Britain’s new nuclear deterrent submarine will be called HMS Dreadnought, a name with a long history
Systems
The first of the new submarines that will carry Trident missiles when the UK’s nuclear deterrent is renewed is to carry on the Royal Navy’s most famous name. The submarine, which will be built at BAE Systems’ manufacturing site at Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, is to be called HMS Dreadnought and, as is traditional, the three other nuclear missile-carrying submarines will be known as the Dreadnought class and their names will all begin with D.
Dreadnought will replace the Vanguard-class submarines that currently carry Britain’s nuclear deterrent. Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance began to come into service in 1993. Construction of Dreadnought began last month. No date has yet been given for Dreadnought‘s entry into service, or of any other of the submarine’s specifications, but the cost of building the four submarines is expected to be around £31bn.
The Dreadnought name has been used for nine other Royal Navy ships in the past, the first being sailed by Sir Francis Drake when he fought the Spanish Armada in 1588. Another was one of Nelson’s fleet at the Battle of Trafalgar. The most famous Dreadnought was probably a battleship launched in 1906, which at the time the largest was the most heavily armed and armoured naval ship in the world, and which started an arms race in the run-up to the First World War (see box below). The Royal Navy’s first nuclear powered submarine, launched in 1956, was also called Dreadnought.
Edwardian escalation warning
The Engineer covered the launch of the most famous HMS Dreadnought in February 1906. The ship was launched at Portsmouth by King Edward VII to much public interest. “She has been frequently spoken of as if she marked an entirely new departure in naval architecture. This is not strictly true,” the journal reported. “She evolved from types which preceded her, and the apparent jump is caused, not a little, to the fact that her immediate predecessors are still far from completion.” The public interest, the Engineer commented, was due to the ship’s size, turbine engines, fighting power, the speed it was built, and the secrecy with which the project was surrounded.
In an almost eerie paragraph, the Engineer‘s report notes the geopolitical significance of the Dreadnought project. “We are prone to forget that the peace of Europe reposes in the maintenance of a certain balance of power, which might be easily upset by changes in one Navy or the other, but we must not be blind to the significance of the speed with which the Dreadnought is being built. The Dreadnought… is meant as an object lesson which those who are intended to learn cannot fail to appreciate. We know that she is closely observed, and that other nations will at the earliest moment seek to produce a ‘reply’ to her, and it is clearly wise policy to retain the lead which we possess by concealing as long as possible details of her design and strength.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but ‘our’ commander’ at the Battle of Jutland (1916) did opine that “there is something wrong with our bl**dy ships this morning” -as the second of this class exploded when hit with the loss of almost all hands: and several others of the ‘we want eight and we won’t wait’ class! (mostly encouraged by the then ‘popular’ Right wing “meja!”) behaved in ways hardly appropriate to the effective conduct of a sea-war in the Trafalgar tradition? What, in heavens name should/would encourage me, or indeed any thinking Engineer, to believe those at the summit of ‘our’ military this time? Ignorant arrogant fools? You tell me?
The Battle of Jutland may have been a classical naval battle fought in a “traditional” manner but it was hardly effective and worked more by luck than judgement.
P.S. my father served on a Dreadnought, HMS Neptune.
Let’s never forget the numerous lessons of history and a Brit tendency to over-estimate our own capabilities and under-estimate those of our likely opponents e.g. the swift sinking in Dec 1941, by a large force of land-based Japanese aircraft, of PRINCE OF WALES (battleship) and REPULSE (battle-cruiser) due to lack of air-cover, strategic and tactical errors and prior to the worst defeat in British military history: The Fall of Singapore. The obsolescent Brewster Buffalo was no match for the state-of-the-art Mitsubishi Zero fighters and Betty bombers of that time. If state-of-the-art means buying from those who can now make what we cannot, then we should not hesitate to do that, as another Nimrod saga would be unacceptable.
I would suggest that it is much more of a Brit tendency these days to underestimate our own abilities, hence your suggestion “If state-of-the-art means buying from those who can now make what we cannot”. There is no reason why we in this country cannot make anything just as well as anyone else. This is not over-estimation just a belief in your own and your countrymen’s abilities.
It’s a combination of us underestimating our own technical capability and vastly overestimating our managerial and leadership capability. Britain has the engineering talent and capability to match any nation on earth, but it lacks the ability to identify long-term trends and act accordingly. Instead of long-term strategy, we have a series of short term tactical plays.
I recall well one of our 1960 Engineering lecturers (who had, somewhat like my father, along with Nevil Shute, etc, been drafted into the ‘civilian’ attached section of the service) telling us that he [his speciality was maintainance and corrosion] too had the greatest difficulty trying to persuade the Admirality ? that it was not absolutely necessary to have all ships painted in several ‘coats’ of red-oxide as a primer and then several more coats of ‘battle-ship’ grey before the camouflage stripes were painted on, etc. There was an idea amongst senior navy officers that ships would sink unless they had all this stuff applied! Has anything altered?
Actually the Nimrod saga to which Dick Wallis refers comes rather close to home: in that several of my neighbours here in the N West worked upon the extensions/enhancement to the original aircraft (wasn’t that itself based upon the Comet?) I gather that once again, it was not the technology which was faulty: but the political will: and a wish to placate the US. [Once again!]
Someone ought to take our leadership on one side: and remind them that we are indeed ‘two nations separated by a common language’. Sharing, to a US Congressman means: “We take everything, even the things that you Brits (who for the most part are better at innovative thinking that we -we simply throw money at a matter until somehow we, or someone we ‘borrowed’ from Europe or elsewhere, solves it!) have developed: and unless we keep control and are the biggest, tallest, strongest, most arrogant: and you thank us and say what nice friendly folk we are and how grateful you are….we will retreat behind fortress America and leave you guys to your fate!
” the peace of Europe reposes in the maintenance of a certain balance of power, which might be easily upset by changes” -wise words! As it ever has been, and presumably always will be, we Engineers who create the weapons and their means of delivery (and we do this by our understanding of Nature’s Laws -which are the same in all countries- and their manipulation) it seems a short step from receiving instructions from a political elite to ourselves telling them what is to be the future. I look forward to that time. Soon