August 3, 2024

Russian Created Software on UK Nuclear Subs

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/02/submarine-revelations-should-be-a-wake-up-call-to-ministers/

"Submarine revelations should be a wake-up call to ministers about defence supply chains"

"On too many occasions, Russia has slipped through the cracks despite numerous steps to limit its access.

Britain’s nuclear submarines not only play a critical role in safeguarding our national security from hostile powers such as Russia. They also maintain the nuclear deterrent, with the current fleet of four Vanguard nuclear submarines on 24/7 undersea patrols with the ability to deliver a devastating response in the event of the UK coming under nuclear attack.

The importance of preserving this pillar of the UK’s national defence infrastructure is reflected in the fact that the Government is investing tens of billions of pounds in building a new fleet of Dreadnought nuclear submarines and missile systems designed to deter potential aggressors for the next 30-40 years.

Friday’s [August 2, 2024's] revelation, therefore, that the development of computer software for staff working on the Royal Navy’s nuclear submarines was outsourced to engineers in Siberia and Belarus raises serious questions about their operational security.

A dangerous era


Despite [UK] Ministry of Defence stipulations that such work should only be conducted by UK-based staff with the requisite security clearance, concerns have now been raised that the new software could have been exploited to reveal the location of Britain’s submarines, thereby giving hostile states such as Russia a vital advantage in the event of a future nuclear confrontation. 

Certainly, at a time when the UK and its allies have subjected Russia to a wide range of sanctions in response to its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, questions need to be asked why firms based in Belarus, which could have links to the Kremlin, have been allowed to work on such a sensitive area of Britain’s nuclear security.

Only last month, in his address to the Nato summit in Washington, Sir Keir gave an explicit warning that the “generational threat” posed by Russia and other hostile states meant that we were living in a “new and dangerous era… One defined by volatility and insecurity.”

But while the Government has taken numerous steps to limit the access of Russian businesses to the UK, there is mounting evidence that, on too many occasions, the measures are not being properly enforced, especially when it comes to limiting Russian access to the UK’s legal, financial and property sectors.

The suggestion, therefore, that firms operating in Russia and Belarus are working in such sensitive areas as the Royal Navy’s nuclear submarine fleet should serve as a wake-up call to ministers that, if they are really serious about confronting Moscow, they need to ensure that supply chains are secure."

Pete Comment

The problem may go  further. There may be occasions when UK SSNs are used to protect US SSBNs in the eastern Atlantic. If so part Russian or Belarusian developed software aboard UK SSNs (or onshore at UK naval bases) may be assisting Russia to locate US SSBNs.

6 comments:

Shawn C said...

Oh yeah, and there was a bit off hoo-haa is Singapore as Binken visited and signed the 123 Nuclear Agreement - which is basically about sharing civilian nuke tech an policy

Likely Singapore is looking to chip in to Indonesian civilian reactor programs as a way to import clean energy.

Reports are that the BSF is down the Rostov-on-Don again. But I personally think the URK damaged it beyond repair last year, and the recent reports are likely about the Alrosa, which is also non-functional in Sevestapol

Pete2 said...

Hi Shawn at 8/04/2024 6:48 PM

Relevant to your comment is a fine article "S’pore is going nuclear: gets 30-year access to US technologies, preparing for future use" of August 1, 2024 at

https://vulcanpost.com/867132/singapore-gets-30-year-access-to-american-nuclear-technologies/

including "Small modular reactors are one area of promise, as they are smaller, considerably safer, and require much-reduced buffer zones than current nuclear power plants. This would make them suitable for a densely populated island with very little land."

Singapore sending money to Indonesia for long term nuclear reactor projects might be a heroic investment risk (with the Australian AUKUS parallel of A$5 Billion each to US and UK). Indonesia's unstable geology, including earthquakes, volcanic explosions and Tsunamis might be mitigated or maybe not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami .

Australia with Dutton's nuclear pretensions, can learn from all this - from a safe distance, mind.

Poor Russian Kilo subs, that might be safer submerged, are making for excellent target practice.

Cheers Pete

Shawn C said...

After years of having a 50% power generation glut (because the Energy Authority miscalculated), Singapore now has a clean power deficit that may hamper the country from building more more more data and AI centres, and they also want to accelerate quantum technology (rational from a sovereign perspective).

So apart from that idiotic Suncable/AApowerlink, importing green electricity from wind generators in Malaysia is a potential option. Fukushima scared off the Malaysians and Viets from nuclear power, but Indonesia has been making a lot of noise about buying a US NuScale SMR in West Kalimantan, so this 123 agreement enables Singapore to 'sit-in' on Indonesian development, especially if Indonesia wants to export its energy.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/nuclear-energy-fusion-fission-experts-deployment-timeline-tan-see-leng-parliament-4239546

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/USA,-Indonesia-announce-partnership-on-SMRs

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/nuclear-power-in-indonesia

Scott said...

Pete to add insult to injury on the UK SSN force, this story today confirms that all six of the RN’s current in service SSNs are in port with none at sea. Reason: problems with dockyard infrastructure means that they cannot have required maintenance completed before going back to sea. As I have said before the UK has been underfunding the RN for a decade and it is catching up. If AUKUS does go ahead, IMO we would be better off working with the USN to contribute to the Virginia program. UK looks very high risk.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13708629/Britains-territorial-waters-exposed-submarines.html

Pete2 said...

Hi Shawn at 8/06/2024 7:27 PM
The higher power needs of the latest supercomputers and storage, to which you refer, may be defying the projections of most countries. Singapore indeed faces physical facts (eg. tiny area) that limits its ability to generate more electricity.
I see Indonesia also has a 123 Agreement with the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_123_Agreement . So the US presumably took Indonesian tectonic vulnerability and political stability into account.
Australia exporting liquid hydrogen by ship to Singapore might be another option, but in more than 15 years, most probably.
Cheers Pete

Pete2 said...

Hi Scott at 8/07/2024 8:45 PM
Yes indeed the UK looks very high risk as an SSN-AUKUS joint venturer with Australia. The UK's late and overbudget naval shipbuilding record is not much better than Australia's low standards. Who can forget it took the US nuclear submarine sector to correct major problems in the UK's Astute program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine#Construction,_cost_overruns_and_delays .
The UK is committed to continuing and completing its Dreadnought SSBN program as a higher priority and preliminary to truly commencing the SSN-AUKUS build.
Also BAE problems are seen in the Type 26 frigate program. Australia bought BAE's promise that the 26s were a mature design while Aus also added its habitual problematic variations that can be expected in Aus's version of the SSN-AUKUSs. As I'm 63 already I may never see Osborne built SSN-AUKUSs, which I calculate will only be commissioned in the late 2040s or even early 2050s.
Cheers Pete