The first pressure hull unit for Boat 1, the future HMS Dreadnought, has been transported to the Devonshire Dock Hall in Barrow for outfitting before being integrated into the finished submarine.

The information came to light in a tweet from BAE Systems Maritime, shown below.

Earlier this year, the Ministry of Defence announced more than £2 billion of further funding for the Dreadnought nuclear deterrent submarines, which are under construction at BAE Systems’ shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness. The funding was to enable the third major phase of the programme, Delivery Phase 3, the most significant stage so far in terms of criticality, value and complexity.

According to the builders, Dreadnought is one of the world’s most complex engineering programmes.

“More than £1 billion has been invested in advanced technology and upgraded infrastructure at BAE Systems’ Barrow shipyard to enable it to deliver Dreadnought, with £450 million of further investment to be made over the life of the programme.

The Dreadnought programme supports almost 30,000 jobs across the UK, with more than half of these estimated to be based in the North West of England, and a supply chain spend of £7.5 billion across 1,500 UK companies.

In addition, BAE Systems currently has more than 1,000 employees in training on its early careers schemes within its Submarines business and is set recruit a further 340 apprentices and 90 graduates into the business this year.”

The Ministry of Defence previously commented that “the Dreadnought programme remains on track to deliver to schedule, with the first in class expected to enter service in the early 2030s.”

What is a submarine pressure hull, anyway?

A submarine pressure hull is a structure that forms the outermost layer of a submarine, and is designed to withstand the pressure of the water at the depths at which the submarine is intended to operate.

The pressure hull is typically a thick, strong metal cylinder that encloses the submarine’s living and working spaces, as well as its machinery and equipment. The pressure hull protects the crew and equipment from the crushing pressure of the water, and allows the submarine to maintain a safe and livable internal environment while operating underwater.

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

90 COMMENTS

  1. O, i came a pretty nice video about this after following the link for the Type 31, don’t know how accurate it is, but is well worth a butchers:

  2. Id love a look round the facility at Barrow. Some of the most complex engineering ever undertaken takes place in this quiet Lake District town. 🇬🇧

        • Afternoon Klonkie, I see the RNZ AF has got its first of four P-8s. Be interesting to see what weapons are adopted. Are they getting any drones as well?
          Just waiting on if the RNZN to get NSMs for the two frigates… Lol 😁.

          • howdy Quentin, how are tricks Mate?. Fingers crossed for the Type 31 frigate! Really pleased the RNZAF has just taken deliver of the first of four p8 s! Thanks Santa.

          • May Santa grant all your wishes! I wonder if the RNZN will go for a Canadian Harry de Wolf type AOPV for there 3rd OPV? Could be useful for the RN if they ever wanted something for the far North too.

        • Howsit Klonkie. We closed for the Builders break on thursday so have time now-please re-send link for your interview. Meanwhile it looks as though the SAAF are getting their maintenance house in order and there is talk of them buying some ex USAF C130’s just as the RAF are ditching theirs.
          Who ever would have believed that there would be a Royal Navy 18000 ton submarine in build and the Yanks have the Columbia Class coming in at 21 000 tons!!!
          Cheers from Kak all over the place weather Durbs

          • Hi Geoff , good news re you being on holiday. The weather here’s been absolutely crap as well! I do think the SAAF missed a trick not pitching on the retaining RAF c130 J models. Still, finger crossed the USAF deal goes ahed

            Please to say the RNZAF have jut taken delivery oft heir first shiny new P8 Poseidon, just in time for Xmas.

      • Ah, life returns! I actually emailed George wondering if it was just me. 0 comments on all new articles all day. UKDJ is now such an part of my daily life it felt weird not seeing all the familiar names!

      • I noticed posts started going missing after a certain Mr Fish made a post and his post was removed others went missing as well. Seen this happen before and I expect they will reappear in a few days.

    • The moderator is very sensitive about the CASD and indeed anything nuclear. Don’t mention that one of our boats caught fire last month and had to return to Faslane unexpectedly. We are not allowed to know the details and of course sabotage is impossible but you can bet the Russians have chapter and verse on it

      • Well considering the CASD is one of the most sensitive parts of the defence establishment I’m not surprised.

        It was not the moderator, every article on the site had 0 posts, they’re not THAT sensitive!!

        • OT – I see yet another F35B crashed at Fort Worth – and nearly burned – on landing yesterday. Not one of ours and the pilot did successfully eject. These VSTOL aircraft are obviously difficult to operate. I wonder if there are still any Sea Harrier pilots about who could show them how it should be done

          • My understanding is that the transition from normal flight to hovering, and hovering itself, was all purely manual in the harrier, and thus very tricky to master. In contrast, it’s largely computer controlled in the F35B, and thus much, much easier to handle.

          • Just look how many harriers were lost it was a massive number. It’s the same with most military aircraft types attrition is always high even in normal times. There were around 235-240 harriers of all types lost over 50 years only a very small number were combat losses…most just accidental hit the ground, tree or other object to hard or just spontaneously combusted. That not even the worst of it of the 150 odd sea vixens 55 were lost in their short ish life….in fact the RN sort of expected to loss a couple every time the eagle etc were deployed with an air wing…..add in the navigators coffin…the F35 is not actually doing that bad.

          • Hi DM, I seem to recall the early RN Buccaneer’s also had a bad run – the peril of carrier ops. The SAAF lost half of theirs in accidents as well.

          • The F16 also had a horrendous incident rate in its first 10 years of service. Considering the large numbers of F35’s now in service around the globe, its safety record is extremely good.

          • Indeed. We tend to forget how risky a job being air crew on high performance jets is. Although it’s a lot safer than it was. Between 2000 and now there have been ( only ) 10 RAF fixed wing fatal incidents ( one bizarre case when they forget to bolt the seat back into the plane and the seat and person exited the plane when it inverted ) go back in time the Gloster meteor killed 450 aircrew and mange’s to rack up 130 odd crashes in just one year ( I think almost 900 Gloster meteors were lost in RAF service in total) so one really positive thing about modern aircraft they are so much safer than previous generations, which were in a number of cases total death traps.

          • The Lightning was another bad one for incidents. One loss a month wasn’t unusual. So far, the RAF hasn’t lost a single Typhoon to crashes. Though unfortunately the Italian Air Force suffered a loss just the other day. The Tornado F3 also had a very good safety record

          • Many of the Harrier losses were due to USMC operating them a long way outside their operational limits. Repeated sharp VIFs to avoid heat-seeking missiles was one stunt which caused large numbers of losses. A case of an ‘anecdotal’ story that turned out to be true.

      • The Russians are trying to find out what kind of cigarettes our sailors smoke; see if they can weaponise them for anti-ship/anti-sub purposes.

    • Hello Daniele! Went to an outdoor Christmas concert last night where the Durban Regiment Pipe Band managed to get in a few numbers before the heavens opened and washed the whole away!!
      The Dreadnought design is a wonderfully sinister machine which hopefully I will live long enough to see “in the flesh”. Hope you coping with the snow
      Cheers for now

      • I certainly hope so too, my friend, you’re a mere spring Chicken.

        Sorry for the late response, me and my wife laid low by Covid currently. Gutting, we’d escaped it all these years.

        • Sorry to hear Daniele and hope you both on the mend. I caught Covid even after being vaccinated but luckily symptoms were very mild.
          Speak soon Cheers

          • Well yes, we’ve been vaccinated to the eyeballs too. Vaccs are misunderstood, they don’t stop you getting it, just give you a shield against its worst effects.

          • Exactly Daniele. I was thinking in terms of the Vaccines we received as kids in the 1950 ‘s-pink sugar lumps against Polio!!

      • I believe these replace the elderly 206?

        Who operates them beyond 29RA, the CLR and some RM elements? Does 24 RE have any?

        Edit – also, we already have Viking in service, will these supplement existing or replace those and the 206?

  11. I really don’t like the way we fund these project is bits, leaves them exposed to cuts. I get with some programs we want flexibility but Tempest, Dreadnoughts for instance are must haves, so why not fully fund them.

    • Great spot. Can I ask a similarly off-topic question? You seem to have the answers to most things.

      Do we know what is happening with the MRSS ships? Last I heard they were floated as a 2030s amphibious class but it’s been all quiet on them ever since

      • Both they and T32 are doubts at the moment due to budget issues, the usual!
        I’d thinkwork continues but at a lower level with no real money thrown their way as of yet.

        Translation, leave it to Labour, they never cut defence do they!! 🙄

        They’re far off anyway, but I’m confident the LPDS, Argus, and the Bays will be replaced. Either with MRSS or something else.

        • Now, now, be nice! Who funded Royal, RN and RFA capabilities in 96. 97ish?

          I won’t mention the QECs because they were pork barrel politics.

          However, who has crashed the economy in the last few months and caused millions of ordinary people to withdraw their labour which will impact on GDP and thus the defence budget?

          • they sold 3 of the newest T23s and cut back T45 to 6 ships. Both parties have been absolutely appalling with our defence. But yeah this government sucks.

          • Pretty much this. 35 Escorts to 23, Fast Jet Squadrons 23 to 12, but oh no holier than thou you know.

            All parties are poor regards defence.

          • I am nice David. My comment was for a Mr Tom who thinks Labour are holier than thou and has not come back to me on the other thread in the nice convo we were having. Apparently I know nothing of politics.

            Withdraw their labour, ah, yes those Signallers I work with many of whom are on 50 grand a year plus after tax, before overtime. Them. The main issue, for me, with those rail strikes is the threatened closure of ticket offices and the cutting of Guards.
            Now that I can strike over.

            Whether the Tories have currently crashed the economy or not has no bearing on my previous convo re Labour defence cuts.

          • “Now, now, be nice! Who funded Royal, RN and RFA capabilities in 96. 97ish?”

            Ah, the SDSR 1997 that promised so much which was not funded and started 13 years of cuts. Yes, Labour! 😆

            What capabilities did they fund, precisely David?

          • And to add to that, the RMT and of course HM opposition so conveniently forget that me and my colleagues in Network Rail were bailed out to the sum of, so I read, 16 billion during Covid when we were NOT furloghed but sat at work on full pay with hardly any trains.

            But we’ll all ignore that won’t we.

        • To be honest I suspect they will just roll over the T31 and order an extra tranche with a few adjustments and redesign to optimise housing the mine warfare and other capabilities. The T31 sort of fits the bill, low cost, effective enough weapons fit, big mission bay, big flight deck, loads of space.

          after all the big development investments will need to go into the type 83.

          I can see a future in which the RN focuses on a single high end dual role escort (T83) and then a lower end patrol frigate/autonomous capability tender ( T31/2). I just don’t see how we will ever get separate newly developed high end AAW escort, high end ASW escort and a patrol frigate for autonomous capabilities. I may be wrong.

          • Radakin was very clear that T31 B2 was very much an option.

            I suspect the specifiers got carried away from the Skoda II approach and added too many variations from the original design hence the comments about budgets.

            If I was to take a sneaking *guess* it probably grew a 5” gun and full ASW as well as PODS and a quiet drive system and Mk41 – that would have pretty much added 75-50% to the hull price as well as shot if the risk margin upwards.

            A paired back version is more than likely on the cards.

          • Yes my understanding was that the T32 was going to be more a capabilities tender that could also act as a patrol frigate. After all I thought the plan was replace all the hunt, sanddowns and echos with with autonomous vehicles/PODs and use the freed manpower to crew the T32s which would take up these roles and also provide some large hulls to act as low end escorts/constabulary vessels.

            Turning the T32 into a full fat frigate would seem to defeat the object of having lots of cheap free space for capabilities. But I bet your right someone has probably overcooked it ( you would have thought they would have realised the KISS really worked for the T31 programme and repeated).

            I could understand as the money becomes available upgrading the type 31s to make them really useful ASuW/strike type vessels. The T26s with their MK41 silos could do this but it’s seems a waste and I suspect the navy would be happier using them as escorts and ASW assets, than steaming them around on their own and using them as ASuW or strike threats.

        • Hi DM

          At the risk of being pessimistic, I see the next Labour government cancelling the Type 32 prefect- 19 destroyers /frigates will remain the number(tragically). l think the batch1 Rivers will also go sooner.

          • It’s a freebie isn’t it, and not a cut as such.
            B Johnson’s grandstanding about increasing the size of the RN was rightly seen as just that, as the commitment would be waaaay down the line into another Parliament.

            Let’s see what happens. I will be here on this site to remind certain posters, be I right or wrong. And I sincerely hope I’m wrong of course.

          • The thing is the shipbuilding strategy does make sense and it does have cross party support.

            Is anyone actually saying that a smaller RN can function in an increasingly high threat environment?

            There is also the tiny issue of the noise that the unions would make if a sensible necessary investment was cut.

          • I honestly think some of the safest programmes will be the ship building programs.

            1) Labour has always liked to support jobs and they don’t like being seen to reduce British industries (especially unionised industries).

            2)There is also the independent argument, whatever government we have they are going to be facing an independent referendum 2 at some point ( it’s just not likely to go away). So I think neither Westminster parties will do anything that could be seen as de investment in Scotland.

            3)No party will want to be seen to be cutting defence to the bone with a war in Europe and an insane far right loon in power in Russia.

            I suspect what will happen is:

            1)Some cans will be kicked down the road, so longer term programmes like the F35B will be managed so purchase come in later parliaments.

            2) some capabilities that the public will not get and don’t provides lots of jobs will be cut or not go ahead.

            3) Some of the programmes that they can hand on heart say are not delivering will be cut….ummmm there is one shaky programme ( literally).

  13. A question asked earlier, which has not been approved for submission: Is the sail an integral part of pressure hull? Difficult to assess from photograph.

    • The “sail” is the “bridge fin” in Brit-speak and does not form part of the pressure hull. It sometimes contains an access trunk leading up to a “navigation platform” at the top of the ‘fin. In times past, when the access trunk opened out directly into an area from where the boat could be “conned”, the term “conning tower” was used. But as the boats were streamlined, the “conning tower” was faired into the ‘fin.
      The only boats I am aware of that had a portion of pressure hull within the bridge fin / sail were the now all defunked Typhoons:
      http://www.hisutton.com/Typhoon-Class-Submarine.html

  14. Now here is a thought. The Dreadnought Class promise to be the best of the best but as always, the human factor could be the weakest link. I am sure crew for the ballistic missile subs are selected and screened to the nth degree but what about the possibility of a Vigil type scenario per the TV series? Just one bad egg-improbable yes but not impossible. The French had the now abandoned 3 headed Force de Frappe-land based, LR Bombers, and submarines all carrying nuclear warheads. Should the UK not look at another arm? Cruise missiles or RAF delivered. Even in small numbers?

  15. A submarine hull has two major components, the light hull and the pressure hull. The light hull (casing in British usage) of a submarine is the outer non-watertight hull which provides a hydrodynamically efficient shape. The pressure hull is the inner hull of a submarine that maintains structural integrity with the difference between outside and inside pressure at depth.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here