactor could come online by 2027 and is expected to produce five times the amount of energy it consumes. When BEST announces this milestone, Western fusion companies may be announcing that they've run out of funding. To China, fusion is not a startup project—it's a matter of national interest and security. Its scientists are patenting more fusion-related technologies than any other single country and graduating more doctorates in fusion-related fields. And because China is the top refiner and exporter of the critical minerals needed in fusion reactors (e.g., for magnets), no external force is going to slow their progress. In the meantime, China has a cheap gas station next door—Russia—supplying all the fossil fuels China could need in exchange for support in its war with Ukraine. That support includes critical minerals needed by Russian arms manufacturers. Is fusion energy, along with other Chinese-dominated technologies, enough to end US hegemony? In 1988, historian Paul Kennedy published The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a book that tried to explain the relative success (and failure) of powerful states. According to Kennedy, their rise and fall '…shows a very significant correlation over the longer term between productive and revenue-raising capacities on the one hand and military strength on the other.' Essentially, states must balance economic prosperity with strategy. Technological breakthroughs are vital to both. Innovation creates wealth, which enables the state to invest in defense and win wars. While underinvestment in defense leaves the state vulnerable to other powers, overextension and overspending on defense can run an economy into the ground, leaving it unable to sustain a strong military. Now, picture a great power—China—with a military to rival the US and fusion reactors that provide virtually unlimited energy. Imagine the clout China would have in establishing ports, military bases and consumer markets around the world if it could license that fusion technology. A China that exceeds the US in energy, industry, intelligence, mobility and defense is positioned to usurp it. Of course, China could bungle its advantage. Authoritarian regimes have a habit of mismanaging internal dissent, falsifying reality and making preventable mistakes. The rise of China is inevitable, but the self-inflicted decline of the US and its allies isn't. Rather, it's a choice reflecting how societies invest their resources and envision their future. *Disclosure: The author is an investor in General Fusion and sits on its board of directors.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
McGuinty: Ottawa reviewing defence spending ‘top to bottom' ahead of NATO summit
OTTAWA - Ottawa is reviewing its defence spending plans 'from top to bottom,' Defence Minister David McGuinty said Thursday, as Canada comes under pressure from allies to ramp up spending to levels not seen since the height of the Cold War. McGuinty said the federal government will have more to say 'very soon' about its alliance spending commitments and will be 'making announcements in this regard.' 'Canada is revisiting all of its expenditures presently, from top to bottom,' he told reporters at NATO headquarters in Brussels. 'Just recently, our prime minister announced a $6 billion new effort to secure our Arctic, Canada's Arctic. So we're working very hard now with colleagues to implement a series of changes. We'll have much more to say about that financially in very short order.' McGuinty is in Belgium taking part in the NATO defence ministers' meeting, the last major NATO meeting ahead of the leaders' summit later this month — where members are expected to agree to increase their defence spending targets. Defence ministers are meeting to draw up 'capability targets' — basically shopping lists itemizing the kinds of arms the 32 member nations need to buy. The lists of priority purchases include air and missile defence systems, artillery, ammunition and drones. 'Today we decide on the capability targets. From there, we will assess the gaps we have, not only to be able to defend ourselves today, but also three, five, seven years from now,' NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said. Canada is under heavy pressure to increase its defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP — a three-point hike from the current target. Ottawa has long struggled to meet the current 2 per cent benchmark and spent just 1.33 per cent of its GDP on defence in 2023, according to a recent NATO report. The NATO secretary-general's annual report, released in April, said that Canada's defence spending would hit 1.45 per cent for 2024. Leaders of allied nations will gather on June 24 and 25 in the Netherlands for the annual NATO summit, where they're widely expected to agree on a massive hike to their defence spending commitments — mostly at the behest of U.S. President Donald Trump. U.S. Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth said on the doorstep of NATO headquarters Thursday that he expects member countries to agree on 5 per cent at the summit. 'To be an alliance, you've got to be more than flags,' he said. 'We're here to continue the work which President Trump started, a commitment to 5 per cent across this alliance, which we think will happen — it has to happen — by this summit at The Hague later this month.' No member country currently meets the 5 per cent benchmark — not even the United States. Hegseth took no questions when he spoke to reporters as he entered the building. The plan being put forward at the summit would commit member countries to spending 3.5 per cent of annual GDP on core defence needs — such as jets and other weapons — and 1.5 per cent on defence-adjacent areas like infrastructure, cybersecurity and industry. Canada hasn't spent the equivalent of 5 per cent of its GDP on defence since 1957, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The last time it spent 2 per cent was in 1990. The government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau suggested that once Canada purchases up to 12 new submarines to replace its aging Victoria class subs, it should meet the 2 per cent target. Ottawa expects to award a contract for the new fleet of subs by 2028. Prime Minister Mark Carney promised during the recent election campaign to move up Canada's deadline for meeting the 2 per cent threshold from 2032 to 2030 or sooner. McGuinty said Thursday that Canada is keenly aware of how the global security environment has shifted and is watching geopolitical risks increase. 'We are under no illusions about the scale of the challenges ahead,' he said. 'Russia's unprovoked and brutal war against Ukraine continues to destabilize the global security landscape. China's growing ambitions and increasingly assertive behaviour are eroding stability in the Indo-Pacific. And the erratic actions of regimes like North Korea and Iran are undermining the rules-based order we all depend on. 'In the face of these growing threats, we must all do more. We will all do more.' — With files from The Associated Press This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 5, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
McGuinty: Ottawa reviewing defence spending 'top to bottom' ahead of NATO summit
OTTAWA — Ottawa is reviewing its defence spending plans "from top to bottom," Defence Minister David McGuinty said Thursday, as Canada comes under pressure from allies to ramp up spending to levels not seen since the height of the Cold War. McGuinty said the federal government will have more to say "very soon" about its alliance spending commitments and will be "making announcements in this regard." "Canada is revisiting all of its expenditures presently, from top to bottom," he told reporters at NATO headquarters in Brussels. "Just recently, our prime minister announced a $6 billion new effort to secure our Arctic, Canada's Arctic. So we're working very hard now with colleagues to implement a series of changes. We'll have much more to say about that financially in very short order." McGuinty is in Belgium taking part in the NATO defence ministers' meeting, the last major NATO meeting ahead of the leaders' summit later this month — where members are expected to agree to increase their defence spending targets. Defence ministers are meeting to draw up "capability targets" — basically shopping lists itemizing the kinds of arms the 32 member nations need to buy. The lists of priority purchases include air and missile defence systems, artillery, ammunition and drones. 'Today we decide on the capability targets. From there, we will assess the gaps we have, not only to be able to defend ourselves today, but also three, five, seven years from now,' NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said. Canada is under heavy pressure to increase its defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP — a three-point hike from the current target. Ottawa has long struggled to meet the current 2 per cent benchmark and spent just 1.33 per cent of its GDP on defence in 2023, according to a recent NATO report. The NATO secretary-general's annual report, released in April, said that Canada's defence spending would hit 1.45 per cent for 2024. Leaders of allied nations will gather on June 24 and 25 in the Netherlands for the annual NATO summit, where they're widely expected to agree on a massive hike to their defence spending commitments — mostly at the behest of U.S. President Donald Trump. U.S. Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth said on the doorstep of NATO headquarters Thursday that he expects member countries to agree on 5 per cent at the summit. 'To be an alliance, you've got to be more than flags," he said. "We're here to continue the work which President Trump started, a commitment to 5 per cent across this alliance, which we think will happen — it has to happen — by this summit at The Hague later this month." No member country currently meets the 5 per cent benchmark — not even the United States. Hegseth took no questions when he spoke to reporters as he entered the building. The plan being put forward at the summit would commit member countries to spending 3.5 per cent of annual GDP on core defence needs — such as jets and other weapons — and 1.5 per cent on defence-adjacent areas like infrastructure, cybersecurity and industry. Canada hasn't spent the equivalent of 5 per cent of its GDP on defence since 1957, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The last time it spent 2 per cent was in 1990. The government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau suggested that once Canada purchases up to 12 new submarines to replace its aging Victoria class subs, it should meet the 2 per cent target. Ottawa expects to award a contract for the new fleet of subs by 2028. Prime Minister Mark Carney promised during the recent election campaign to move up Canada's deadline for meeting the 2 per cent threshold from 2032 to 2030 or sooner. McGuinty said Thursday that Canada is keenly aware of how the global security environment has shifted and is watching geopolitical risks increase. "We are under no illusions about the scale of the challenges ahead," he said. "Russia's unprovoked and brutal war against Ukraine continues to destabilize the global security landscape. China's growing ambitions and increasingly assertive behaviour are eroding stability in the Indo-Pacific. And the erratic actions of regimes like North Korea and Iran are undermining the rules-based order we all depend on. "In the face of these growing threats, we must all do more. We will all do more." — With files from The Associated Press This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 5, 2025. Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
