In a surprising announceme nt on Sunday evening, the Royal Navy revealed that the seventh and final Astute-class nuclear-powered submarine, previously named HMS Agincourt, will now be called HMS Achilles.

The change was shared via the Royal Navy’s official Twitter account, marking a departure from the name announced in 2018. The boat’s name was confirmed in May 2018, having previously held the in-work name of Ajax.

The Royal Navy stated: “The 7th Astute-class submarine is to be named HMS Achilles, as approved by The King. The name is appropriate in light of the 80th anniversaries this year of VE and VJ Day. Six ships have previously borne the name, earning six battle honours, including the River Plate and Okinawa.”

The name HMS Agincourt was initially confirmed in 2018 when the Ministry of Defence signed a Ā£1.5 billion contract with BAE Systems for the construction of the vessel in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria.

At the time, it was highlighted as the sixth Royal Navy vessel to commemorate the Battle of Agincourt of 1415 and a significant contributor to supporting 8,000 jobs in the UK.

HMS Achilles brings a storied legacy of its own, with six previous ships bearing the name and earning notable battle honours, including actions during the Second World War such as the Battle of the River Plate and the Battle of Okinawa. The decision to adopt the new name appears to align with commemorations of the 80th anniversaries of Victory in Europe (VE) and Victory over Japan (VJ) Day.

While the Royal Navy website still lists HMS Agincourt as the seventh Astute-class submarine, the latest announcement signals a definitive shift. The Astute-class submarines represent some of the most advanced hunter-killer submarines in the Royal Navy, equipped with cutting-edge technology for intelligence gathering, surveillance, and strike capabilities.

The rebranding of the submarine underscores the Royal Navyā€™s tradition of honouring its historical legacy while adapting to the present. As HMS Achilles, the vessel will carry forward a name rich in naval heritage and symbolic of strength and resilience.

Astute submarine programme ‘overcoming challenges’

The names

The name HMS Agincourt was originally chosen for the seventh Astute-class submarine in 2018, honouring the historic Battle of Agincourt in 1415. This name holds deep significance in Royal Navy tradition, as five previous vessels have carried the title, each reflecting the bravery and tactical brilliance demonstrated in that battle.

As reported in the Daily Express in January 2024, naval chiefs were criticised for allegedly discussing a potential name change out of “fear of upsetting the French.” According to the report, some observers labelled such deliberations as “woke nonsense,” reigniting debate over whether the name was appropriate given modern diplomatic sensitivities.

The new name, HMS Achilles, announced in January 2025, replaces the previous designation and marks a shift in symbolism. Achilles has a distinguished naval history, with six previous Royal Navy ships bearing the name and earning battle honours, including at the River Plate and Okinawa. The renaming pays tribute to the 80th anniversaries of VE and VJ Day, reinforcing the vessel’s role in representing strength, resilience, and the enduring commitment of the Royal Navy to protecting national and allied interests.

The Astute class

The Astute class is the Royal Navy’s latest fleet of nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs), designed to replace the Trafalgar-class submarines. Constructed by BAE Systems Submarines in Barrow-in-Furness, the class comprises seven boats, with the first, HMS Astute, launched in 2007 and fully operational by 2014. These submarines, integral to the UK’s maritime defence strategy, are estimated to cost over Ā£1.65 billion per vessel as of 2015.

Astute-class submarines measure 97 metres in length and displace up to 7,800 tonnes submerged. They are powered by a Rolls-Royce PWR 2 nuclear reactor and MTU diesel generators, allowing unlimited range and a top speed of 30 knots. With an endurance of approximately 90 days, they house a crew of 98 and can carry up to 38 weapons, including Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles and Spearfish torpedoes. Advanced sensors, such as the Thales Sonar 2076 and optronic masts, enhance their operational capabilities.

The Astute class has been a significant technological advancement for the Royal Navy, boasting superior endurance, stealth, and firepower. Currently, six boats have been completed, with five in active service and one under construction. These submarines will eventually be succeeded by the SSN-AUKUS class, as part of ongoing efforts to modernise the Royal Navy’s fleet.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

199 COMMENTS

  1. Probably seen as too offensive to the French. Under Labour the next ships will be HMS Woke, HMS BLM, & HMS Greta Thunberg. After that the prefix ‘HMS’will be changed to a gender neutral version.

      • Totally agree the French did say we committed war crimes in 1415. And far as people criticizing others at least be up front and don’t call your self M.

    • Or perhaps the rest of the UK, Agincourt being an English battle where Scotā€™s were on the other side and not a British one. Iā€™m sure people in England would not be thrilled about HMS Bannockburn being one of the AUKUS class boats.

    • I donā€™t know about future ships but this is a great news! Thanks a lot dear British allies!
      We will avoid Jeanne dā€™Arc or Castillon class for the next frigates šŸ˜„
      Take good care!

    • HMS Equality and HMS Diversity had a good ring to it. In this country you can identify as they/them (if it doesnā€™t harm you what issue issue). Our enemy to the east, who is stirring up hatred and helping the rise of the far right, is finding that there ultra nationalistic imperialist adventure is leading to many of its citizens identifying as was/were

      • I would also go for XMS Kneeler lead ship in the new all electric escort class or perhaps XMS Harmer if we are thinking of something more warlike.
        And while we are at it, never forget the French had an SSBN FS Redoubtable named after the ship that did for Admiral Nelson.

    • First of all has HMS Agincourt been damaged in tge 10-31-2024 BAE submarine yard fire which supposedly ignited its anechoic tiles.

    • The word is that the process to change the name of Boat 7 from HMS Agincourt to HMS Achilles began more than a year ago, meaning its pre-dates the change of UK government from Conservative to Labour in July 2024. This would mean it began in the final months of the premiership of Rishi Sunak, who served as prime minister from October 2022 to July 2024. The lesson here for the brainwashed is to try to establish the facts before commenting and not let any political bias affect your judgement. Otherwise, your credibility in anything you say will go down hill rapidly.

        • Exactly it is indeed gender neutral.

          Donā€™t know if anyone actually bothered to copy check this article but I do think the Battle of the River Plate didnā€™t really need to be emphasised three times.

          • As much as I hate the idea – that isn’t what gender neutral means. It would need to refrain from the assumption of gender all together.

            “Their Majesties Ship” – There we go. How lovely?

          • In fairness HMS is gender neutral because it’s Shroedingers Gender. HMS is gender neutral until you open the Acronym and collapse the wave form settling on one gender or the other.

  3. Donā€™t really see that there is any issue with it, sometimes not pissing next door off over something as meaningless as a name is worthwhile and sometimes you want to make a point to next doorā€¦at present we want to be niceā€¦

        • Yes, don’t remember the Austrians getting all hot and bothered about that!
          I prefer Achilles, Agincourt after all was a land battle but it is still probably our finest ever away win.

      • Sorry why are we being so nice to France… since leaving the EU the French have been nothing but hostile to the UK. They venerate Napoleon a dictator who was an enemy of Britain. But we do hate them for it.

      • To be completely fair, and to spoil the fun, the move from Waterloo to St Pancras had little to do with the French but to do with the alignment of HS-1, which would have been a nightmare to route through the rail network in Southern London and into Waterloo.

        • Spot on. I travelled over it at that time, what an embarrassment. The spur over the SW main line is still there just past Queenstown road, now but rarely used.

          • Very British that. We invested a fortune building a high speed tunnel, the French linked it with a High Speed Line to their Capital and in Britain? We did half a job and where just like “yeah we can mix these high speed trains with commuter traffic.”
            Then turn around and go “why is nobody using the Eurostar?”

    • I agree at this point considering whatā€™s happening across the pond and every MAGA digital brown shirt queuing up to express hatred for Britain and other close allies probably sensible to realise that Europe needs to work very closely together if we are going to survive unscathed. Itā€™s not like we can simply assume we get back to sanity in 4 years there are actually worse Republicans there than Trump and without Scottish mothers and golf courses ready to double down on Trumpism especially when non humans sorry non Americans decide that being threatened and blamed and not sinking to their knees and apologising for being foreign but instead retaliate in kind strike home.

      • Pipe dream getting Europe working together especially on defence. Look at the current conflict in Ukraine. At the outset Germany would not allow overflight by UK and US to Ukraine for fear of upsetting Putin. Europe have war on their doorstep and are at best ineffectual. Having worked alongside many NATO armies I would not trust any of them to cover my flank. With the exception of the Legion. They will fight, but would their politicians.
        It is a matter of trust, capability and backbone. In most cases they lack all three.
        Look at the Five Eyes agreement. Germany France and Holland would all dearly love to be in on information flow Yet not one of the Five Eyes support them. I wonder why.

        • And the Kiwi commitment to defence spending is errr ummmā€¦not terribly good for a wealthy country?

          Their better trained units are actually very, very good in case anyone thinks Iā€™m overly negative.

        • funny caricature of the little eng lander exceptionnalist type. I bet you were happy to let the French cover your runaway from Dunkirk in 1940, right ?

          • They were too busy giving in, to cover us. And why waste men on a lost cause fight another day. Lost cause with no regard to deaths is what dictators do, Hitler springs to mind.

          • The French to their credit did a grand job of holding off the nazis, but every country has to make strategic withdrawals now and again just as Russia made so many in the early part of their Special Op as the Ukrainian army showed them the way home. Granted the Russians have taken some ground back but at huge cost in manpower.

          • Oh please, check your history my furry little friend. Besides the French there were also Polish, Czech, Belgium, Dutch and British troops who stayed behind to let the majority of the British Expeditionary Force get away. In doing so three French Divisions disobeyed the head of the French Army’s orders by holding the line and got heavily beaten up by the German Army. This also allowed a large force of French troops to be evacuated along with the remnants of thee other Nations fighting the Germans. You are also perhaps forgetting about the last stand at the ports of Boulogne and Calais. Not to mention the fighting withdrawal across northern France to the ports of Le Havre. Where France had already surrendered.

          • @Martin Seriously? You know that the French not only held the permiter, not only did 10,000 French soldiers remain behind to fight the Germans off so that the last British troops could get onto the boats, but also a lot of the French Soldiers who where evacuated returned to France and rejoined the fighting, unlike the BEF which was down for the count.

          • @Dern – are you serious? Between 170 & 180,000 French troops were evacuated by the British by the 4th June (Operation Dynamo). Some managed to get back to France before it surrendered 18 days later on the 22nd June and some were evacuated by the British after France fell (Operation Ariel).
            The majority returned under arrangements made by the Vichy government, after France surrendered to the Germans, and were demobbed. Almost all had returned to France within a year of it’s defeat
            Only 3-4000 remained in Britain as part of the Free French forces.
            177 landed in France during the D Day landings

          • @Caribbean. Yes. The French rear guard remained in Dunkrik and fought until the end, surrendering only after the last British forces where evacuated off the beach and the evacuation was completed.
            The reason only 4,000 remained in Britain is because most of the French forces where returned straight to France and where fighting in France against the Germans. Don’t like it? Tough because that’s what happened.

    • I agree at this point considering whatā€™s happening across the pond and every MAGA digital brown shirt queuing up to express hatred for Britain and other close allies probably sensible to realise that Europe needs to work very closely together if we are going to survive unscathed. Itā€™s not like we can simply assume we get back to sanity in 4 years there are actually worse Republicans there than Trump and without Scottish mothers and golf courses ready to double down on Trumpism especially when non Americans decide that being threatened and blamed and being punished for not sinking to their knees and apologising for being foreign but instead retaliate in kind strikes home at MAGAā€™s fragile egos.

    • Agreed.
      One could also say that it’s message sending of its own as well; it would appear from the article that many of Achilles’ battle honours are from the Pacific theatre, could be a sign of intent regarding our presence east of Suez. A very subtle sign, but potentially one nonetheless.

      • Achilles was in the process of transferring to the RNZN when she participated in the Battle of the River Plate and did indeed spend the rest of WW2 in the Pacific as HMNZS Achilles.

        Cheers CR

    • I doubt it’s to not upset the French.
      During the First World War the Royal Navy had:
      HMS St Vincent (Named after an Admiral who gave the French a few good drummings)
      HMS Collingwood (same)
      HMS Iron Duke (named after Arthur, post rubber boot company aquisition, also the flagship at Jutland)
      HMS Malborough (named after John Churchill, who gave the French a trashing at Blenheim)
      HMS Benbow (named after a Royal Navy officer who gave the French a thrashing, are we seeing a pattern yet?)
      HMS Lord Nelson (Obvious)
      and
      HMS Agincourt

      These where followed post WW1 and in WW2 with;
      HMS Hood (named after a admiral who yadda yadda)
      HMS Nelson (now demoted from Lordship)
      HMS Rodney (named after you all know the sketch)
      HMS Howe (same again)
      and
      HMS Anson (Guess what he did).

      There where also a number of HMS Trafalgar’s over the years, the last of which was a submarine that was decomissioned in 2009.
      I suspect the choice of name change had little to do with not upsetting the French, but you never know.

      • Let’s be realistic – it’s probably harder to find the name of a British ship, that HASN’t given the French a good drubbing at some point, than one that has

  4. I suppose it make sense, Ajax and Achilles sort of go together both names used for Leander Class Frigates and Leander Class Cruisers. And to honest itā€™s a far more illustrious name in RN History than Agincourt.
    Just hope she hasnā€™t any weaknesses šŸ¤·šŸ¼ā€ā™‚ļø

    • I donā€™t think you can really count the Normanā€™s as French to be honest, infact they had won a war against the French in 1054ā€¦they were another bunch of a rowdy bunch of vikings who happened to speak French.

      • Agreed but the Normans cobbled together a large group of French dukes and Barons as an allied force to take England.

        • The Norman’s were Scandinavian Vikings of origin that settled in France. They carved out there own Duchy of Normandy and did pretty much take up French ways and melt into the French way of life but I doubt they ever forgot their true origins.

    • No, the French don’t care it is English exceptionalism that leads to the idea they would. It’s like the ongoing tiresome belief amongst the English that the Germans are still coping and seething about losing the World Cup in 1996 hence the need to constantly go on about it despite having won no other major football tournament since. Ask any German about and they are genuinely baffled especially since it relates to a single tournament and they have won four World Cups and three European Championships.

      • It’s always amusing to travel to Germany when England is playing them, because on this side of the water it’s all “REMATCH! WE BEAT THEM IN THE WORLD WARS WE WILL BEAT THEM IN THE FOOTBALL!!! EVERYONE CARES!” and in Germany it’s like “Oh and by the way we will play England tmr. That’s it.”

      • Nothing wrong with English exceptionalism. I know this runs counter the some people want but while it lasts one should note success at the Olympics. In fact its generally British exceptionalism.

  6. ā€œ The Astute-class submarines represent some of the most advanced hunter-killer submarines in the Royal Navyā€

    May I rephrase that?

    ā€œThe Astute-class submarines the only hunter-killer submarines in the Royal Navyā€

      • Reading comprehension is clearly not your speciality, they clearly mean any hunter-killer class that has served with the Royal past and present.

    • Well, you can always try to use the Vanguard-class as an SSN…

      More likely, it’s a hangover from before the last Trafalgar-class boat was decommissioned.

      • If you read down the article it then contradicts itself.

        Proof reading large volumes of stuff is quite tough – I canā€™t do it well – I need a #2 to do that for me.

        Whilst I donā€™t want to be overly critical of George and Lisaā€™s enormous efforts the issue is that there is a lot of copy and paste rather than writing extempore and we all *know* that they know the situation but the older version from 18 months ago is still being recirculated. This was OK when UKDJ had a lot smaller footprint.

        Having written a lot of journal articles it is very very hard to keep ideas and expression fresh with copy/paste which is why writing fresh text allows expression, ideas and knowledge to evolve.

        I suspect, if I was George, which Iā€™m not(!!!) Iā€™d reduce the number of articles by about 20% to invest that time in some fresher text?

        It is a perspective thing – I think George is more interested in communicating fact than presentation?

        Anyway UKDJ keep up the great work.

      • Given the UK sold everything up to full destroyers to Argentina, its always funny when there’s a “how dare the French do exactly the same as us” post. BTW from memory not only did the French refuse to supply anymore to them once the Invasion happened but also gave tech specs to the UK.

        But yeah, how dare the French sell weapons to the nation that the UK sold weapons to!

        • Not true – Pierre Razoux (a former French defence minister) admitted there was a device in existence that could defeat incoming Excoet missiles but Mitterrand refused to share it with the UK – but hey, what are friends for.

          That aside, the irony here is that the RN ended up buying Exocet from the French after the war ended…..

          • The RN had Exocet before Op Corporate. Broadsword, Brilliant and several Leanders all carried the weapon. The French aided the RN by having their Super Etebdards perform simulated attacks against ships of the Task Force as they headed south.

          • We were one of the first customers of Exocet in the 1970’s. In fact in 1982 we were the biggest user of it….

            There is no kill switch….the RN was totally familiar with all aspects of Exocet.

            The French actually got their Super Etendards to exercise with the RN so that the RN would be aware of the tactics and be able to detect the Agave radar and give advance warning of an Exocet attack by the Argentinian’s..they also got their Mirages to exercise with Sea Harrier so that appropriate tactics could be devised to counter them…

          • Ah, Mitterrand! Are you speaking of the then-French President Mitterrand? The collaborator of Nazi fame? The French version of our own John Amery? That Mitterrand who encouraged the rise of the Front National, the fascist’s far-right movement just so the moderate Right could be neutered? Thought so.

            Having read History at university, when he was in power, it always struck me that such a man could ever be elected in France. Especially when you consider his crimes in the Vichy government during WWII. He personally facilitated the insertion of Nazi spies within France, resulting in the deaths of French Resistance members, the recapture of escaped Allied prisoners and the deaths of dozens at the hands of the Gestapo.

        • Considering back in 1957, the British Empire offered a Majestic (HMS Magnificient) and Implacable to Argentina (HMS Indefatigable) but both were rejected.

        • And the French deliberately wasted the Argentinianā€™s time with phoney offers to supply missiles.

          The bigger problem was the re-programming codes to allow the air launched to be used as the improvised land launched version. How they got those is something that hasnā€™t been totally revealed as those should have been manufacturer only access.

    • Yeah except the sub has not even been launched yet, so they are safe as the Royal Navy renames ships all the time and very few of them suffered misfortunes

      • I’d like to see an ‘HMS Glorious First of June’ or at least an ‘HMS Quiberon Bay’. There are so many opportunities to upset our allies its fun to list them all. The only one of significance in return is ‘Chesapeake’ or ‘Medway’; and we had one of those. Sporting what?

    • Not as if the French have ship name 1066 Hastings is it? why name a ship after an army battle we have no HMS Waterloo, HMS Tumbledown!

    • Do we actually know the reason for the name change? Achilles is a perfectly good name, whatā€™s the issue?

  13. Most of the previous ‘Achilles’ have been relatively light vessels, whereas ‘Agincourt’ has tended to be a name used for Capital ships. I would consider SSNs to be Capital ships personally.

  14. Great name, been a while since the name was used and as the ship/sub /boat has not been launched its not bad luck to rename it s it was never named. I doubt it was changed to keep the French happy as they never complained. Just some here trying stir the pot.

    • Yup.

      She was HMS Achilles at the Battle of the River Plate, but there were Royal New Zealand Navy crew members already on board as she was to be transferred to New Zealand… Hence most of her WW2 Battle Honours are for the Pacific theater.

      Cheers CR

      • Intriguing, another necessary history lesson for non-natives. Never before realized that there were Commonwealth sailors, under respective flags, serving aboard RN vessels, before the advent of AUKUS. Evidently, RN vessels also loaned or sold to Commonwealth country(ies) during WW II? Additionally, request someone explain current apparent NZ phobia re nuclear powered/(armed?) vessels. Result of theoretical risk calculation or Woke political statement?

        • Hello FormerUSAF. The British Empire, especially among the so-called white dominions, were much closer in every respect in those days, so the Navies of Canada. Australia and New Zealand all flew, under one Flag- the White Ensign of the Royal Navy, in those days. They only acquired their own versions from the 1960’s onwards

          Kind Regards
          Geoff

          • ps although after the Statute of Westminster in 1931, most decision making powers not already devolved, were granted to these Dominions. In short, their Navies were subject to their domestic control although they continued to work closely with their Kith and Kin!

          • Thanks for the info. šŸ˜Š Occasionally beneficial to have a former empire as a backstop (don’t leave home w/out it (per the American Express ad commercials šŸ˜‰), if feasible).

        • Woke political statement- albeit an unusually long-established one.

          Re. Commonwealth personnel, all the UK armed forces have always considered them eligible to serve (although not in every role, and presently limited by quotas for some reason). e.g. the Nepalese Gurkhas are some of our best soldiers.

          • Thanks Ian, had always wondered re NZ position. NZ may not have the luxury of maintaining that policy as the I-P becomes a ChiCom dominated sphere of influence.

        • A little known fact (but 1 I’m sure a lot on here already know) that the USS Winston S Churchill always has a RN navigation officer attached/serving on the vessel.

        • There was even an HMS New Zealand in WW1 that was bought and paid for by New Zealand (hence the name), her Captain was expected to wear mauri war attire when she steamed into combat.

          • Hi Dern,

            I didn’t know about the Mauri war attire. Cold in North Climes I should imagine šŸ™‚ šŸ™‚

            HMS Malaya (Queen Elizabeth Class dreadnaught) was paid for by the Malay Federation. There was also a HMS Canada, I wonder if she paid for by Canada..?

            Cheers CR

          • @CR
            Luckily HMS New Zealand had an enclosed bridge, and the grass skirt and pendant where only required during action stations. (For what it’s worth it apparently worked, she only had a little bit of chipped armour after Jutland compared to her sistership Indefatigable…which um… wasn’t so lucky.).

            HMS New Zealand was one of three Indefatigable Battlecruises actually. Australia was the third one, and was funded by Australia, but to such a degree that she was actually HMAS Australia.

            HMS Canada was not paid for by Canada though, she was a Chilean Warship that the UK was building for said navy, and when WWI broke out we baisically said “Awfully sorry South American chaps, we’re borrowing this for a few years.” (We did give it back in 1918 though).

          • @ Dern,

            The story of the battlecruisers at Jutland is something that has facinated me for years.

            A secret RN report from an investigation into the losses just after the battle, and released in the 1990’s I think, found that Beatty and Jellicoe were largely to blame for their losses. The two of them did not think that their gunnery was up to scratch so the reasoned that they should train to fire as fast as possible. Problem was that they would need more ammunition so to get the job done they decided to overload the ships with ammunition, i.e. storing extra munitions out side of the magazines! To speed up the loading cycle they pinned the anti-flash mechanisms in the open position… Letters from junior officers serving on board at the time talked about cordite bags used as doorstops being broken open and crunching through broken cordite rods (cordite came in rods like chopsticks and packed into the bags) in the passageways!

            In short, they laid a powder trial from the guns to the magazines. The battlecruisers’ armour wasn’t quite on the scale of the dreadnaughts but it definitely was not paper thin – chipped armour on HMS New Zealand is testament to that. A big saving in weight would have come from the reduced main armament. You would save something like 700 to 1000tons with the removal of one big gun turret and its associated magazines. That is a lot of spare tonnage that can be given over to engines so a lot of extra horse power potential, especially in the age of the steam turbine.

            Beatty also mishandled his Battlecruisers especially by not keeping the 5th Battle Squadron close. The Queen Elizabeth’s 15″ guns would have fended off the German Battlecruisers with ease – but Beatty was all death and glory as far as I can tell. For me Beatty was the bad boy that day. Jellicoe was cautious and has been critised for his turn away when the German light forces attacked his line to cover the German dreadnaughts’ break way, but Jellicoe had almost the entire British battle fleet under command. Lose that and he would have lost the war instantly. So I think Jellicoe was a bit hard done by, especially as Beatty took command after loosing so many of his battlecruisers..!

            So Jutland was a tactical defeat but strategically nothing changed and Germany eventually starved.

            Grim business all round.

            Cheers CR
            Sorry a bit off topic šŸ™‚

        • Hello Mate,

          Hope you are well. You triggered quite the history lesson šŸ™‚

          So in that spirit I’ll point out the even the Indian Navy has used something that looks very like the Cross of St George as part it’s White Ensign but they have had a number of different ensigns since 1928 when it was the Royal Indian Navy which was being developed during British rule. The most recent period for the cross was from about 2004 to 2022 as far as I can determine. Not sure what they currently use. I say ‘something like the Cross of St George’ because there is an emblem at the intersection of the cross which might well change its’ meaning…

          One might almost think that someone in the Admiralty thought India might one day be independent… It might have something to do with the fact that the British promised Gandhi Dominion Status if he / India supported us during WW1. He did support us and we renegaded on the deal, much to our shame.

          Cheers CR

          • Hello CR. Well the St Georges Cross has finally bitten the dust in Indian usage after 78 years since Independence. It was temporarily removed some years back but reinstated including the Chakra(I think) emblem at the centre of the cross but finally disappeared in 2022 although they retained a British style white ensign. Its’s amazing how these Empire traditions clung to life all over the world. Here in Kwazulu-Natal, the Victoria Club in Pietermaritzburg used to fly the Union Jack even after the Republic was declared in 1961 and when it drew some adverse comment from the Nationalists they retorted that it was not the Union Jack but the Club Flag!! :):)
            A Rose by any other name!

  17. Maybe they are keeping the name Agincourt back for the type 83 ā€œbattle classā€ . We could have great fun upsetting everyone.
    Agincourt Trafalgar – the French
    Armada and Gibraltar the Spanish
    Falklands the Germans and Argentinians
    Matapan and Taranto the Italians .
    The naming committee could give the Foreign Office Humphries a complete breakdown

    • šŸ™‚ Very funny…

      I would like to see an Admiral Class and would like to add a couple of new names to the list, Cunningham and Ramsey. The latter is often overlooked but he organised the Dunkirk evacuation and Operation Neptune (Naval part of D-Day). These two were both remarkable achievements and probably two of the most important maritime operations ever undertaken by the RN.

      Cheers CR

    • Witty Iain. I prefer the classics. The Leanders had the best names. The Flower class were fine by me. The very un-belligerently named H.M.S. Daisy sank two U boats in as many days in 1944.

    • Upholder is a submarine whose commander was accused by war crimes by Italians. They were not happy.
      Luigi Durand de la Penne a destroyer class was named to the frogmen that lead the mission that sunk Vaillant and Queen Elizabeth battleships in Alexandria.

  18. This was reported to have been under consideration over a year ago but rejected as unnecessary and too woke.
    Nothing wrong with the new name but pathetic reason to change to it.
    Iā€™d much prefer a complete rethink about the names of the T31s.

  19. As an Englishman I know my people are happy when they grumble. Achilles is far more appropriate and is not as woke as one might think. Toxic Masculinity anyone?

  20. Hilarious to see the conspiracy theories about upsetting the French.

    HMS Agincourt is the submarine that is associated with the fire at Barrow. But HMS Achilles isnā€™t. Same boat, but with a quick renaming, association with an accident is distanced. Now it wonā€™t work with those in ā€˜the knowā€™, but to those that donā€™t follow naval matters, these are two completely different submarines.
    Itā€™s called PR spin.

  28. I know this will be about not upsetting the French but it may also be about us being a bit more imaginative or more abstract on naming warships. The problem with specific battles is that it is so granular and often in historical context, not worth harping on about in the 21st century. Agincourt was the start of the 100 years war, which if it wasnā€™t for those bloody Normans, we should not have had. England ultimately lost their territories in France so it didnā€™t end that well, I mean do the French have a warship called Joan of Arc? Not sure. Naming after towns and cities work well but also classic names. Imagine if they were named after our football teams, that would be insane, HMS Sheffield Wednesday would only have 3 sailors willing to serve.

  30. Apart from starting with the letter “A,” Agincourt was a strange pick anyway given that it was an English victory, fought on land, and not a British battle honour to which the whole crew can identify with and not just the English ones. Not only does Achilles go well with Agamemnon, it’s a name that also appears to have a better battle pedigree than Agincourt. So a better choice for a British boat, imo.

      • HMS Queen Elizabeth is named after the monarch that defeated the Spanish Armada and a WWI-WWII Battleship with a incredible battle record… not sure why anything would’ve stopped picking that name?

  31. With the many problems the country faces this is not worth the rise in blood pressure it seems to trigger in many. We have bigger problems that are worthy of bursting a blood vessel…

  33. I suspect it has Labour all over it, as they have previous.
    Apparently 2 of the Bays proposed names were changed as well back in the day – RFA Quiberon Bay and RFA Aboukir Bay, both naval battles with the French.
    Info on Twitter via UKAFC.
    And I think posters are just pointing out the reality. However, as most are saying, who cares? Achilles is better anyway.

    • You should be more considered in your approach and not let your political bias rule your mind. The word is that the process to change the name of Boat 7 from HMS Agincourt to HMS Achilles began more than a year ago, meaning its pre-dates the change of UK government from Conservative to Labour in July 2024. This would mean it began in the final months of the premiership of Rishi Sunak, who served as prime minister from October 2022 to July 2024.

      • If true, then that’s fair enough.
        The Bays however are historical fact, so I still feel happy with my comment.

  34. Nice to see the Frenchies are still loved to this day. Agincourt is a pretty silly name for a boat anyway. Saves on printing costs too, less letters.

  35. I hereby claim full credit for the rename. šŸ˜€ It comes from a comment on the UK Defence Journal article of 22nd April 2024 entitled: ‘New British nuclear submarine named HMS Agamemnon’ when I suggested that they now need an HMS Ajax and HMS Achilles to go with it. Thank you, thank you. You’re welcome.

  36. The comments on here did not disappoint at all. What kind of weird take is the idea that this is ‘woke’? Agincourt has no pedigree as a ship name, Achillies is a top name from Royal Navy history. What a strange thing to get all red faced about.

    • Totally agree, everything is called woke nowadays if if vaguely breaks slightly with tradition (like modern generationsā€™ taste in sandwiches changing was called woke). There was the 14 gun WWI dreadnought Agincourt, but Achilles has a more storied history in the Navy

    • Ummmmm…. there where 5 Ships named HMS Agincourt, including a Dreadnought Battleship and two ships of the line. Meanwhile while there where 6 HMS Achillies’s there was only one fourth rate ship of the line that, the rest where frigates or smaller.

  37. Totally agree, everything is called woke nowadays if if vaguely breaks slightly with tradition (like modern generationsā€™ taste in sandwiches changing was called woke). There was the 14 gun WWI dreadnought Agincourt, but Achilles has a more storied history in the Navy

  38. How can you rename something that wasn’t officially named? I am bit disappointed with UK Defence Journal, I’ve to expect higher standards of journalism. As for the all the “woke” nonsense… Woke is a word that can become synonymous with ignorance and the terminally stupid. Achilles is a good name with a long proud history.

  39. Disgraceful decision, Agincourt is a proud RN name being changed for political reasons by people who have no idea of naval history. Achilles at least is another great name and are we going to man the boat with New Zealanders?

    • It’s coming out now that the decision was made by the Tory government. Apparently HMNZS Achilles, the fifth out of the previous six (the Astute class sub is the 7th), was transferred to the NZ navy from the RN and then back to the RN after WW2 before going to Chile.

  40. NO one is France careds that the sub is called Agincourt just like no one really cares about Trafalgar. People are smart enough to understand the context of history.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here