Vanguard and Victorious were laid down in '86 and '87 and launched in '92 and '93 respectively [1], the first two of the Upholder-class subs were launched in '86 and '89 [2] and are currently with the Canadians in "active" service.
As you say, first two weren’t launched in the 1980s and the second two aren’t part of the UK fleet, so that’s still just one. Can’t really call that a majority even if you were contradicting me.
San Juan was laid down in early 1982 and launched in 1983 then underwent a mid-life upgrade in 2008-2013, Vanguard was laid down in 1986 and (being significantly more complicated) launched in 1992. The point stands (as a counter to the idea that Argentina's fleet is somehow ancient) that they're of a pretty similar age and era, even if it's not true that the majority of the RN's fleet is.
The other two subs were UK built and are still serving, even if not with the UK.
As another data point, HMS Illustrious launched in the '70s, participated in the Falklands War in the '80s and was only decommissioned 3 years ago (admittedly as the oldest ship in the fleet and decidedly showing its age).
Edit: If you widen the criteria to the entire fleet, there's also 14 Archer-class patrol ships that were commissioned in the 80s (plus one that's with the Royal Oman Police) [1] and eight of the Hunt-class minesweepers [2], of which one was commissioned in the 70s.
Might as well desperately throw HMS Victory into that mix of random things and really get the average age up! But none of this is relevant to the launch dates of submarines in the UK fleet, which is what was claimed.
I get the underlying point about the age of naval platforms, yeah. I was just correcting the incorrect and misleading claim about the age of the UK's submarines, because a clearly incorrect claim doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.
Not related to this article but, I had the pleasure of visiting the muesum at Hartlepool that was responsible for repairing the the HMS Warrior. Unfortunately for I, I had not yet been brought into the world but the museum there at Hartlepool is exceptional.
The expertise of the men involved in the restoration of the Warrior (and the HMS Trincomalee which is still birthed at Hartlepool currently) was fascinating to me growing up. There's nothing of interest in Hartlepool with the exception of the towns ship building legacy. The restoration of those two ships are one of the few bright points in an otherwise awful 4 decades of austerity for my old home town.
"[HMS Trincomalee]... is the oldest warship afloat anywhere in Europe, berthed at Jackson Dock, within The National Museum of the Royal Navy Hartlepool."
I seem to recall the intent was to originally have the HMS Warrior made sea worthy but during the repair work it was deemed too risky or expensive? This was done shortly before it was sent back to Portsmouth back in 87. I believe the intent is to sail the HMS Trincomalee down to Portsmouth in the future too. That'd be a sight to behold.
> The point stands (as a counter to the idea that Argentina's fleet is somehow ancient) that they're of a pretty similar age and era
Somehow you've missed the fact that ARA San Juan is 9 years older by your own account, and even older if you consider the fact that HMS Vanguard was only comissioned in 1993 and entered service in 1994.
Considering also that the typical design life of a navy ship is somewhere between 30 and 40 years, perhaps we can agree that a 10-year difference is highly relevant and significant.
Moreover, fatigue life is an unforgiving master and can't simply be fixed by mid-life updates.
Which UK submarines from the 80s do you think are still operating? I think there’s just one, HMS Trenchant, from 1989.