Grant Shapps has been tipped to retire two assault ships to deal with a shortage ocrews, it has been reported.
It is understood that the defence secretary aims to retire both HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark from active service ten years before their planned out-of-service dates.
In the words of her operators, the Royal Navy, the role of the HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion, is to ‘deliver the punch of the Royal Marines ashore by air and by sea, with boats from the landing dock in the belly of the ship and by assault helicopter from the two-spot flight deck’.
The LPDs can carry 256 troops, with their vehicles and combat supplies, and this can be swollen up to 405 troops. The ships act as the afloat command platform for the Royal Navy’s Amphibious Task Force and Landing Force Commanders when embarked.
A former Defence Secretary had warned that withdrawing the Albion class would ‘end British amphibious capability’. Lord Hutton was speaking during a debate on British defence forces in the House of Lords where he said:
“I am absolutely opposed to the United Kingdom acting unilaterally—for example, by announcing the end of our effective amphibious capability. I do not believe that the QE2 class carriers—they are brilliant ships and I am proud to see them serving in the Royal Navy—have the equivalent capability. Neither do the Bay class ships. They are incapable of supporting and mounting large-scale amphibious operations with the fighting vehicles that the Army now has.
Our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan led us, rightly, to conclude that they needed to be better protected: they needed to be stronger, heavier vehicles. We need “Bulwark” and “Albion” to retain that capability. So we must tread pretty carefully. I am all in favour of the defence industry co-operating with government in the efficiency review: I think they should. I am certainly in favour of our thinking carefully about how we use the overseas aid and defence budgets together to secure greater security results.
But it is hard to avoid the obvious conclusion that we will need to spend more now to preserve UK effective capabilities. The painful lesson from history is that spending less on defence does not make us more secure; it does not make those threats go away, it just makes us less able to deal with them.”
Lord West of Spithead, a Former First Sea Lord, has argued that Britain’s security and prosperity requires amphibious capability. Writing in Politics Home, the former naval chief argues for the retention of the vessels that rumours say may be axed. He stated:
“Under fire particularly, it seems, is our invaluable amphibious capability. So what exactly is this amphibious capability? Britain’s security and prosperity requires unimpeded maritime access and transit. As an island nation, the country needs a broadly maritime strategy – one that has sea control at its core, but which enables power and influence to be projected inland.
Indeed, being an island, all operations beyond our shores are expeditionary and demand theatre entry. Strike carriers and amphibious forces are the enablers for this theatre entry capability. The true fighting power of a navy is its ability to ensure entry around the world using carrier air and amphibious forces and to cause sea denial using carrier air and SSNs.
Since 1945 this entry capability has been used over 10 times including Korea, Suez, Kuwait (1962) pre-empting Iraqi planned invasion, Brunei, Falkland Islands, Sierra Leone and the Al Faw. And the Royal Marines have been in almost continuous operations consisting of 30 different campaigns.”
American General Ben Hodges, then commander of the US Army in Europe, had said that he was worried that British forces were already stretched too far. The General was quoted in the Financial Times as saying:
“British forces have global commitments right now. Any reduction in capability means you cannot sustain those commitments. That creates a gap. I don’t know what the magic number is, but I do know that we need the capability that the British army provides, and any reduction in that causes a problem for the alliance as well as for the United States.”
Hodges served as a battalion executive officer with the 101st Airborne before becoming Aide-de-camp to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe in August 1995. He became a battalion commander in the 101st Airborne in 1997. He was Congressional Liaison Officer at the Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison between 1999 and 2000.
After graduating from the National War College in 2001, Hodges served at the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk. Taking command of the 1st Brigade of the 101st Airborne in 2002, Hodges led the brigade in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Not long ago, American Colonel Dan Sullivan said cuts to the Royal Marines and the loss of two amphibious assault ships would change the military relationship between the US and UK.
“My message is to articulate how important having that capability in our partner is. And how damaging I think it would be if our most important coalition partner potentially takes the hits that are projected right now. If you want to be decisive you have to be able to project power ashore at some point.
From a military standpoint as the UK continues to diminish and as the Royal Marines in particular take a hit, I think that our view of what we will be able to do together in the future changes.”
Until anything is official. I’d rake it with a pinch of salt.
More likely they go into extended readiness but with a full care and maintenance package.
These are very, very special ship to have.
Remember the Russian wanted Mistrals – there is a reason every navy, who can, is buying amphibious and carriers……
The difference is that Albions has a proper command and control capability as well as being fully MILSPEC.
They are very capable vessels. 👍
Once they both go into care and maintenance, that’s it SB, they won’t be flying the white ensign again….
As personnel numbers decline, they will be used to man the escort force and the Carriers. There will be no money or manpower to regenerate the capability.
I agree I suspect we will see instead of coming out of refit and into active service we end up with both Albion’s in reserve..essentially making it a Labour problem to crew and reactive…I personally think it’s a profound mistake..but one of many that have have been made in the last decade.The Foolish short sighted behaviour of politicians who refuse to see what is in front of them and admit the pain and cost needed to prevent what is a profound danger that will cost an unimaginable amount if realised….for me it’s not about the loss of capacity for a year or so it about deterrent and will at a profoundly deadly point in history…and we are fucking it up.
The issue is more dropping below critical mass in certain areas.
My fear is that in RFA this has already happened. The only was that gets fixed is restoring the link with BP rates that used to be there.
Drastic action is needed to get what we have operational.
I’d put the Albions into RFA with an RFA engineering crew and RN things that go bang crew.
I think this is the only way to fix this quickly.
We probably have spare NSM sets now there are so few frigates/destroyers operational.
Sounds sensible.
Agree. The chiefs should refuse the option in any case, and the Tories will be gone soon. I’d rather these than frigates anyway.
Strategic assets, mate. So far. All of this is just news articles.
Care to put a tenner on it Robert?
Hi fella, interesting times, totally shit really. There is a v interesting blog over on TPL about all of this, with a slightly different take on the issues and where blame lies. Have a read, makes you think.
Never ending mate. I’ll look, I find that blog pretty depressing too!
DM, I know you carry a torch for RAF getting Blackhawks. Have you seen that the US Army is about to retire over 150 of them? A few old A, but mainly newer Ls. Time to put out the begging bowl?
I’d not John, no.
And yes, I do.
It’s the only way we will ever get any mass by having SOME OTS stuff not gold plated and modified.
Found a great deal to agree with in that particular article. Had just read the two initial double-page reports in Navy News for this month, which did seem to be shifting towards the spin, to my mind.
The first detailed how successful Freeing Winds had been operating with our new NATO ally Finland in the heart of the Baltic, utilizing Mounts Bay among other units (my own take – Baltic likey a hot spot during any peer conflict, MB is an RFA littoral vessel e.g. 2nd tier).
The second was the First Sea Lord, Sir Ben Key, interview. Majored on balance, but with no mention of Assault Ships.
Taking both evidently at odds NN articles, & then TPL blog combined, who do end up ‘nodding’ at his conclusions this time – under current circumstances.
However, regardless of relevance, their is one insurmountable issue that still bears remembering, I say: that no matter how you apportion blame viz politics vs MoD Services, you cannot seriously equip for peer conflict looming on the horizon by mainting peacetime levels of GDP.
Of further note, I’d ‘hazard’, with regard to maintaining service volunteer numbers in a democracy *, you definitely need to convince those personnel (along with their parents) that you have their ‘bodily health’ – in terms of likelyhood of survival – as a top priority, whether those personnel are military or, in the case of the ever relied upon RFA, civilian.
* there’s been much talk regarding noted authoritarian states, about how they apparently have an increasingly disgruntled under-employed youth. I have a suspicion that leaders Xi, and their ilk have suitable job opportunities in the offing for young, vigorous citizens. Offers they may find it difficult to refuse.
Yep, always a long standing fear of mine.
We don’t know that. It may be a fear but that doesn’t make it true.
We just don’t know what they will do until nearer an election.
We do know what the current bunch have done and will presumably be more of the same.
I’m not hopeful for either outcome but we have to wait and see unfortunately
Uk gov has NEVER been pro military, only when forced into a corner in major conflicts, we see Russia threatening the world (I know mostly rhetoric) we should be solidifying our military. Decades of cut backs has ensured the public now don’t see the military as important or worth a career, hence the huge issue maintaining the tiny levels we currently have.😞
We sort of know already that Labour would tax the non-doms until their pips squeak which will apparently pay for everything. In order to get elected Labour would probably take the same approach as Blair and have a hand full of pledges (ie. not increase general taxation etc.) Sunak will push his brand of conservatism but will it seriously be the same as the last fours has been about Covid & Putin?
Happy new year Daniele. Hope 2024 is a better year for you Bud.
Their retirement seems to be the neverending story. I assume the same will play out this time as before, the media will go into uproar and that will be used as smoke/mirrors to hide other cuts.
It’s beyond me why anyone with half a brain cell would be making drastic cuts to the navy 4 months before an election.
But it’s grant shapps we are talking about so anything is possible. Probably thinks he will be the next chancellor.
The government needs to find quick cuts to public expenditure to allow them to announce tax cuts. Unless they want another truss based crash they need to budget for the cuts and with the economy on its knees and getting worse can’t account for them without public sector cuts.
The IFS pointed out the last tax cuts which are the reductions in NI would have to be paid for by public sector cuts. The next ones, god knows
Well there has been hundreds of billions in covid related fraud, how about go after that and use it. Admittedly most was by Conservative supports and so might just influence the next election
The only way you pay for tax cuts is cuts in spending, borrowing to pay for tax cuts isn’t actually paying fir tax cuts.
Or rising other tax’s. The personal tax allowance has been frozen, which is in effect a tax rise, but NI rate has been cut which only effect those paying it. bit of a claw back on the triple lock. however there isn’t a lot of head room at the moment, so the cost of the cut is a cut in spending
Schapps and his ilk are enemy assets. He has screwed energy, transport, defence… he won’t stop until the UK is never capable of being an independent state. The Tories have probably got a buyer for these ships already lined up, not that we will ever see that money.
The reality is we have two sound MILSPEC hulls here which do have a good service life left.
They are fitted with BAE CMS and ARTISAN so they can be armed with NSM or Sea Ceptor. They do have a helicopter facility but no hangar.
They could be used as part of the fleet rotations in the Red Sea area.
They are big survivable hulls.
As well as their intended purpose.
I think an escort would be better suited for the role in the Red Sea. But I get what you mean. I think its simply down to manning issue’s. But in another way of thinking. When we look at the way warfare is rapidly changing. Can we honestly see a situation that would require us landing Marines Dday style. Especially with the huge increase in drone warefare and long range missiles. I really don’t know the answers.
So how do we insert?
How do we reinforce with heavy and semi heavy kit?
Chinook is great but we only have so many for ferry duty.
Maths favours the Albions and Bays for the heavy stuff and numbers of people.
That is a very good point, after all there is a good history of using the bays as a form of mother ship for ops in that area and they are not build to the same navel standards as the Albion’s..as you say there is little reason not to add CAMM ( it fits with their litoral warfare role) and would not interfere with air ops in the way it could on an Elizabeth…adding a strike package would again fit its littoral combat role. A removable hanger as with the albions, marines it’s boats and you have the perfect intervention package…I would also add 2 40mm for both increase air defence and ASuW ( air and surface drones really need a good set of 40mm bofors now).
This is what we need to be doing not cutting back..innovating and showing will.
But it also needs a massive money investment in manpower…that means all three area.. recruitment, retention and getting people to return…the navy needs to be getting out and bring people with skills back in as well as keeping its preset workforce and recruiting a whole new one….
national renewal should be focused on recapitalising our military industrial complex..it’s what are enemies are doing.
ditto- happy new year Robert.
Happy New Year buddy 👍
Feel like this story does the rounds every year.
If you kick somebody in the shin they forget they have a headache for a while. This ‘news’ is intended to distract readers from the discovery that Sunak as chancellor was apparently doubtful that the Rwanda boats policy would be a deterrent to the illegal immigrant boats. We are not going to abandon our amphibious capability without a Defence Review and extensive negotiations with the US. Same old Tory press games.
Sorry the average Brit doesn’t care about defence nor even understand the role these ships perform. Even if the cut does happen it would go largely unreported outside of defence circles.
This has nothing to do with Rwanda, small boats or the need to create a smokescreen.
All that has happened is three decades of cuts and defence mismanagement have finally caught up with us.
The average Brit doesn’t care about defence, but they do care about headline statements like this and the frigates.
Everyone has started treating what’s being said in the papers as gospel, it’s the MOD testing the waters, nothing more nothing less.
Correct. These press releases don’t happen be accident.
The average Brit should understand the world is now a very dangerous place and our military is woefully unprepared to defend the country or its interests.
NATO could soon be engaged in a war with Russia and China or North Korea could well take advantage of the situation to further their territory claims.
The best way to counter the mood music coming out of Moscow, Pyongyang and Beijing is a strong defence.
I agree, but the average Brit likes to whinge when another ship goes, but doesn’t want to fund defence.
I disagree that the armed forces can’t defend the UK. Defend from who?
Conventional threats to Britain and territories would be Russian subs and bombers and Argentina.
Not including Westminster the RN now has a higher proportion of towed array ships to Russian subs than it did in the Cold War.
The RAF also enjoys a far higher proportion of fighter jets to Russian bombers than they did in the Cold War.
The Falklands is at its safest it’s been in a while.
Wee are struggling to make our NATO commitments plus the country is vulnerable to conventionally armed cruise missiles .
Our ammunition stocks are very low, we have insufficient boots on the ground and up against a peer advisory our pitiful number of tanks would last a week,
And we’re are these conventional armed cruise missiles coming from? Russia has proven it can’t accurately hit a tower block In it’s neighbouring country. And any attack on a NATO country would be a very bad day for Russia.
You are happy in your believed security, I have a different opinion .
If you are naive enough to believe Russia will not learn and adapt then we are doomed. Time and time again this country has been caught out by under estimating potential threats
Nobody is underestimating the threats. But time and time again Russia has proven to not live up to the numbers and capability is propaganda machine pumps out. They simply do not have the capability to strike the UK by conventional means.
NATO commitments aren’t defence of the nation. The only NATO commitments we have to make are 2% (which most countries didn’t reach until recently) and defending any NATO nation from attack, which we can do.
The UK has huge artillery production, nearing that of the U.S., NLAWs are in huge numbers, Storm Shadow was bought in huge numbers, JAGM is being bought in huge numbers etc.
To fire cruise missiles at us, Russia has to either send bombers past the Scandinavian countries and get past Typhoons which I would consider near impossible, or fire them from submarines which would be difficult but not as hard. Britain has enough ASW assets to deal with that, more would obviously be better.
If Russia attacked NATO it would be sent back to the Stone Age, and that’s without nukes.
And if a NATO country is attacked, what then?
Further if you are happy to underestimate potential unfriendly powers , you had better dig up Chamberlin and dispatch him to Moscow.?
Russia has captured ~11% of Ukraine after nearly 2 years. It isn’t underestimating Russia to say a conventional war between Russia and NATO would not even be close.
The UK has a light mech brigade on high readiness for NATO, an air assault brigade, and an armoured brigades worth of equipment in Germany. The RM can deploy a large battlegroup to the Nordics and there is an armoured battlegroup in Estonia.
Whilst everybody would like it to be more, that is still a huge force.
I have said this before and I will say it again. Anyone who think the Russians will not learn the lessons and come back stronger is under estimates them.
Especially when the Russian army are happy to use living human waves to attack Ukraine positions.
Well said.
the enemy is already within, britain is full of sleeping cells beware…!
have you been on magic mushrooms again
I hope your right but the mood music feels different this time with a Defence Secretary who seems hell bent on scrapping everything and anything. Given the capability gaps we already have and the further cuts now being proposed the U.K. military are in serious trouble with this Tory? Government. They were going to grow the Royal Navy!
The plight of the RN is desperate, sad and a national disgrace.
Well, I’ll concede it’s a possibility that, given the polls, the government is panicking, desperate to save its skin by buying votes with tax give-aways funded by cancelling big items like HS2, the LPDs and maybe a QEC. If so that would be the height of irresponsibility and I think it would backfire on them.
Tax cuts do not come from cutting a carrier or LDP. They could come because inflation has dropped and interest rates could start to fall.
You are right of course. I was I guess lamenting that economy was in a state such that that we are scraping the barrel.
You can understand Tory logic on cancelling HS2 to Manchester because dirty northerners don’t vote Tory and all the good old boys if the south hated HS2 from day one.
But I don’t think anyone in the country has a been in their bonnet about two LPD’s, cancelling them can only bring very negative press and zero money savings worth having.
“Dirty northerners” from the red wall voting Tory are the only reason why the Tories enjoy their existing majority. They are extremely foolish to alienate northerners if they ever want to get in power again.
Dirty northerners? I’d better get in the shower.
With regard to your Northerners reference you are probably right. The Tories will focus on defeating the LibDems in the SE and SW. The election date will be pushed into December when turnout will lowest among labour voters. Its going to be a shoddy business.
Mothballing the LPDs makes a ( rather negative?) statement about how we see ourselves in the world.
150.years ago railways were just built, there was endless hoops to jump through masses of different groups to appease etc on HS2. Building the existing railwats there was generally the attitude you want an omelette then break so eggs afterall the result would benefit the may and only a few pay a price. So Tories shot themselves in the foot with massive over regulation leading to escalating costs. The bottom line is these types of construction projects are dead in the UK until we take a different approach.
Even back in the 1800s railways were bent onto slower alignments by Tory farmers and landowners or forced into expensive tunnels so as not to ruin the view from some Dukes house. Nothing changes.
To be honest buying votes is what both parties do, cutting taxes is no different to increasing benefits. Just a different target audience to get the vote. Net effect is the same more debt unless you make efficiencies or cuts.
Not sure its so simple. Public opinion plays a part. Liberal democracy and Adam Smith enlightened self interest work so long as you pretend that greed and selfishness don’t exist. When you confront the comfortably well off with the fact that their children can’t afford to buy a house it becomes personal….people wake up- if they can afford it they sacrifice some of what they have to help their children….but they have had a shock – their expectations have not come to pass. Add to that Brexit, cost of living, TV adverts by food banks and they can no longer pretend that something about our society and economy is not working…..
The mental jolt of Covid was an overdue reality check. It revealed just how unhealthy we are as, not just as overweight individuals but as a society.
You overestimate the effect Shapps has had. What has he actually done that you disagree with?
Westminster was going to go no matter what def sec we had, Argyll either won’t go and this is the MOD testing the waters, or something has come up in its LIFEX that puts it in a similar position to Westminster.
Shapps won’t have made the decision on the LPDs.
Both the news on the frigates and the LPDs isn’t even confirmed, I have no idea why everyone is jumping the gun here.
I’m afraid it’s called Apathy….. A long and chequered history of Cuts, cuts and more cuts.
Fellow Englishmen, If the Lpd’s , Westminster et al are so encrusted with barnacles use them as a test bed for keel hauling shapps sunak Cameron for starters then finish the rest of them for their mutiny, bless our lord Nelson,
Drew former type 23 sonar designer
Louis we are all just overreacting because everything is ok but it is not is it. The trend is accelerating for further cuts and Ben Wallace got out for a reason.
We are going to gap the minimum stated number of Escorts, Amphibious capabilities, Solid underway replenishment whilst simultaneously having insufficient attack submarines, a large part of the RFA tied up for a lack of personnel and Destroyer availability limited due to essential repairs and upgrades.
Let’s complete the situation with a carrier capability that is shall we say limited and a MCM force in transition.
If that doesn’t worry you then take a look at the RAF and Army.
Well said…. It’s all a Shambles either way you look at it…. and we all thought it was bad in 1982.
‘We are going to gap’ none of this has been confirmed.
On the gaps that have been confirmed, or are obvious (Westminster) there is nothing that can be done.
The two older Forts were over 40 years old and couldn’t support the carriers.
There’s nothing that can be done about Westminster, if Argyll is being decommissioned it’s because something has cropped up in the LIFEX.
The important thing is 13 frigates and 3 SSS are on order.
The personnel crisis is a real issue, the RFA has to increase pay and the armed forces as a whole need to sort out the recruitment process as the Navy isn’t suffering from a shortage of applicants.
Yes, I think you have highlighted the key point; things are accelerating – downwards.
People are blinded because of their dislike of Grant Shapps.
Agreed, I personally don’t like him either but I can see him for what he is in this position- a yes man.
On more exciting news, Germany has withdrawn its opposition to the Typhoon deal with Saudi. I won’t post the link because the comment will get flagged but it’s on deutschlandfunk and probably other German newspapers.
That could be good news for the long discussed follow on Typhoon order. Even if Saudi went down the F35 route. It would still be good news for the UK.
i agree wholeheartedly
Someone as stupid as Shapps is always dangerous in grown up positions.
True
Or is he actually Mr Green?
Shapps is the loyal stooge put in post and told what to say.
And he’ll fail Upwards he’s that kind of person who fucks up but gets rewarded for it
Could you do the job of a minister? have you any idea what’s involved?
Only as well as you.
True. But I can appreciate it’s an incredibly demanding job that few could do well at.
Thats explains why they don’t then I suppose…
Ok, so i followed the link provided to Politics Home (where the above story is claimed to have originated) and you end up with a :
404 – Page not found
I then went to the Politics home page and searched for the story, no luck, I then gravitated to their defence subsection and again no luck. So would I be correct to assume this story has been removed, if so, by whom?
The Times ran this story so it’s not a random hoax, if that’s what you are suggesting
Not saying its a hoax, I’m saying it appears to have been removed
Sorry, a bit abrupt.
Were you suggesting that they should put a new link up?
Not at all, from what I can garner the original story was aired at Politics home and it has now been removed. So the question i feel should be asked is why and by whom?
I think the government being utterly clueless but stories like this one out as feelers to guage public opinion.
As they can’t make a sensible decision or fully understand the repercussions of their terrible decision making, principally because they are all career politicians born into wealth and affluence (Tory party not labour).
Ergo you have decisions made based on public response and as the general public in the UK have zero interest in defence matters and still believe the UK armed forces are incredibly powerful and strong they won’t call out these proposals for what they are. Utter incompetence, stupidity and would relegate the UK armed forces to a 2nd tier military power unable to fully support our commitments to allies and crucially NATOs battle plan.
Well Ed Milliband has two kitchens.
The article is there. It’s from 2017. I will put the link in another message.
It’s in The house section.
Link is held for approval
Thse reports could just be the RN getting their mesages out first to create the right atmosphere to protect their position. The RN are past masters at playing Whitehall politics and are far more effective than either the Army or RAF. At a time when Labour are talking about Defence of the homeland and giving it the priority the RN probably want to protect their expeditionary ships from cuts in order to fund GBAD defences for the Army or RAF.
Shapps. I can see him doing this. He is incompetent and ignorant enough to think cutting our LPDs and amphibious capability to save a pitiful amount (for a government of a major economy) is a good idea.
He won’t understand the strategic implications of the cut because he has the intellect of a Brussel sprout.
I wouldn’t mind cuts if they are followed by an immediate order for replacement. Eg the 2 frigates being cut wouldn’t necessarily be a huge problem if another batch of type 31s was ordered.
All we seem to get is more cuts pilled on top of previous cuts. Soon the RN will be 4 men in a rowing boat.,🚣🚣🛶
Stop insulting Brussels sprouts!
Shapps has not made the decision on the LPDs. ‘I can see him doing this’ he is a stooge. If (and that’s a big if) the LPDs are going, it’s because the Navy has decided it’s the capability they can gap until MRSS. The Tories don’t care how the money is saved, unless it is the carriers they don’t care what goes.
The frigates going is a different matter. More frigates won’t change the fact there is a shortage now, at the end of the day 13 are on order which makes the 19 escorts they decided minimum. Westminster had to go, if Argyll has to go it’s because somethings cropped up in its LIFEX that means it’s in a situation similar to Westminster and it has to go.
Careful Louis. Taking sense on this site generally doesn’t go down well. 😀
Given that the implication is that we will be losing the majority of our ability to conduct opposed landings, I propose that the Type 32 concept be adapted to adjust to this.
My idea is to fit the T31 hull with two ramps at the stern each capable of carrying vessels of up to 40 feet. That includes Special Forces interceptors, Offshore Raiding Craft used by the marines, autonomous MCM kit and the CETUS XLUUV.
Then, take the Mk41 out of the middle and only have either 12 or 24 CAMM or a single mk41 in order to save space (maybe NSM if the budget stretches.. This space then gets used for a command and control area (more on this later) and room for marines/SBS and their kit. May have to fiddle with boat bays in order to fit this.
A hull-mounted sonar would be fitted in order to allow safety in shallow water without having to adapt missions for helicopter ops and to aid intelligence gathering.
Finally, fit a more advanced ELINT and EW spec on the rear mast. Thales have an array of offerings in service with the French and Netherlands.
My envisaged role for this vessel would be threefold.
In peacetime it would loiter around in the Baltic or Red Sea, carrying MCM kit or XLUUV MCM mode. ELINT kit would function like a ship-based Rivet Joint, soaking up transmissions and pinpointing the location of “unfriendlies”. The command centre would be used for intelligence collation and as a mobile position for specialist teams.
In near-war or asymmetric conditions, it would carry special forces teams in order to conduct missions in a reasonably subtle manner, to be inserted by boat or, in a less subtle manner, by helicopter. BAE’s Fast Interceptor Craft is reportedly capable of circa 50 knots so ought to get in and out in a night.
In a wartime scenario, the command centre would be used to lead NATO maritime groups in “risky” areas like the Baltic. The T32 would have better facilities for an admiral to coordinate his group than in any other platform with a T31’s defences and being able to survive in the enclosed seas. The boat defence and AA capabilities would allow the frigate to become an inshore command post for an amphibious operation with less risk to the ship than, say, a Bay. NSM, if fitted, would allow heavier fire support than usual. The frigate would also be able to conduct independent ops with Special Forces and coastal raiding.
Sorry all for the long-winded comment, fantasy frigates are a hobby of mine at the moment and this one caught my imagination slightly.
I like the idea. I’d go a little further and have a mini dock in the stern for 16m craft like the CB90 or our own 35 troop LCVP. Even a 6000 ton ship is wide enough for three so two ships could probably get 400 troops onto a beach in an hour.
However I would never choose an apposed landing. That needs a heavy bombardment from a B52 and a few big guns followed by a helicopter asssult with Apaches and Tanks.
The idea of losing the Albions because we’re short of crews is stupid.
I’m not sure the T31 propulsion layout would take a well dock. Bays etc. have podded azimuth propulsion to maintain position, something very hard to do with shafts.
Zumwalt has a well deck in the back for it’s boats, but weighs 15000 tonnes so is more comparable to a landing ship than a frigate.
You might be able to fit a single, large ramp that could be used for two smaller boats, but a well deck and multiple landing craft would be too difficult to achieve.
I originally got the idea from the Holland OPVs of the Netherlands, but a little more fightey.
You mean like the versions of the Damen Crossover?
Ooh, I hadn’t found these before, thanks!
I think one of the Crossover variants would make a great MRSS. They don’t have the ability to take large AFVs ashore, so a lightning campaign seems remote, but the vehicle deck seems fairly adaptable. The possibility of a 5″ on our landing ships seems a sensible idea, allowing them to effectively provide their own fire support if using extended-range shells.
However, the lack of missile defence in the specialised amphibious version makes it unlikely to deployed independently- my concept was for the ship to roam around Hornblower-esque, conducting raids on targets of opportunity. For this it needs adequate ASuW and AA capability.
The Albions are well suited for an opposed landing 80 years ago. Not today. LCU mk10 travels at 10 knots, there is not an enemy on this planet not capable of sinking a large, slow, cumbersome craft like that.
The Albions cannot conduct opposed landings.
I do agree that the future for an opposed landing would be T32.
Babcocks proposal has a multi mission bay which could carry 3 of the Griffon LCAC that the RM recently retired, or 5 ORC, in addition to its 3 boat bays which could carry a boat each including one stern launched connected to a large mission bay underneath the flight deck. It has a hangar for 2 Merlins and with 64 CAMM quadpacked into Mk41, and punch with 8-16 NSM and a 5 inch gun it would be perfect for this.
The LCVP replacement just has to be 13m or less if it wants to fit in the mission bay, or maybe just the stern launched boat would be an LCVP able to carry small vehicles.
Opposed landing has not been the RN mantra since 1944. Even the USMC no longer believes in opposed landing.
I didn’t mean an opposed landing, of course nobody is really capable of that, but raiding.
Sorry but RM strategy is to avoid opposed landings and the T32 option would be for covert raids nothing more because you can’t move vehicles in an ORC or any lightweight vessel.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Albions and they have years left in them. They have excellent command and control facilities, extensive load capabilities and are designed to full warships standards. What we lack is faster and longer range landing craft (ship to shore connectors) and helicopter lift.
What comes after the Albions needs to be similar in scale but must have a hangar.
With the expansion of NATO to include Finland and eventually Sweden I can personally tell you that there forces particularly want to train with our RM’s and have been extensively doing so in the last couple of years.
Cutting this capability at this time is taking away another role where the U.K. can and does lead within NATO and demonstrate to the US we are still an important ally with unique skills and assets.
I hadn’t thought about hovercraft, to be honest. The Marines hovercraft is just under 40 feet, so the only consideration would be width to fit in the ramp. My suggestion was largely for the use of the central section for an ELINT/ Command centre rather than extra boat bays.
I certainly didn’t suggest that this would be conducting “traditional” opposed landings under fire. The idea was for small missions to sneak ashore, blow up a bridge/ missile silo/ ship (delete as appropriate) and get out without being spotted, for an element of plausible deniability.
The RM LCAC can fit in the multi mission bay of T26 or both BAE and Babcocks T32
I don’t think such a large ship as Albion is the best fit for raiding and a T32 could undertake that better with Albion and it’s replacement better suited to reinforcement operations like Norway or unopposed landings like the Falklands.
Type 32 isn’t happening so far. It’s on the wish list.
As I said, fantasy frigates.
T32 should exist, so we should start thinking about what it could be.
Could T32 = MRSS ?
5 off.
I don’t think so for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, whatever happens the marines want to retain the ability to land troops in bulk. This may not be in an opposed or even over-the-beach landing, but at least to deploy armour into an unfamiliar port. For this, MRSS will need to be a large ship, probably Bay-size if not shape.
Secondly, I am not suggesting that T32 purely an amphibious ship. The original intention of carrying XLUUVs should be retained, along with intelligence capability.
Some will also argue that MRSS should be less heavily armed to allow it to conduct peacetime ops. I disagree; at least CAMM should be fitted to MRSS to allow it to confidently deploy close to opponents and transit between theatres without escort. A T31 style armament of 40mms should also be fitted, and ideally a 5″ to allow it to conduct its own fire support with extended range ammunition.
But you can see why I am confused …with mention of CAMM 40mm and 5in, XLUUVs on MRSS. The Babcock concept proposal for T32 was a modified T31 with a stern ramp for the UUVs – kind of a baby well dock. I do wonder whether the MOD bean counters have told the RN they afford T32 or MRSS but not both. The Ellida design with the ‘frigate’ armament and its well dock could perform both roles I think.
Yes, I understand, I misphrased slightly on one of the most important points.
To land vehicles in reasonable numbers, MRSS will need a proper vehicle deck to carry them. I have been leaning towards the small end for this (Damen Crossover seemed a good design) but the yard are putting forwards their Enforcer range. These retain the 5″ but no missile armament on a hull between 120 and 180m long, in which about 140 seems a good balance. They all have two landing spots and a full well deck, so much more of a small LPD than the crossovers, which are max 140m long, have a single landing spot and only a stern ramp into a mission deck for vehicles, boats and modular payloads.
A mixed fleet of these could be a good idea, spreading out build locations and providing two tiers of capability.
Thx for the clarification. I take your point re ‘en mass’ and I agree the larger Enforcer size is a better choice. I would go larger; Argus size with a well dock – bigger flight deck. Agree put some CAMM on the landing ship; but maybe put the 5in on the accompanying T32. As a civvie I’d be advised to sign off now to avoid getting out of my depth. 🙂
Oh, I’m a civvie, I just have an unhealthy interest in military stuff
The reason I like Crossover is that it has the ability to largely operate by itself with missile defense and provide its own fire support.
5″ can be used in asymmetric Warfare without risk to the ship.
My personal take is that Crossover and Enforcer would be good in a 4×4 mix, with Crossover in more fightey, less high-volume roles and Enforcer when mass is required and the situation is important enough for an escort and armour is needed, with well dock and multiple heli spots.
We could get the Griffon Wyvern that a British company is putting forwards to replace US LCAC, which is a truly massive hovercraft that follows the new doctrine of speed and range to beach.
So I think its good to consider what’s good and what’s not so good with what we have and how suitable and affordable it is for what we want to do in the future.
I think the LRG concept is the right direction i.e. humanitarian aid, casualty evacuation and lightly opposed military interventions. As a basic building block a LSD + a LPH is a flexible combination; there are missions where you might need just one ship. Add a frigate if and when you need it. Small RM raids can be mounted from an OPV or a T31. Putting all your eggs in one big LHD makes for a single large vulnerable and expensive target in an amphibious assault. Enforcer thinking reflects an assumption that the ship has to do everything and it will be alone. Surely better to assemble a large force if its needed – probably rarely.
LRG North has a LPD + LSD because it envisages mass landings of armour under local land based air cover. But with a well armed Norway, Sweden and Finland in NATO and USMC having a forward presence in Norway and Poland adjacent to the Baltic states is this still needed? We have been gapping this capability. If you have one LPD you have two to ensure one is always available; that’s 2 capable but very expensive ships; each with crew requirement of 350 – that’s a frigate, another Bay and another Argus.
I don’t think the Enforcer concept is necessarily about operating alone; that’s the idea of Crossover with missile defence. Enforcer is being adaptable and being a force in its own right without needing an escort the whole time- obviously for a landing an escort is essential.
Great ideas
Maybe we could fit them with Wasp Snorter missiles?
Agreed, it would increase capability very significantly, wasp snorters are the business as missiles.
Wasp Snorters will provide layered defence against drones and boats with a quick-response fire. Can also be fitted to the ship’s boats and helicopters.
Have a look at the Danish Absalon class. Derived I believe from the same base hull as the Type 31 but with an extra deck to carry up to 300 troops plus transport. They have to off load alongside a wall so a certain lack of flexibility, but if you are playing fantasy frigates there is a problem that you can solve! They can also be useful for disaster relief by putting a mobile hospital into the vehicle deck
I have looked at Absalon in the past. Their intention is largely to carry troops to reinforce various islands the Danes need to defend, like Greenland. My concept was largely for raiding, but I like the idea some have put forwards for a rear door/ davit combination with mission deck rather than a rear ramp
Hoping with Albion going back into reserve and Bulwark not yet fully regenerated this is a case of some journalist doing 2+2 and getting 86!
3 Commando hasn’t been about putting a brigade onto a beach for a long time, but losing both LPD’s would throw even small scaling raiding into doubt and surely have a knock on affect on the utility and function of the Bay’s and Royal Marines more broadly.
Even talk of these kinds of cuts at a time when the world is getting more and more dangerous is utterly shameful!
The Bays lack the C3 and ammunition storage the Albions have.
Well we better Cut them then as well ! …… Seriously though, It’s all getting rather depressing now… If I were a young person looking at a career in the RN, I’d probably weigh it up and not bother. It’s ever decreasing circles…. Not enough Crew, lets cut the number of Ships, Not enough Ships, lets cut the number of Crew and so on and so forth.
I agree, these stories are fabricated by the brass to put pressure in the politicians but they damage the reputation of the service.
Problem is the brass sees this as the way to get things done since Jackie Fischer started it.
Agreed.
I suspect all of this recent stuff is MOD leaking stuff to the press to test the waters.
I don’t think the Albions are particularly useful for raiding- it definitely isn’t their forte, but they definitely are useful for using to keep crew, and a justification to buy MRSS.
They are very handy for a wide variety of roles and pretty cheap to run . Makes zero sense to replace them now.
Who knows wether true or not ,if true absolute disgrace .But let’s face it guys the way this government do Defence isn’t great regardless of war in Europe and China flexing there muscles .Middle East on fire ,nothing seems to get through our politicians ,honestly 😕 🇬🇧
Not the current unelected muppet in number 10 for sure, it’s worth noting that his two predecessors either did substantially boost defence spending and proposed further increases.
Unfortunately both were complete muppets on everything else.
I prefer the “Spitting Image” versions of them personally !!!!
What an interesting article. The reply from Hutton is also informative.
Lord Hutton was the Barrow in Furness MP who protected the SSNs / SSBNs and, iirc, oversaw the construction of the Albions… at Barrow in Furness; did I mention he was also Secretary of State for Defence at the time? He will be well read on this topic. Less so, is Michelle Scrogham who has zero knowledge of the shipyard despite her husband working there.
And while Hutton took the hit for his personal life, Michelle Scrogham seems to have overlooked that Sir Keir wants to bring back probity in public life. Just saying.
Now, this supposed article comes as Simon Fell MP suggests that Barrow in Furness takes the Royal title as in Royal Barrow in Furness – if you’ve been to Barrow Island, Ormsgill or Salthouse Road, I can think of more appropriate subriquets.
So, is this article:
The game is in play.
I think it’s the MOD testing the waters.
It could be the Navy kicking up a fuss in the hope that either the Tories change it, or it forces Labour to when they come into power, but I don’t think the public are too concerned about LPDs specifically for that to work.
Grant Shapps is a puppet so for all these options he does as he’s told.
I doubt it’s the last option you put forward, it was the Torygraph that broke the news about the frigates, I doubt they would do so based off of unverified news, although you never know.
Louis, you’d suggest the 3rd option be disregarded, However, Lord West has a habit of appearing in the Torygraph.
Have a read of the comments section when the scrapping of the 2 23s was mooted. The Journalism of the article was appalling as many on here would have known, but, the sometimes rabid comments were enlightening as to the mood of the tradtory.
The article even stated that Westminster had just been through an expensive refit which I thought was very sloppy, but unsurprising.
The news has come from within the MOD, I don’t think it’s Lord West again.
“Lord ” West. One of the most enthusiastic supporters of cuts to the RN fleet when he was in charge. An utter hypocrite. 🙄
Didn’t 3 x type 23 go on his watch ?
Shapps is as much use a chocolate hammer
This is symtomatic of a strategic culture that is completely unable to define real priorities and stick to them. The fact that a large gap in the UK defence budget has been permitted to continue, even in the face of a major war in eastern Europe, a more bellicose China and rising instability around the world is indicative of a political establishment that is simply unable to set priorities and stick to them. In that sort of atmosphere politicians become nothing more than chickens running around with their heads cut off – shouting loudly about Ukraine one day, then gutting defence capabilities the next. The entire story is a sad commentary on the whole UK political establishment.
Just when I thought Shapps was actually doing okay…. Surely between them all they can come up with something to sort out the personnel retention recruitment problem if that is what’s behind this or if it’s just saving costs for something else?
Will this have any flow on effect and is it linked to the upcoming MRSS program?
It will definitely have an effect on MRSS. MRSS is battling for funding as the Navy has so many programmes on at once. It is very hard to justify to politicians why you need more ships than you already have, which is why generally the trend is less much more advanced ships so it will have an effect on numbers.
I doubt this will actually happen, it is so close to the election there is no point, especially as it would give Labour an almost free point if they reactivate them once in power.
We are fucked, shit is rolling down hill quite fast, despite the fact the world is now less stable than it has been in the last 30 years!! Spend more, invest more, bite the bullet and get on with it! Hey why not disguise both ships as unnecessary and not fit for purpose PPE carriers, offer them to their rich bent mates, and I’m sure the Tories will throw a few hundred million pounds at them!
Quick relabelled them as HMS King Charles and HMS Queen Camilla and task them both as Royal Yachts. Fit them out with a massive TikTok production studio and a grime/ rap music production venue. That’ll make them much more relevant to tens of millions of brain dead morons living in the UK, who would then lobby vociferously to retain the ships.
That way we might actually have a small chance of retaining them.
Totally agree with your sentiments re morons, due to failings in education societal acceptance of bizarre normality deindustrialization apathy the political rulings of people in charge of policy who have no affiliation with our country
A friend’s son has entered the navy as an armaments trainee, I applaud his courage
Former type 23 sonar designer Drew
Stop calling her “Queen”…. She’s nobody’s Queen….. well, certainly not mine.
Fed up sitting on the fence then, Sir? 😉
However, I was a tad disappointed that Keir Starmer was not taken to task on the state of Defence on TV this morning; he is very weak on this area of Government despite spouting the first priority of Govt is defence of the nation bo!!ocks.
Who do you vote for? I have no idea.
I never bother…. Thing is I know I should but seriously, they are all just so bloody false and don’t actually give a damn about any of us….. Love him or hate him, I share more of Nigel Farage’s views/concerns than any of these other gormless clueless elites this past 60 years. Everyone thinks they need these people but actually we don’t….. “All we need is love” !😎
Interesting reaction from the Thin Pinstriped Line. The author puts the main blame squarely on the leadership of the RN especially for its failure to recruit and retain.
Clearly, we need escorts for a wide range of tasks so prioritizing them over the specialist LPDs makes sense. What doesn’t add up is that crews for T31 and T26 won’t be needed for several years; so switching crew now from LPDs to as yet non existent new escorts doesn’t make sense.
Or this could be just another tactic of the RN leadership upping the argument for more resources. It is exactly what they did in the 2023 10 year equipment plan, including full costs of T32, T83, MRSS etc even though these were neither finalized designs nor approved projects.
Read the very same article and found it v interesting to say the least.
Having read lots of different articles on these issues over the past weeks, have come to some conclusions myself. Firstly it appears that the manpower issue is far deeper than we have been led to believe, and that the MODs financial position is far worse then envisaged. Easy to say perhaps, but not an unrealistic assessment.
Westminster not getting a refit makes sense, out of fleet time for 3-4 years, Venturer will be with us before then so makes sense. Argyll not so much, due out of refit later this year! If confirmed most likely a combination of manpower/money and or material state issues.
The proposed cutting of the LPDs has imo been on the cards ever since Future Commando Force came into being. There is no real role for them with the transition to ‘small raiding’. It’s a massive capability to give up, not something that anyone on here is comfortable with, me included. It also saves the RN having to generate 2 x 350 crews to man them, Hugh saving.
Believe TPL is correct in stating that both Glasgow and Venturer won’t need fully manning for 18-24 months yet. Imo this confirms issues surrounding manpower and finances.
TPL is also correct where it says Shapps is just acting on advice of the senior navy management. It’s the military leadership that presents options and advises on what they believe is the perceived best option. He’s just the fall guy who has to announce it. And no I think he’s a complete cluster f**k too!
I know you don’t agree with this and I enjoy reading Gunbusters practical insight to all this but a couple of points. With only one Albion in commission the crew requirement is actually just 300 plus 60 RM.
The FCF is just a smoke screen for cutting capabilities and our new and existing allies on the northern flank highly value RN/RM leadership and expertise in amphibious and littoral warfare. The main commitment for the RM will be to the high north and Baltic and a ship with excellent command and control capabilities is extremely useful in that context even without its load and troop carrying capacity.
What is obvious and I totally agree with you is that finances in MOD must be dire. As for recruitment and retention it is a disaster.
In my opinion the overall personnel ceiling is too low and this means a perfect storm has come about with low pay, better opportunities outside and the same personnel being deployed too frequently creating conditions where there is no spare capacity to cover the inevitable dips in numbers.
Morning mate, wouldn’t readily say that I disagree, just coming at things from a different angle/perspective. Yes, badly phrased about LPD manpower numbers, as we only had/have one in use at any time, but, the 2 T23 crews come in at around 350 people too, so across the 4 units a saving of broadly 700-800 people can be made.
Dont get me wrong, with our commitment to the High North/JEF it seems like utter madness to retire the LPDs early. It would only leave us with the Points and Bays to get kit across the water to where its needed. Some out of the box thinking now required to remedy that capability loss should it actually happen.
It would appear that UK PLC is no longer in the business of large scale (brigade size or more)beach landings (theatre entry I believe the term is), for whatever the reasons are, and probably the correct decision given the proliferation of ASM’s available. That is basically why FCF came about, along with manpower/financial savings over the long term!!!
It is unfortunate that whether we like it or not, it doesn’t fit with the LPDs functions despite what all the positives they bring to the party.
FCF will probably require somewhat smaller vessels to operate from(MROSS?) and we will then require to figure out how/what we are going to use to reinforce our JEF collegues if push comes to shove.
Just my take on how things are going, as right/wrong as any other I imagine.
I just think like many on here I am fed up with cuts being dressed up as new strategy when patently that is not the case.
The manpower issue is totally self inflicted by HMG with a ceiling on numbers that is just too low.
The RN has never recovered from the loss of 5000 personnel in 2010 and the lack Marine Engineers is an ongoing problem.
After cutting the LPDs and given it a few more years one or both of the carriers will go for the same reason.
That’s the elephant in the room…… We all expect a Carrier to be cut at some point….
Totally know where you are coming from. Sometimes just feel like locking myself away in a dark room and screaming!
What is really telling, is that had we started building whatever replacements are envisaged to eventually replace the LPDs, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, but discussing relative merits of said replacement. The other issue is none of us actually believe that that will happen!
We look at all the other major Nato players, all increasing defence spending, and we are not. Why actually is that I would ask, do we know something the rest don’t, or are their respective defence forces in a far worse state then ours? Hard to know where the truth lies. Either way, it’s depressing/infuriating to say the least.
With a son in the RM’s and other relatives in the RN what I do know is morale is shockingly bad with lots of young and old hands getting out.
Other than venting my frustrations on here I do now write to my local MP and others in the south west to express my concern. There is not a lot more you can do.
Royal now has a permanent base in Norway for kit and manpower . The need to float it over and land it is diminished.
Being realistic, RM along with the Dutch Marines are going to aid Norway if ivan is dumb enough to try anything. However, the inclusion of Swedish and Finnish Forces into the Northern Flank mix has massively altered the balance of forces in the North. The need for Winter/High North Specialists from the UK isn’t as pressing as it was.
Brigade sized landings hasn’t been a thing for a long time. Company sized units have been the go to units for RM for a while to conduct operations with supporting units from RN, RM and Army Commandos. If the rumours about 120mm mortars are true then I expect Commando Army gunners with their light guns to go.
Raiding is and will be the thing. Smaller units with organic and on call firepower support from aircraft/drones/missiles to go in, mallet everything in sight and then get out. The days of holding and stabilising are gone. Afghan and Iraq proved that it’s not worth the effort. Let them sort out their own mess that comes from FAFO.
It makes sense to do it now if for nothing else the training pipeline.5 years earlier be it from T23 or LPDs
I joined HMS Bulwark in late 2008 as the WE Dept Warrant Officer.
My pre joining courses took approximately one year to complete before I got onboard so I started those in late 2007.
I was already WO qualified from my time as a WO on T23 5 years earlier so I didn’t need to do a WO qualifying course or Management course which would have added another 6-8 months to the package.
Training and qualifying takes time and you are constrained by course places & availability at several establishments. You are doing these courses whilst also employed shore side somewhere doing another job. That job suffers when you are on courses and not producing / delivering.
If you are lucky enough to be in Portsmouth shore based most courses are there so you get to go home at night. If Guz, Bristol or anywhere else then you don’t go home except at weekends with the accompanied nause of travelling at weekends and it messes up your shore ratio for time you are supposed to spend with family in your base port.
You also need to get leave in as you should not join with leave outstanding so there is another 30 working days to fit in.
A basic training package for Jack or Jenny will take at least 3 months to complete let alone a technical package for a maintainer or Senior Rate.
Mine was, If I remember correctly, Mandatory pre joining courses
Sea Survival Course- 2 weeks
or If Q qualified for NBCD 6 Weeks
OOD training 2 weeks
Weapon Handling 1 week
Div Officer Refresher 2 weeks
Ship Protection Course -1 week
Technical Courses
System Engineer 6+ Weeks
WO Qual Course 8-10 weeks (if not qualified already)
H&S Manager and Risk Assessor- 4 Weeks (if not qualified already)
Bulk Ammo Handling – 2 weeks
OOQ- 2 weeks
Lifting Equip Manager- 1 week (if not qualified already)
UMMS Maintenance manager 1 week (if not qualified already)
And just because you are qualified on one class of ship doesn’t mean you are on another. Courses are usually Class specific. Even then when you get onboard there is around 2-3 months of double banking, on job training and examination boards to become fully qualified in all respects for that class of vessel.
I won’t go into the myriad of online courses you must also do for the usual diversity, bullying, security, IT training etc that also need completing…If you can get access to a computer and it has intranet access!
Do you really think that this is just sensible planning to train crews for 2 new classes of ship? I believe some crew members have been assigned to Venturer, due in service in 2027, and BAE has completed training needs analysis for T26. But these latest rumours seem to be driven by something unexpected – manpower shortages worse than anticipated and/or worse than feared condition of Type 23s. It doesn’t seem to be a shortage of funds and thus the responsibility of politicians.
Longer term, the RN is still planning to expand the surface fleet with T32 which will require additional manpower.
Crew join as ship is in build – they begin to understand the engineering, write SOPs etc and generally grow with the ship AIUI. Deep or Gunbuster may have had experience with this.
All I can add is that there are a lot of Royal Navy in Barrow in Furness and Ulverston as the subs are constructed…
First he destroys our railways, now he’s been unleashed on our armed forces. Eventually we’ll be back to using chariots.
And what’s wrong with chariots pray tell…😀
Cheers CR
😆
Mr Davis-Foster had better apologise for this mortal insult, or else.
Pistols at dawn, CR, Pistols at Dawn!
Fitted for but not with wheels…
The last days of this government are starting to feel like a scorched earth policy, or “what can we damage or destroy beyond recovery before we leave office”.
It’s almost like they want yo damage our institutions to make life more difficult for the incoming Labour government.
Hence why we need a constitution with strong laws backing it up. Politicians need to be held accountable in law for their bad decisions and cost cutting. If they make a decision that leads to casualties or military defeat they should go to jail, whether they are still serving as politicians or left to take up the inevitable after dinner speech circuit or non exec directorship of companies that have gained billions out of their decisions and governmental contracts awarded when they were in power.
And we can start with the Tory MPs who pushed for Brexit on behalf of their paymaster Putin.
No chance they are going to prison. There are lamp posts and rope for them. Swing Johnson off the London Eye along with Rees Mogg and Farage et al.
I’d rather treason convictions and jail for them …………. and I think the only capital offence remaining may be “setting fire to HM Dockyard”?
Deary me. 🙄
I trust that you are not disputing that Putin helped sponsor Brexit by various means, inc. millions to the Tories. Nor should you dispute that Brexit is very much to Putin’s advantage. Our 2% of GDP defence spending will become less than 2% of a much-reduced GDP.
I actually do believe Putin supported Brexit: the geopolitical result has been astounding for him.
Militarily, with the shambles that is our country and Govt. Defence has suffered.
Fully agree
Many Tories did not support Brexit – and many Labour did – even if their esteemed leader at the time pretended not to – so your inference it was only tories that got millions must surely be incorrect.
What about the Chinese interference and their ‘support’ of the Labour party ? or does than not meet your agenda.
I was stating a proven reality that Russians were significant donors to the Tories, plenty of donations were formally declared. Probably plenty more not declared. Russians sponsored the Tories in order to secure influence. Putin wanted Brexit. Brexit will greatly reduce our defence budget (probably a reduced percentage of definitely a trashed GDP).
I was under the impression that it was recently identified the UK economy is expected to out perform the EU economy (inc. Germany) over the next couple of years.
I agree Putin wanted Brexit as it created political turmoil in Europe for some considerable time (far longer than it ought BTW due to the internal UK ‘in fighting’ btw) – but thats no reason for not voting for it .
Brexit was in 2016 ..seven years ago – I think its about time this continued harping on about it was given a rest now personally – but somehow I doubt it will.
Neither Germany, nor our short term bounce from a lower level, are relevant. The likely-inevitable Brexit-trashing of our economy over the coming decades, and with it our defence budget, were reasons enough to vote against Brexit.
Facing up to a reduced budget, and the very plain reasons why it is so, is not harping on.
❤💯
If its true. Its another short sighted decision by someone who doesn’t know the job and hopefully he won’t be around in the role or the government much longer once they lose the next election. We need people in charge who actually know what they are doing the services have been cut that far we are starting to see the consequences. This is what’s happens when they only plan from one general election to another.
As much as I would like to, I don’t have confidence in Labour wrt Defence.
Totally agree with you. I think the only defence Secretary who was worth his salt was Ben Wallace it was a sad day for the services when he resigned. Any decent PM would have refused or at least put up a fight to keep him. But we don’t have a decent PM at the moment.
No, Wallace was a no mark Guards Rupert who misled Parliament on several occasions.
Probably back to Sir John Hutton who put his job on line wrt Defence and fought for his seat within Labour at the same time.
Defence needs reform, be it the number of Braid, our procurement, recruitment, woeful ammo stocks, heavy, light armour and IFV, depleted RN and Royal and the lamentable state of numbers wrt Helo across the Services.
It will take decades to sort out and we just have years. God in Heaven what a calamity these past 14 years of Con Govt have been.
I’m starting to wonder if Ben Wallace saw what was coming down the road and resigned as SoS for Defence before he was pushed into doing something he knew was stupid and short sighted.
I can’t get over how wildly inept this Tory government has been in the last few years… I’m no fan of our politicians anyway but this lot take the biscuit and have managed to plumb depths of stupidity and self indulgence that even I couldn’t have dreamed up…
CR
Follow Johnson and just take coke. You’ll get with the programme quite quickly 😉
Gove is also a regular imbiber… allegedly.
Ben Wallace wouldn’t have lasted because he was more for the services than the party. It was one of the saddest day when he resigned.
seems like a lot of different rumours are going around right now. I’m betting it’s intentional leaks so we’re glad when it’s ‘just’ the batch 1s that get cut.
..
At this point, we might as well sell the majority of our assets, withdraw from all of our ‘international commitments’ and just have a costal defence force (not that we can stop any boats from entering our waters). Like the rest of Europe, we can just rely on America to save us from any piracy/hostile states.
Obvisouly, I wouldn’t want this to happen, but lets be realistic – The government, no matter who’s in charge, won’t and will never properly fund our military. It’s all downhill from now on.
I agree totally, this is the reality. We are during 30 years with cuts, forces overstretched and Big hole in the defence budget, the BEST is to Scrap the armed forces fast instead to Scrap It slowly wich is more painful.
Shapps is a total goon and should be removed from bae systems .This fool couldn”t get a rail track north of watford not that he tried .The mugs you have let loose in bae shipyards needs too be looked into by the mod .And who’s in charge of them , some cambridge or etonion idiot that knows nothing about surface vessels or subs .A bae barrow there’s more staff than workforce all buddies of the ministers in charge contracts being given to freinds of freinds it needs to be looked into doesnt it simon fell mp for barrow in furness . Knock on my door ill give you answer’s
Oh come on, you might be living in Royal Barrow in Furness quite soon… 😉 😉
Can we look at the contracts for scaffolding concerning bae barrow i was recently in there yard at bradys by tesco doing the white board rip off bull , by alleged actor’s what disgrace , it cost 15000 man hours of bullcrap, how much did that cost the tax payer .bae are obviously shafting the tax payer for what they can get WHO RUN’S THIS THE MUGS RUNNING OUR COUNTRY OPENLY SHAFTING THE TAX PAYER.
The scaffolding being stored all over the country in yerd’s such as brady’s thats being sold back too george robert’s as scrap and then being bought back as new ,needs addressing this is corruption on a massive scale isn’t simon fell mp of barrow in furness , get it sorted fell .Just my thought ‘s but people are on the take .
Inform Michelle Scrogham potential Labour MP for Barrow in Furness – once you’ve explained what scaffold is and why it is useful I’m sure she’ll be really happy to help, despite not having Defence in her list of priorities for her once she is in office. Hey ho.
If it is true and I very much hope it is not, the hollowing out of Britain’s armed forces continues at a pace, in this increasingly uncertain world.
I suggest you do something about recruitment rather than scraps ship, at this rate the RN will comprise of a row boat commanded by an admiral and one solitary rating!!
Hopefully Labour will put a stop to this and do a proper defence review , however according to the fairy at the bottom of my garden. This is unlikely,
At least will still have HMS Victory… although I did hear a rumour that it might be sold to a Hong Kong Businessman to be turned into a Casino….
😂🤣😅🤣😂 that made me laugh. I can see it being sold. To TikTok or Huawei but they couldn’t sail it around to Chin very easily. They might just use her masts as a 5g platform for hacking UK internet traffic.
But She’s just undergone a refit…. and a Hull Stabilisation….. Should be good to go now…… HMS Ocean was sold after similar works…… any way, China has an easy way to track UK RN Ships in “HMS Warrior’s Web Cam”…… i think it has spyware !!!!😂
I warned about this months ago when it was decided not have an LPD swap which has been the case for decades. To be honest I got quite a bit of critical comment not the least of which was that I was scaremongering (?). We shall see. The defence forces in this country are going down the tubes and yet I am met with endless versions of ” we’re the best in the word ” or ” the UK can take on the planet” We are not the finest ,sadly, nor are we able to do very much anymore. The more people believe in the UK of old and make excuses the worst it’s going to get.
People don’t understand how the military landscape is changing and cling on to force structures of the past.
Force “structures” Robert? you’re having 😂
No I’m not Geoff. Drone warfare. Ever increasing autonomous vehicles and vessels. Warefare is changing rapidly. I’m not defending cuts. But warfare is changing rapidly. At sometime we might have to let go of some legacy capabilities as we know them. Fewer crewed warships operating larger numbers of autonomous vehicles using longer range weapons and controlling the battle space and the cyber space. We are seeing it today with the shear amount of disinformation being shared online. I don’t know the answers Geoff. Only the future is changing rapidly. And we have to keep up.
Now I’m confused. I’ve been banging on about smaller, more elite forces for two years or more and I am invariably attacked for doing so. See my reply to John.🙄
Like a sinking ship, we cling on to the last bit above the water….. lol.
I think this is Shapps testing the water to see how much reaction there is to keep Albian and Bulwark in service as it is quite clear that the present government have zero regard for the defence of the UK. With the real possibility of Tump getting back into power in the US which would mean the brake-up of Nato along with the the real possibility that Russia will come out on top in the Ukraine what the government should be doing is putting the UK on a war footing then forming a war cabinet, at the same time bring the defence spending up to what is needed.
Agree. Zero preparation for an ever increasingly dangerous international security situation. The government are blind to the dangers coming down the line. We absolutely should be undertaking a crash rearmaments programme and putting our economy into a much more resilient and stronger footing internalising as much of our industrial military base as possible whilst investing 3-3.5% GDP into defence.
Russia is now spending 6% of GDP on defence its heavy industries are all focused on manufacturing of armaments and munitions. Putin has North Korea and Iran as well as China covertly replacing war losses as well as new equipment at cost prices. How long Russia can sustain this is debateable. What is not debatable is that this is Putin’s throw of the dice he has the West running around like headless/leaderless chickens.
And all that effort just to invade less than half of Ukraine. Which they won’t achieve. NATO would wipe them out.
Nato is proving to be as leaderless as the counties that make up the alliance and as soon as Trump gets in to power in the US will be pulling out. Putin is playing the long game so if we are going to put an end to his piss-take of the Wests inability to control him we need to do it now while there is a Nato.
No guarantee whatsoever Trump will win this year. And he can’t just pull out of NATO without Congress approval.
Schrapps is a political yes-man who will do his masters’ bidding; he has messed up every single government department that he has been made a Minister of. Sunak, who when he was in charge of the Treasury printed more money than any Chancellor in history, is being told by his re-election flunkeys at CCHQ that the only way to win the next election is by giving tax cuts to the rich. Consequently Sunak has demanded that Schrapps now claw back some of the £billions secured by Ben Wallace for defence to pay for them
Sunak, who is pro-fossil fuel, anti renewables and a climate crisis denier was annointed Prime Minister because nobody else would stand against him. He is so desperate to avoid being sacked before the forthcoming election that he will also demand that Hunt slash £billions from the welfare budget to help pay for his tax cuts. None of this will have any effect on the outcome of the election; the electorate have had enough of the Tories and if the polls are to belived, Starmer is going to win by a landslide with the Liberal Democrats becoming the Official Opposition.
Expect Sunak to refuse to call the election “in the second half of the year” – he will cling on to power and wait until the last possible moment, which will be Jan 2025
The problem is there is no one on either side of the house that actually give 2 hoots for the defence of the UK. The senior ranks within the armed forces just want to get to the pensions without making waves.
Most ex forces people thourght that Mr Wallace would be a breath of fresh air and actually make a difference but it turns out he was just anouther caretaker put in by the government to do just enough to keep the eye of the public opinion off the defence fiasco that has been 30 years in the making.
Actually the real issue is the rank incompetence of the civil serpents at the top of the MoD. Parliamentary committee after committee has investigated cock-up after cock-up in defence procurement – the only lessons learned are that the MoD cannot manage large procurement projects.
The MoD are so used to being bailed out by the taxpayer they don’t even try any more; each service has a huge department dedicated to organising the scrapping of military capabillity to pay for the cock-ups elsewhere. For example, the Army has 670 ranks of Brigadier and above; we have more Generals than operational tanks and indeed more cavalry horses
No Defence Secretary in living memory has been able to reform the MoD; they chunder on destroying the UK’s military capabilities and nothing will change until they are disbanded and we only start buying battle proven kit off-the-shelf on the open market.
This year alone the MoD have increased headcount from 62,000 to 67,000, when the RN does not have enough recruits to keep ships active. All on non-contributory index-linked final salary pensions with huge 25% tax-free lump sums to spend when they retire, after a lifetime of cock-ups
I could not agree more, but us talking on these type of sites dose nothing to change the system as no one in the CS or parliament actually gives a hoot what we think they will still get the large pay packets. My personal view is that we should sack the F–in lot off them, have a Guy Fawkes moment and get rid of the lot as the putrid smell of corruption can be smelt all the way to Moscow and Beijing.
MOD civilian staff are civil servants and are in a pension system they contribute to which is now career averaging.
A swave of off-shore windfarms have just been given the go-ahead, including Hornsea 3 in the North Sea, which will be by far the largest windfarm in the world when complete. Some oil and gas projects are going ahead because of the threat of Putin cutting off the gas supplies. It’s called energy independence.
Wind Turbines are a disaster for future generations, as are EV’s and Nuclear. Come on now Robert, don’t get fooled by all this BS, It’s not this tiny Island that needs to save the planet, try telling China and their 1300 Coal Powered Power stations which produce over 80% of the power that is used to build EV Cars and all the Plastic Crap we all buy…… 😰…. makes my blood boil.
I’m not fooled by anything Frank. I work In the industry. Yes, we are not going to save the world single handedly. But we can lead. I’d be interested to hear why you think wind turbines will be a disaster for future generations?
It’s the materials they are made from…. Non Recyclable materials Landfill. Same with EV’s and just look at the costs to the environment in the mining of Lithium. Nothing is Eco Friendly.
This winter the electricity generated from wind and solar (my solar panel installation generates juice even on a cloudy day in winter) will save us having to import roughly 25 tanker-loads of LNG. Don’t forget our renewables harvest free wind and solar energy – that’s why Big Oil want renewables banned
Shrapps was so incompetent when Energy Minister no bids were made for the 2023/2024 renewables auction.
None of the oil extracted from the Rosebank field will be landed in the UK, there will be no energy security from it whatsoever. Once refined Rosebank’s oil products will be imported from Norway at the market price. The only people who wanted it were those on the far-right of the party – the ones who want our N Sea windfarms demolished because they get in the way of drilling for more oil
More and more cuts from this Tory Government, when is it going the other way, when it’s too late?
Somebody seeing sense , where on earth would the UK carry out an amphibious assault, storming the beaches is a thing of the past . These ships wouldn’t last in modern warfare and would be easily taken out using cheap drones or remote suicide vessels . Time to change ideas and move on .
Correct John. These two have been targets since the carriers arrived. By themselves they are out of date platforms. Nobody in their right minds is going to storm a beach in the future. We need to modernise our thinking. The future will about over horizon incursion, strike and exfil/evac.. The carriers can be made into real 21st Century capital ships; the Astute’s are spot on and with some imagination the 26’s, 31’s and 32’s can be world beaters. We must, though in our minds, stop fighting old wars.
For once we agree 👍 😄
Ah, but this is not the first time Robert. Watch this space.😉
😀👍
These are big decent hulls, with a lot of life in them, with good sensors as well as command and control.they have never been in reality about over the beach landings in the face of a prepared enemy…no one can do that..but at present modern warfare is about intervention as much as anything…these are profoundly good interventions vessels..when it comes to a hot war we will need to deliver troops in vessels like this designed to survive in the littoral…in the present political war environment we need to be able deliver stabilisation forces in vessels like this….you say they are out of date but china has built 3 40,000 ton helicopter landing docks with one fitting out and 8 25,000 amphibious transport docks…these are blue water vessels designed for interventions in areas that china wishes to intervene to back up there political war against the west.The 25,000 ton vessels include a gun fit of 76mm main guns and 4 30mm CIWS..you may say yes PLAN is planning an over the beach assault of tawain…but it has a very specific over the beach set of landing vessels and troop transports for that purpose as well…these vessels are more expeditionary in nature…and more along the lines of the US gator navy… it’s got around 63 green water landing ships with a capacity of around 20,000 troops for its over the beach into any part of tawain.…then around 500 or so short range landing craft..that can do the traits assault around 50,000 troops…so china can do 70,000 is troops onto the beach without its 12 blue water amphibious vessels…so we really need ours to answer any stability threats that come along…
cue those that will say in the face of those odds we wouldn’t be able to do much anyway so why put ourselves at risk ….
Grant Shapps the scrapper. Oh my god.
The very worst kept secret, one we already knew was coming, low hanging fruit chaps….
Albion and Bulwark will placed into extended readiness, ready to sold off in 2025.
No matter which group of socialists are in charge at the time, the Tories or Labour.
Both are interchangeable left wing organisations with the same high tax, massive spending and big government plan, there is a very subtle difference if you look hard enough, one has a blue flag, one a red.
Anyway, It will be sold in the following way during the next SDSR2025,
“We are retiring Bulwark and Albion, as these old ships are increasingly obsolete and not compatible with our new highly agile and lethal Royal Marine Raider concept. With this in mind, we are also reducing the Royal Marines to 3,500 to make them even more elite and lethal and really concentrate on company seized raiding and SF operations”.
“One QE Class will be in refit or reserve to ensure that carrier strike is available 24/7, with a well maintained and freshly refitted carrier on call at all times”.
There you go, whoever is in charge, just copy and paste the above..
Here it starts. The Tories promising 2 and half % reduced at the chancellor’s last statement back to 2%. Exactly what Labour would have done. Shapps is at best an average politician who is bent on climbing that ladder at any cost to anyone else. You are talking about recruiting a couple of hundred young sailors. Yea god’s what a pathetic excuse. When it comes to spending endless amounts on illegal immigrants that’s fine. When it comes to this countries security or giving junior doctors a realistic pay rise, well the Whitehall mandarins play hard ball. The potential scrapping, or more likely something a bit less, of these ships is a symptom of a very badly run country, and a set of unfit rulers who priorities are about as accurate as a Russian missile. But potentially equally destructive.
I think the best thing to scrap is the labour, conservative and liberal parties . All have cost us dear , endangered our country and are not crewed correctly. .. certainly passed their useful lives .
How about this …instead of scraping the good ships ..her I go ..why not put up the pay and improve conditions and recruit ! I know it’s radical but why not give it a go ..and yes we can afford it ..
What we can’t afford are millions of illegal immigrants, a grossly abused welfare system, an ineffective and corrupt NHS cash black hole ,HS2 , foreign aid .. this lot sucks up many hundreds of billions more than it should. Like I said it’s our Westminster gravy boaters that have allowed this .. the amount the illegals and legal ( illegals with paperwork) cost us each year would pay for the whole original f35 order !
Hate to sink your boat. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant – there are asylum seekers. The 1951 UN Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol apply
I’m sorry I’m going to loss my shite here a bit. What the hell are these idiots doing…they are running their mouths off on the international stage against countries that are very seriously our enemies and see us as an enemy that has crossed their red lines in a number of areas, yet we refuse to suffer the pain needed to build the deterrent and show the will needed to deter and face down the enemies they are running their mouths off to…either anti up and pay the bill or back down and accept the outcome of that….what we are doing now is paving the way to hell and in that I mean we are heading to a potential global conflict.
China is not impressed by words and hot air..only total commitment, the will, ability to suffer, pay the costs, and show total cohesion will deter china, that or back away from what it considers to be crossing a red line and messing with its own business.
We are completely miss understanding our enemy and our actions are going to case a war.
The Indian Defence Minister and a high level delegation will visit the UK tomorrow…….
Utterly shameful.
Thankfully this clown will get the boot soon.
Can we have Ben Wallace back please?
Government of traitors.
The natural destination of these ships would be the Brazilian Navy. Brazil currently operates a single dock vessel, NDM “Bahia”, the 10,000 t former “Siroco” from France. Albion and Bulwark would operate in conjunction with the former HMS Ocean, currently NAM Atlântico. If the United Kingdom is really interested in selling these ships, they will make a proposal to Brazil. And my bet is that the Brazilian Navy will be interested.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the compromise is to keep one LPD in service with other retired and used for spares. That has long been a common solution for RN big ships when the money is tight, e.g. Ark Royal IV and Eagle, Hermes and Bulwark, Fearless and Intrepid, even Ark Royal V and Invincible. Of course the supposed difference this time is that it’s not about money, but the RN’s lack of c.3000 trained sailors. As so often with the modern RN – even 14 years later – I think the root cause of the problem is Cameron’s 2009 SDSR. The RN almost ceased recruiting in the period 2010 -13, the break irrevocably damaged traditional links to universities, colleges, schools and even Sea Cadet units that had been rich recruitment grounds for many decades or longer.
We clearly don’t need these two vessels, they can be got rid off and we would still have far more capability in this important area than the Americans and Chinese combined.
With our stragic reserves of 1000’s of vessels currently stored at Dover Harbour, with the proven capability to carry, and land a minimum of 60 fighting age men on any beach completely unchallenged
This diversity lark is a crock of shit!! There is no recruitment crisis but for the one they make themselves!
I doubt there will anything substantial before an election. This is in the same category as MRSS and T32, which is maintain the illusion and let the next government deal with it.
One key aspect will be NATO commitments, are theses or or any other asset for that matter required to.meet NATO commitments.
Albion and Bulwark are fine modern ships. Tear jerking to see them go but we need to accept that we are unlikely to use them. Would another Argus or Bay or frigate actually be of more value? In addition to solving an immediate crewing problem for the frigates, selling the LPDs would make inroads into the defence budget deficit and help make MRSS and/ or Type 32 a reality.
Well this might make the manning issues of the Royal Navy less acute by retiring ships (or mothballing them). I must apologize profusely to the god of woke for using the term manning (couldn’t think of a politically correct phrase to use). I think the crisis in recruitment is associated with how armed service personnel are being treated by the politicians and lawyers in the UK.
We have money hungry lawyers hounding former armed service personnel through the courts for alleged misdeeds on the battlefield. Some of the lawyers (and I use that phrase in the widest sense of the word) have also been struck off for malpractice. However, the process of hounding of our soldiers etc goes on apace (now the Irish politicians have crawled from under their stones about the IRA). These lawyers are aided and abetted by politicians…what could possibly go wrong – ah yes recruitment takes a nosedive….
on the flip side, you also have of sorts of firms also chasing ex serviceman to sue the MOD for god know what. be interesting to see how much that is costing
I would agree, the armed services generally is not portrayed as a it once was. Its not just about money, people want to be valued in otherways and know the political class have their back, which they don’t if fact its the opposite.
With 2 frigates rumoured to be retired early to fill the manning shortages , why do these 2 assault ships need to go too . It’s time the UK government got to grips with this and improved pay and conditions in the military to attract new recruits and retain experience
You can’t get most of the civil service into an office so getting on ships for 2 month stints isn’t exactly top of the list for Britain of today. Perhap RN need to offer WFM 🙂
They do but there is a minimum rank involved.
I would go on Youtube and get a view from Jeff Taylor. Bold with moustache.
i think britain as it stands should refrain from being a big fish in a small pond.we no longer have a strong military capability and in a war scenario we would end up with loss of british lives,the falklands taught us that,when we just managed to retrieve the islands with a little help from our cousins.unless our spineless politicians wake up to what they are doing to our armed forces i think the best thing to do is bring them back home and let others like the european union take over(god help us)
Crikey, it’s crap isn’t it, we might as well scrap all our armed forces, 100 tanks, 10 ships, half a dozen aircraft, the whole damned lot, no matter how professional couldn’t defend the Isle of White against Luxembourg.
If there is a shortage of crew then recruit some from the 20 percent of the working age population who aren’t working or maybe take some of the ‘diversity managers’ from the NHS and civil service look