Nuclear-powered Royal Navy submarine arrives in Arabian Sea – with capacity to launch strikes on Iran if conflict escalates
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-nuclear-powered-submarine-positioned-arabian-sea-amid-regional-tensions-daily-2026-03-21/
Posted by esporx
35 Comments
It’s starting to feel like we might be involved in this. 🙄
We have several airbases in this region. Why have we sent a submarine?
The usual clickbait “nuclear powered” aside – how many Tomahawks does one of these carry, and how much difference will that really make?
The US firepower is immense, and has seemingly wiped out most of Iran’s main assets already. But there’s loads of hidden places along the (very long) coastline which can launch a combined thousands of drones to take out shipping in the Straits.
Seems nothing is really going to take out all of Iran’s capability unless someone nukes their entire coastline over and over, which would obviously be insane and hopefully never happens.
I dream of a day when the world properly distinguishes between SSN and SSBN in discourse and reporting.
Edit for the laymen as I also hate the in-crowd acronym soup:
SSN: (AKA “Attack” subs) Nuclear powered submarine that just shoots torpedos and maybe cruise missiles (e.g. tomahawk). The cruise missiles if – any are – launched from vertical bays on the top of the sub (US subs do this), or horizontally out of the torpedo tubes like our Astute class do. These torpedos/cruise missiles *can* theoretically have nuclear warheads (i.e. make nuclear boomba) in theory but in practice they are not nuclear armed. SSNs are also used for special forces stuff too like infiltration/extraction or intelligence gathering. The future AUKUS subs are SSN too – Australia aren’t getting nuclear missiles on them, but need knowledge on operating nuclear powered subs as suprisingly enough nuclear reactors aren’t plug-and-play. This is why Anson (article sub) was in Australia; part of a training program with the Aussies.
SSBN: (AKA “boomers) Nuclear powered *and* nuclear armed submarines – these are the ones carrying the giant space rockets that launch out of the top, go to space, and drop nuclear warheads on places that we don’t want to be places anymore i.e. Trident missiles for the UK (out of our 4 Vanguard/Dreadnaught class subs). These also have torpedo tubes so can fire torpedos/cruise missiles like the SSNs, but generally aren’t used cus “SSBN fires missiles” isn’t a good look for the headlines even *with* sensational headlines accounted for.
So when the media comes out with bullshit “nuclear submarine does x” headlines, 9 times out of 10 they’re talking about SSNs, but are relying on the imagery of SSBNs to generate clicks.
That submarine should be in the North Atlantic helping us meet our nato commitments not in an illegal war in the Middle East trump has made it clear he doesn’t need us
tbf the Royal Navy could just park up by Cyprus and lob Cruise Missiles toward Iran. Most places there are still with in range. No real need to get too close.
Well, he’s threatening Greenland again now so maybe we have to show willing?
Wouldn’t surprise me if Starmer was just lying to Trump about this. Not like anyone can see it.
Can we not call this what it is? Trump, for his own vanity, has basically started a war that is repidly engulfing the world. Then he calls us cowards because we don’t want or need this illegal war. Trump needs to be removed from office, but getting JD Vance instead fills me with abject horror.
I have friends in Tehran, the Bekkaa valley, UAE. I do not support the UK getting involved. An end to this insanity will not come through force alone.
This is embarrassing. The phase of the war where a *handful* of TLAM launched from an RN SSN is long gone. Any targets where we could actually make an impact on the war with such a strike will have long been struck by the US and Israel. Maybe they might find something for us to strike just for the politics of it, but that’s just demeaning.
If we’re going to get involved, we’ll have to commit significantly more assets. Which we don’t have. So we should just stay out of it and suck up the high oil prices. Then domestically do the sums to see if the economic hurt was worth the decades of military penny pinching. Will we learn from this and change our ways? Doubt it.
How many times must Iran attack us before we start to say mean things about them? I’m assuming mean things are the worst we can do, considering how harshly they are policed in the UK
[removed]
To those complaining about economic warfare by the effect on supply lines and oil / gas prices:
Iran has been under immense economic warfare for over 47 years, crippling its economy, and nobody has ever lobbied meaningfully to reverse this.
Despite this, Iran has allowed for FREE transit through its territorial waters in the strait of Hormuz. In the Panama Canal, Suez Canal, Bosphorus Strait there are immense charges for passage. This is good-will on the part of Iran and just because you don’t like the country doesn’t mean it’s ok to exploit the kindness. They’re within their right to charge for its use which is likely their plan going forward.
Complaining about the closure and not complaining that an illegal war has been launched and started with the killing of 165+ school children is morally bankrupt.
Iran has negotiated with the US twice in the past nine months, and TWICE has been attacked in the middle of negotiations. This time energy infrastructure and mass attacks aiming to destroy the nation, this is existential for Iran.
Those of us in this part of the world are fed information to make us believe that 90 million people are hostage to a regime. The reality couldn’t be further from the truth, if that were true a revolution would have happened by now, instead millions are out in the streets every single night in support of their government – whether they like the system or not.
Finally – if you are pro UK involvement, and see it as a means to lowering prices, then I would say that’s a massive miscalculation and would expose UK assets in the region more than they already are.
FYI – I don’t buy any of the propaganda that Iran would strike European countries – what strategic benefit even is there for something like that?
Aren’t all submarines nuclear powered since like the Second World War? As diesel powered ones can only remain submerged for relatively short times.
It would be so much easier if everyone just declared war on Israel. This thing would be over bother morning.
I’m all for staying out but Iran is now running an extortion racket. Trump has made all the wrong moves but the grown ups now have to step in before we are living a real life Mad Max.
Nuclear powered sub. Better than a paddle steamer I suppose!
Ffs we better not be setting up to get involved in this shit
Kier don’t fucking shit the bed
Nuclear powered but is it nuclear carrying?
I feel the headline makes more threat than the actual submarine being in the region.
1951-1953 what horrible time in history.
All because of Mossadegh nationalising the Anglo Iranian Oil Company.
All the UK had to do was have some rational dialogue and agree to a partnerships…but no…it was just greed.
Did not think of the negative effect on generations to come.
Nothing like helping a pedocrimal that wanted to invade a European ally just 2 months ago now conducting an illegal war that will have to pay x5 more for petrol
Whether we support the war or not Iran just seemingly got caught lying about something we previously dismissed as a lie of Israel and Trump
Their missile aimed at Diego Garcia went a hell of a lot further than 2000km and if we spin it round and point that missile towards Europe that becomes a lot more alarming than missiles with a maximum range of a beach in Israel we were assured by our own government was all Iran had
I watched the government officials on TV today and they were clearly being evasive and self contradictory over whether Irans missiles can reach us at one minute saying Israel was exaggerating Irans capabilities then the next saying the missiles aimed at Diego Garcia, which he just said shouldn’t be able to reach there, don’t really pose a threat
Since when did the navy advertise where submarines are deployed?
The whole point of submarines is stealth.
We can pretend all we want that it is avoidable we are stuck between not helping and we are fk or helping, and we might be fked either way we are fked. Probably best to get the fking started
Interesting how we broadcast what weapons we’re packing.
HMS Anson, armed with Tomahawk Block IV missiles and Spearfish torpedoes.
Useful for any analysts working for whoever the enemy is.
Took us long enough.
Iran takes pot shots at us and every one says we should stay out.
This is nice indirect reminder why it’s a good idea not to take pot shots at us.
Hopefully the UK stays well out of this. Understand what Trumps aim is here! And its not in the interests of the EU nor the UK. Trump likes leverage, and to do this he needs choke points. Ultimately he wants to control oil supply globally, which is why he and his administration are so against renewables. If he controls the Strait of Hormuz, its a choke point he can use globally. Iran/ Israel and everything else is just a diversion. Trump wants to control global oil supply as a bullying tactic. DO NOT SUPPORT THE USA Starmer…you/ we will live to regret it. The US needs to lose this war — bigly.
Why? It can’t escort, it can’t launch missiles that good (Tomahawk School Killers) are torpedo tube launched on our subs and we don’t have the stocks the US do. Of course, I can see it being used to surveil the Iranian Shoreline for landing spots or enemy launches… So it’s kinda escort/opening the straits.
Oh god why
Come on Starmer, show a backbone and stand up to the US and Israel, and tell them no.
There is no reason to have a cruise missile launching sub in the region unless someone wants to join the aggressive strikes on Iran by launching a cruise missile at them.
And we absolutely should not be doing that (well, unless Iran attacks Britain or something totally unlikely like that I suppose). And no I don’t mean “RAF base shared with the US” by Britain, I mean literally the island of Great Britain.
(The ‘nuclear powered’ headline is pure clickbait though, sad from Reuters)
The war started by the same country that threatened to invade Greenland end NATO and is willing to give Russia Ukraine..
Is getting help from the United Kingdom
Wtf
Still farming downvotes for pointing out that Starmer is just slow-walking us into this because the government are trying to deceive the public that we’re getting into it “defensively” and “we’re already involved whether we like it or not” and so on.
Also, a few cruise missiles are tactically insignificant. This is about supplying diplomatic cover for an American war for Israeli demands. Exactly as you would expect from Starmer.
“Capacity” being the optimal word here. The UK economy is fd right now. I don’t see them sending a barrage of 30 million a shot cruise missiles, unless they have zero other choice.
I thought we were keeping out of it….hollow words from Starmer as usual
But they are unlikely to do that, I would have thought.
I don’t think that Iran is directly threatening Britain.
And those strikes should be on US targets right? The country that started this illegal war.