Latest news with #Astute-class
Daily Record
21-05-2025
- Science
- Daily Record
Royal Navy's £1.3bn 'hunter-killer' submarine ready after secret tests at US Navy's 'Area 51'
HMS Anson is the fifth and most advanced in the Royal Navy's Astute-class of nuclear-powered submarines, which can circumnavigate the globe completely submerged beneath the waves The Royal Navy is preparing to deploy its £1.3billion 'hunter-killer' submarine, the HMS Anson, following weapons tests in the Atlantic and a visit to the US's maritime equivalent of 'Area 51'. The HMS Anson is the latest addition to the Navy's Astute-class of nuclear-powered vessels, which are capable of circumnavigating the globe completely submerged, making it the most advanced yet. This formidable vessel can launch long-range Tomahawk missiles to strike land targets as well as Spearfish torpedoes to combat enemy submarines, making the Astute-class the largest in the underwater fleet. HMS Anson has undergone trials off the east coast of the United States and in the Caribbean Sea, testing these capabilities alongside her state-of-the-art systems. Anson joins her operational sisters: Astute, Ambush, Artful and Audacious in this impressive class, reports the Express. Before being officially deployed on military operations, the sub will undergo further rigorous tests. Since leaving its shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness in February 2024, Anson has patrolled the UK coastline before sailing further north of Scotland to test her weapons systems. The Royal Navy describes these drills as consisting of "successful firings of both Spearfish and Tomahawk test missiles" before matters "intensified into the Atlantic as Anson headed to the Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC) in the waters around the Bahamas." AUTEC, nestled beside the Tongue of the Ocean's natural marvel—a vast deep-water basin hewn from coral reef—attracts top military tech experts from around the globe. The facility has earned a reputation as the US Navy's 'Area 51' due to the classified nature of its operations, and it even featured on History Channel's TV show UFO Hunters, where it was touted as a secret alien underwater base. In truth, the base spans 20 miles in width, stretches 150 miles in length, plunges up to 6,000ft deep in certain areas, and is packed with sophisticated recording gear to collect data on submarines, torpedoes, and sonar. While the precise outcomes of Anson's trials remain under wraps, the submarine must perform exceptionally well to confirm her capability to track enemy subs undetected. However, it wasn't all about the grind for her crew. "The opportunity for the majority of the Ship's Company to get to spend a few days on Andros was fantastic," shared one submariner, recounting the experience. He added, "This afforded us a few days of rest from the sea trials we were conducting and allowed us to spend time on the beach in the sun, relaxing and playing volleyball with base personnel."
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Nato is in tatters – Britain's security pact with Australia and the US could be next
For a brief moment, Donald Trump looked uncharacteristically stumped. During a press conference with Sir Keir Starmer in the Oval Office, a reporter asked the US president whether the pair would be discussing Aukus. 'What does that mean?' Trump said, pulling a quizzical face. Aukus, the journalist explained, is the acronym for the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the UK and the US. 'We will be discussing that,' Trump said, suddenly nodding. 'We've had another great relationship – and you have, too – with Australia,' the president said, gesturing over to Starmer. Things moved swiftly on. Depending on one's viewpoint, the exchange was either a moment of confusion or something more revealing – possibly, some in London and Canberra fear, a sign of disinterest. Whatever the truth, Trump's lapse and separate comments from advisers have triggered nervousness and fresh scrutiny of the groundbreaking Aukus deal, which was struck in 2021 under Joe Biden. 'The question is whether that initial diplomatic coup can now be made into something that's stable in the long run,' says Sidharth Kaushal, a sea power expert at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) in London. When it was announced, Aukus was described as a historic step to counter China's growing military presence in the Indo-Pacific. Beijing has thrust itself deep into the South China Sea over the past decade, constructing military outposts on the Spratly Islands. In recent days, its warships have brazenly sailed around Australia and conducted live-fire exercises just off its territorial waters. Aukus was meant to demonstrate Washington's rock-solid support for Canberra. It involves the US and UK sharing perhaps the most closely guarded secret of the transatlantic alliance: how to build, operate and maintain a fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines. These boats – including UK Astute-class and US Virginia-class subs – are the most advanced of their kind in the world, with capabilities allowing them to traverse the globe, undetected, without ever needing to surface. In a conflict, they can lie in wait underwater before launching devastating surprise attacks on land targets or enemy ships and submarines. Australia initially agreed to acquire at least three Virginia-class subs from the US, then to build a new generation of its own boats, the SSN-Aukus class, based on British designs. Striking the deal required Australia to rip up a signed agreement to buy diesel-electric subs from France – infuriating Paris – and hand Washington down payments worth hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade US shipyards. But there are now reasons to think that the deal is not yet as solid as it sounds. Trump's recent humiliation of Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, and long-running antipathy towards European Nato allies has sparked fears that his support for Canberra may be just as shallow. In fact, there are already murmurings within Trump's circle that the Aukus pact may not be compatible with his 'America first' approach. A key concern, and the reason Australia has already paid $500m (£390m) to Washington, is that the US is already struggling to build enough submarines for its own navy, let alone enough to give some to an ally. Elbridge Colby, a national security expert and Trump's pick for under-secretary of defence for policy at the Pentagon, said the US should 'do everything possible' to make the deal work but raised doubts about whether it would be practical. 'The problem is, there's a very real threat of a conflict ... God forbid, and our attack submarines are absolutely essential for making the defence of Taiwan or otherwise a viable or practical option,' he told American senators in a hearing this week. 'So if we can produce the attack submarine at sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great. But if we can't, it becomes a very difficult problem because we don't want our servicemen and women to be in a weaker position'. Against this backdrop, some Australian politicians have suggested that to keep Trump happy, Australia could sweeten the deal by offering access to its mineral deposits – as Kyiv could be forced to do to secure Washington's continued support against Russia. 'We've seen in [Trump's] exchange with President Zelensky that America is keen on rare earths,' said Andrew Hastie, the Australian opposition's defence spokesman. Britain, meanwhile, is keeping calm publicly while lobbying privately in support of Aukus. Lord Mandelson, the Labour peer who took over as Sir Keir's ambassador to Washington last month, is understood to regard preserving the pact as a priority. The UK's involvement, secured by Boris Johnson, is regarded as a diplomatic triumph with big domestic benefits. It will beef up the pipeline of defence work for companies including BAE Systems (which will build the British Aukus subs) and Rolls-Royce (which will supply reactors for the British and Australian boats), helping to provide long-term certainty for investment. It will also boost Britain's submarine-building capabilities at home, with the programme requiring major upgrades at BAE's shipyard in Barrow-on-Furness, in Cumbria, says Sophia Gaston, a foreign policy expert for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. In Barrow, BAE is currently finishing the remaining Astute-class programme. It will go on to build the new generation of nuclear-armed Dreadnought submarines and then the SSN-Aukus attack subs. The company will also lead the construction of Australia's Aukus subs via a joint venture based in Osborne, South Australia. The less-discussed 'pillar two' of Aukus is also seen as crucial because it involves the Aukus partners sharing the development of critical future technologies, including artificial intelligence, hypersonic missiles and quantum technologies. 'The UK stands to gain an enormous amount from Aukus,' Gaston says. But she stresses that London must not forget to demonstrate how America benefits too. 'The Trump administration will want to ground Aukus in a frame of American self-interest.' On the face of it, Rusi's Kaushal says Aukus should be attractive to Trump because – unlike Nato in Europe – it fits with America's pivot towards Asia and the Pacific. 'The Trump administration's ambivalence to Nato has multiple sources, but one justification has always been the idea that the Indo-Pacific is now the theatre of priority and Europe is drawing resources away from that,' he explains. Bolstering the naval capabilities of Australia, a key ally, will ultimately strengthen America's presence in the region and provide an potential alternative base to the US territory Guam, in the North Pacific – which is seen as highly vulnerable to long-range Chinese missile strikes. This is because, under Aukus, the western Australian port HMAS Stirling, near Perth, will host rotating US Navy and Royal Navy submarines from 2027. However, a simmering point of tension has been the question of how much operational control Australia would have over the American submarines it purchases in the event of a US-China conflict. Anthony Albanese, Australia's prime minister, has repeatedly stressed that the deal does not pre-commit Australia to join the Americans and that deployment would be 'a decision for Australia' – yet that is something US officials have conspicuously refused to confirm. There are other reasons that Trump may conclude that the security pact is a 'bad deal' for the US as well, warns Kaushal. One risk is that the US president decides he doesn't need Britain's help and cuts London out of the deal. 'There's a question of whether at some future point, the Trump administration will see the UK as the odd man out and try to supplant the idea of co-production with Australia,' says Kaushal. 'And then instead try to directly sell them US submarines.' The UK's position in the partnership could also be put at risk if the Royal Navy cannot meet the commitments it has signed up to, such as deploying an Astute-class sub to Western Australia later this decade. Of the five Astute boats in service, the Royal Navy has struggled to keep more than two or three at sea simultaneously due to constrained maintenance capacity, Kaushal says. One is always required to protect the nuclear-armed Vanguard-class boat that provides Britain's continuous at-sea deterrent, typically leaving just one or two for operations in the High North where Russia must be contained. 'Maintaining a deployment in Australia as well could strain a very limited force to breaking point,' Kaushal warns. There is a separate question about whether BAE can deliver the first Aukus sub on time, by the late 2030s. That will require it to deliver the final two Astute boats and then all four Dreadnoughts that are on order first. On top of this, the first-in-class for Aukus is likely to throw up potential design and engineering challenges that could cause delays and potentially push back the completion date of the first sister ship in Australia – pencilled in for the early 2040s – which will rely heavily on learnings from Barrow. Kaushal notes that Aukus may actually help on this front, however, by bringing an influx of skills and investment that ultimately speeds up delivery. For now, the UK's diplomatic approach to Aukus during the second Trump presidency is still being calibrated. Within the Washington embassy, there are 'live discussions' about whether Britain should lead from the front and seek to trumpet the agreement's value, or stay quiet during the administration's first 100 days as Trump takes a 'a battle posture on foreign policy', says one person briefed on the matter. Last week, Sir Keir sought to impress the president with a pledge to boost the UK's defence spending to 2.5pc of GDP by 2027 and as much as 3pc within the next parliament. The Ministry of Defence, meanwhile, says the Royal Navy has already begun providing training to Australian submariners. 'The UK's contribution to Aukus is fundamental – the submarines are based upon our world-leading design and all the nuclear reactors for the UK and Australian SSN-Aukus submarines will be made in the UK by Rolls Royce in Derby,' a government spokesman adds. But to keep the Aukus deal on the road, Gaston argues the Government will have to 'sharpen its approach' and 'show [the UK] can really deliver value'. Perhaps that will start with ensuring that President Trump knows precisely what Aukus is, the next time he is asked. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Nato is in tatters – Britain's security pact with the US and Australia could be next
For a brief moment, Donald Trump looked uncharacteristically stumped. During a press conference with Sir Keir Starmer in the Oval Office, a reporter asked the US president whether the pair would be discussing Aukus. 'What does that mean?' Trump said, pulling a quizzical face. Aukus, the journalist explained, is the acronym for the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the UK and the US. 'We will be discussing that,' Trump said, suddenly nodding. 'We've had another great relationship – and you have, too – with Australia,' the president said, gesturing over to Starmer. Things moved swiftly on. Depending on one's viewpoint, the exchange was either a moment of confusion or something more revealing – possibly, some in London and Canberra fear, a sign of disinterest. Whatever the truth, Trump's lapse and separate comments from advisers have triggered nervousness and fresh scrutiny of the groundbreaking Aukus deal, which was struck in 2021 under Joe Biden. 'The question is whether that initial diplomatic coup can now be made into something that's stable in the long run,' says Sidharth Kaushal, a sea power expert at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) in London. When it was announced, Aukus was described as a historic step to counter China's growing military presence in the Indo-Pacific. Beijing has thrust itself deep into the South China Sea over the past decade, constructing military outposts on the Spratly Islands. In recent days, its warships have brazenly sailed around Australia and conducted live-fire exercises just off its territorial waters. Aukus was meant to demonstrate Washington's rock-solid support for Canberra. It involves the US and UK sharing perhaps the most closely guarded secret of the transatlantic alliance: how to build, operate and maintain a fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines. These boats – including UK Astute-class and US Virginia-class subs – are the most advanced of their kind in the world, with capabilities allowing them to traverse the globe, undetected, without ever needing to surface. In a conflict, they can lie in wait underwater before launching devastating surprise attacks on land targets or enemy ships and submarines. Australia initially agreed to acquire at least three Virginia-class subs from the US, then to build a new generation of its own boats, the SSN-Aukus class, based on British designs. Striking the deal required Australia to rip up a signed agreement to buy diesel-electric subs from France – infuriating Paris – and hand Washington down payments worth hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade US shipyards. But there are now reasons to think that the deal is not yet as solid as it sounds. Trump's recent humiliation of Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, and long-running antipathy towards European Nato allies has sparked fears that his support for Canberra may be just as shallow. In fact, there are already murmurings within Trump's circle that the Aukus pact may not be compatible with his 'America first' approach. A key concern, and the reason Australia has already paid $500m (£390m) to Washington, is that the US is already struggling to build enough submarines for its own navy, let alone enough to give some to an ally. Elbridge Colby, a national security expert and Trump's pick for under-secretary of defence for policy at the Pentagon, said the US should 'do everything possible' to make the deal work but raised doubts about whether it would be practical. 'The problem is, there's a very real threat of a conflict ... God forbid, and our attack submarines are absolutely essential for making the defence of Taiwan or otherwise a viable or practical option,' he told American senators in a hearing this week. 'So if we can produce the attack submarine at sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great. But if we can't, it becomes a very difficult problem because we don't want our servicemen and women to be in a weaker position'. Against this backdrop, some Australian politicians have suggested that to keep Trump happy, Australia could sweeten the deal by offering access to its mineral deposits – as Kyiv could be forced to do to secure Washington's continued support against Russia. 'We've seen in [Trump's] exchange with President Zelensky that America is keen on rare earths,' said Andrew Hastie, the Australian opposition's defence spokesman. Britain, meanwhile, is keeping calm publicly while lobbying privately in support of Aukus. Lord Mandelson, the Labour peer who took over as Sir Keir's ambassador to Washington last month, is understood to regard preserving the pact as a priority. The UK's involvement, secured by Boris Johnson, is regarded as a diplomatic triumph with big domestic benefits. It will beef up the pipeline of defence work for companies including BAE Systems (which will build the British Aukus subs) and Rolls-Royce (which will supply reactors for the British and Australian boats), helping to provide long-term certainty for investment. It will also boost Britain's submarine-building capabilities at home, with the programme requiring major upgrades at BAE's shipyard in Barrow-on-Furness, in Cumbria, says Sophia Gaston, a foreign policy expert for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. In Barrow, BAE is currently finishing the remaining Astute-class programme. It will go on to build the new generation of nuclear-armed Dreadnought submarines and then the SSN-Aukus attack subs. The less-discussed 'pillar two' of Aukus is also seen as crucial because it involves the Aukus partners sharing the development of critical future technologies, including artificial intelligence, hypersonic missiles and quantum technologies. 'The UK stands to gain an enormous amount from Aukus,' Gaston says. But she stresses that London must not forget to demonstrate how America benefits too. 'The Trump administration will want to ground Aukus in a frame of American self-interest.' On the face of it, Rusi's Kaushal says Aukus should be attractive to Trump because – unlike Nato in Europe – it fits with America's pivot towards Asia and the Pacific. 'The Trump administration's ambivalence to Nato has multiple sources, but one justification has always been the idea that the Indo-Pacific is now the theatre of priority and Europe is drawing resources away from that,' he explains. Bolstering the naval capabilities of Australia, a key ally, will ultimately strengthen America's presence in the region and provide an potential alternative base to the US territory Guam, in the North Pacific – which is seen as highly vulnerable to long-range Chinese missile strikes. This is because, under Aukus, the western Australian port HMAS Stirling, near Perth, will host rotating US Navy and Royal Navy submarines from 2027. However, a simmering point of tension has been the question of how much operational control Australia would have over the American submarines it purchases in the event of a US-China conflict. Anthony Albanese, Australia's prime minister, has repeatedly stressed that the deal does not pre-commit Australia to join the Americans and that deployment would be 'a decision for Australia' – yet that is something US officials have conspicuously refused to confirm. There are other reasons that Trump may conclude that the security pact is a 'bad deal' for the US as well, warns Kaushal. One risk is that the US president decides he doesn't need Britain's help and cuts London out of the deal. 'There's a question of whether at some future point, the Trump administration will see the UK as the odd man out and try to supplant the idea of co-production with Australia,' says Kaushal. 'And then instead try to directly sell them US submarines.' The UK's position in the partnership could also be put at risk if the Royal Navy cannot meet the commitments it has signed up to, such as deploying an Astute-class sub to Western Australia later this decade. Of the five Astute boats in service, the Royal Navy has struggled to keep more than two or three at sea simultaneously due to constrained maintenance capacity, Kaushal says. One is always required to protect the nuclear-armed Vanguard-class boat that provides Britain's continuous at-sea deterrent, typically leaving just one or two for operations in the High North where Russia must be contained. 'Maintaining a deployment in Australia as well could strain a very limited force to breaking point,' Kaushal warns. There is a separate question about whether BAE can deliver the first Aukus sub on time, by the late 2030s. That will require it to deliver the final two Astute boats and then all four Dreadnoughts that are on order first. On top of this, the first-in-class for Aukus is likely to throw up potential design and engineering challenges that could cause delays and potentially push back the completion date of the first sister ship in Australia – pencilled in for the early 2040s – which will rely heavily on learnings from Barrow. Kaushal notes that Aukus may actually help on this front, however, by bringing an influx of skills and investment that ultimately speeds up delivery. For now, the UK's diplomatic approach to Aukus during the second Trump presidency is still being calibrated. Within the Washington embassy, there are 'live discussions' about whether Britain should lead from the front and seek to trumpet the agreement's value, or stay quiet during the administration's first 100 days as Trump takes a 'a battle posture on foreign policy', says one person briefed on the matter. Last week, Sir Keir sought to impress the president with a pledge to boost the UK's defence spending to 2.5pc of GDP by 2027 and as much as 3pc within the next parliament. The Ministry of Defence, meanwhile, says the Royal Navy has already begun providing training to Australian submariners. 'The UK's contribution to Aukus is fundamental – the submarines are based upon our world-leading design and all the nuclear reactors for the UK and Australian SSN-Aukus submarines will be made in the UK by Rolls Royce in Derby,' a government spokesman adds. But to keep the Aukus deal on the road, Gaston argues the Government will have to 'sharpen its approach' and 'show [the UK] can really deliver value'.
The Guardian
31-01-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Digested week: Caroline Kennedy swoops on RFK Jr with talons out
'Trying not to upset the French' could be a chapter in a Debrett's guide to etiquette and manners, one that may have been taken to heart by the government this week with its decision to change the name of a new submarine. The Astute-class attack vessel is still being built, but on Sunday night, the Royal Navy announced that what was to become HMS Agincourt would, instead, be given the more Franco-friendly name of HMS Achilles. Up pops Grant Shapps, the former Conservative defence secretary, to dust off his opportunism and accuse the navy of bending to Labourite 'woke nonsense'. It's just like riding a bike! The naming of ships in this country is famously fraught after the saga of Boaty McBoatface, one of those jokes that was supposed to advertise the country's jaunty irreverence and ended up being flogged into tiresome half wittedness. But back to the submarine formerly known as Agincourt. The government insists the vessel hasn't been renamed because it might make the French feel bad, but rather to pay tribute to a previous ship of the same name that received 'battle honours' during the second world war. This would be more credible if Achilles had been the first idea out of the gate and not the substitution for a name that honoured the defeat of the French by Henry V at Agincourt in 1415. Times Radio, meanwhile, managed to whistle up an angry former Royal Navy commander, Chris Parry, who had the courtesy to deliver exactly what they were looking for and call the renaming a 'craven and contemptible surrender to ideology being pushed by the government'. We must be grateful no one put in a call to the British Legion. (The Daily Express probably did. I can't bring myself to look.) It was Kennedy v Kennedy in the US Senate this week at the confirmation hearing for the presumptive health secretary and anti-vaxxer, Robert F Kennedy Jr. The son of RFK came up against perhaps the only person in the US with greater surname capital than his own – Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of JFK, which makes her assuredly an outranking FK – who released a video in which she read out a statement enumerating all the ways in which her first cousin was a terrible person who was unfit for office. Caroline Kennedy wasn't messing around. Like a playful assassin, she opened gently, referring to RFK Jnr as 'Bobby' and contextualising him fondly as one of 'a close generation of 28 cousins who have been through a lot together'. That tone soon evaporated. Bobby, said Caroline, was 'dangerous and wilfully misinformed' on vaccines, lacking in any relevant medical or government experience, and wholly unsuited to the job of health secretary. And this was just the warm up. Reminding us that the Kennedys didn't accumulate their wealth and influence via charm alone, Caroline then flatly informed the Senate panel and the American public that her cousin was a 'predator' who, 'no surprise', keeps birds of prey and – who saw this detail coming? – once 'put baby chickens and mice in a blender to feed his hawks'. We look forward to the Republican-run Senate confirming RFK Jr to take his rightful place alongside Kristi Noem, the freshly confirmed homeland security secretary, who admitted in her recent memoir to having shot her dog. To the theatre, to see the acclaimed adaptation of Annie Ernaux's book of auto-fiction, The Years. The five women in the cast are fantastic, the staging is perfect, and – bonus drama – the 'graphic scenes' of abortion that have been knocking out audience members intermittently since the play opened, caused someone in the audience to faint. The show stopped for 10 minutes. As the action resumed, I found myself wondering if it was a man or a woman who'd keeled over. The scene was graphic to the extent that fake blood poured down the character's legs and the dialogue painted an even grimmer and more upsetting picture. Still – and sorry to be gross – the experience of having your bathroom turning into a scene from Straw Dogs is pretty familiar to most women I know, especially if they're approaching menopause. I assume it was a man who passed out. Anyway on with the play, in which there were cigarettes and existentialism and of course, blood, very much in line with the French idea of womanhood as hard work and less aligned perhaps with the British fondness for defensive flippancy. As we left the theatre, an older British lady in front of us laughed and remarked to her companion: 'I think we'll need some ice-cream after that.' Well said, madam. Menopausal ladies are big business at the moment. After Davina McCall's and Jen Gunter's bestselling menopause books, comes Dare I Say It, a menopause memoir by movie star Naomi Watts, and a new 'viral' menopause workout by Jennifer Aniston. Aniston's partnership with a fitness brand called Pvolve – no, I don't get it, either – offers a rigorous programme of low-impact exercise designed for middle-aged women. Fine, lovely, it's nice to see a historically ignored demographic get our moment of rigorous commercial exploitation. The upside to the Pvolve programme is that you don't have to leave your house to do it. The downside is that it involves buying a load of Pvolve-branded gear – an exercise ball, a 'heavy ankle board', 'glider discs' – to gather dust in your house when, two weeks into the programme, you understand you are not turning into Jennifer Aniston and give up. An impact of the pandemic on very young children is that, according to a survey of 1,000 teachers released this week, many of those who started reception last year spoke with vaguely American accents from too much screen time and were 'unable to climb a staircase'. Intellectually, I understand the concerns this might raise, but from experience it all looks normal to me. When my own tiny three-year-olds started the equivalent of reception, they spoke with American accents, struggled with stairs because we didn't have any, and one of them was still in pull-ups. Somewhere in the intervening seven years we figured it out.
The Independent
28-01-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
‘Woke nonsense': Grant Shapps hits out at submarine's new name
The decision to rename the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Agincourt is 'woke nonsense', a former defence secretary has claimed. The Astute-class attack submarine, which is still under construction, was due to be named in honour of Henry V's 1415 victory over the French. But the boat will now be called HMS Achilles, a famous name in Royal Navy history. Amid speculation the change was prompted to avoid offending the French, former defence secretary Grant Shapps said: 'Renaming the HMS Agincourt is nothing short of sacrilege. 'This submarine carries a name that honours a defining moment in British history. 'Under Labour, woke nonsense is being put ahead of tradition and our armed forces' proud heritage.' Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace told Times Radio the French would not have been offended by the name. He said: 'We're very close to the French. The French are one of our strongest allies. 'They don't get put off by names like that. 'I mean, that shows a very pathetic grasp of foreign policy and relationships.' He added that the French 'celebrate their successes' but 'also know in their history they didn't have all the successes'. 'So, if that is the actual reason it's been renamed, then I would be concerned that it shows we're focusing on superficial nonsense rather than rebuilding our defence,' he said. A Royal Navy spokesman said: 'We are proud of our nation's rich military history and the many famous battles fought. 'The seventh boat in the Astute class is to be called Achilles, a name which is particularly appropriate this year as we mark the VE and VJ Day 80th anniversaries. 'Achilles received battle honours during the Second World War. 'The name was proposed by the Royal Navy Ships Names and Badging committee and approved by His Majesty the King.' In October last year Grant Shapps launched Conservatives Together, a group that aims to pick the party back up after a record electoral defeat. Mr Shapps who lost his own seat in July, told a fringe event at the Conservative Party conference that the organisation was an independent group of MPs, former MPs, candidates and former candidates. Mr Shapps said it was 'definitely not a think tank' and will not be allied to a particular leadership campaign or candidate. 'We are thinking about: 'How do we support conservatives at every level of the party who are involved in the party to campaign more effectively?'' he said.
