Lord Richards of Herstmonceux raised questions in the House of Lords about the future of the UK’s amphibious capability following the planned retirement of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark by March 2025.

In a recent response to the House of Lords, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) reconfirmed plans for the UK’s Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS) programme, which could include up to six new vessels. This assurance comes amidst concerns over the impending retirement of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, the Royal Navy’s dedicated amphibious assault ships, by March 2025.

Addressing a question from Lord Richards of Herstmonceux on 19th December, Lord Coaker, Minister of State for Defence, stated:

“The Royal Marines will continue to be supported by three Bay Class landing ships and RFA Argus until the introduction of up to six Multi-Role Support Ships. The first of these will enter service 2033.”

While the “up to six” figure was originally announced under the previous government, this recent reaffirmation is significant. The MOD’s decision to restate the potential scale of the fleet, rather than relying on vague or non-committal language, provides a small degree of reassurance about the scope of the programme.

The MRSS programme, currently in its concept phase, is designed to replace the Bay-class landing ships and RFA Argus, ensuring the continuation of the Royal Navy’s amphibious capabilities. The timeline remains unchanged, with the first ship expected to enter service by 2033. The MOD confirmed that funding for the programme is in place, enabling ongoing preparatory work.

The early retirement of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, both held at lower readiness for years, has prompted questions about the interim capability for the Royal Marines. The MOD has made clear that the Bay-class ships and RFA Argus will continue to fulfil operational requirements until the MRSS fleet is introduced.

The reaffirmation of “up to six” ships highlights a commitment to maintaining amphibious capabilities, while the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review is expected to offer further clarity. Although not a change in policy, the language in Lord Coaker’s response underscores the importance of preserving a credible amphibious force in the Royal Navy’s future.

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

98 COMMENTS

  1. Continue to be supported by 1 Bay class laid up till 2026, another in refit, only 1 available for now and then Argus which is off with CSG25

      • Pardon my total lack of knowledge on this subject but how does it take them 8 years to start replacing ships they’ve just scrapped? How long do ships actually take to build?

        Mind you, if you look at how backwards everything’s becoming these days, it isn’t really surprising. As technology becomes more bloated, more expensive and harder to use, it’s become less reliable and built to lower standards by people who don’t care, for people who wish they didn’t have to buy it.

        • Will have taken 11 years to build HMS Glasgow, these will easily be double the size, our shipbuilding capacity is improving but will still easily take more than 5 years, and we aren’t building them now, or next year

        • As has been mentioned, the type 26 had BAE systems 4 guys working flat out for a decade, and once in the water it then needs fitting out, then trials. Potentially all frigates could be approaching end of life before it’s ready.
          If the ship builders had space on their production lines, if there was a finalised plan drawn up on a design.. it’s still going to be years AND years. Our war with Putin will be over and done before an Amphibious ship sees action.

      • To be honest, if Labour won’t increse the budget to 3%, there’s little hope of getting more than two.

        I fully expect the army to be reduced further in the SDSR to around 65,000. They will try and force the structure into the available budget.

        2.5% will barley touch the sides. Independent defence analysis has placed the required budget at 3.6 % to start repairing the damage.

        Labour ( like the Tories before them) just don’t care.

        • Strategic Defence Review targets 2.75% GDP because it plans for 2030s and 2040s, however not even getting to 3% after 5%+ during cold War does look timid, at best, by the MoD.

    • How so ? Do you not think that the USA and the British won’t have a counter to drones either through ECM or good old proximity fuses we are not Ukraine the USA has a almost bottomless pit of money and to defend its ships that cost hundreds of millions there not going to spare any expense plus I’ve not mentioned laser technology that’s going to be a game changer

      • Well if they have a bottomless pit one has to ask why they in the past decade or so halted development of hypersonic missiles (from being years ahead) at best paused railguns (and now asking the Japanese if and how they seem to be perfecting them) and put off high end attack drones for years (settling for tanker versions while pissing off Northrop Grumman) and tried hard to find a cheaper alternative to building a next Gen fighter (and failing) and failing to invest in shipbuilding for new warships and submarines, oh and didn’t invest in support facilities to service F-35s Restricting them to 50% availability as the queue up for maintenance and they are just the ones I can immediately think of. Not going to improve if Dr Strangelove, sorry Elon Musk decides to save money on apparently redundant F-35 or manned fighters generally to help find a trillion or two to invest in Martian City pipe dreams that coincidently he is the only one in the queue to take on and accepts no venture capitalist is remotely likely to invest in as there is no actual return.

      • There is no viable current solution to drones and it’s not like they are a new thing. Yes they are now massively cheaper and so can be used on mass but if you can counter one you can counter many or not as the case may be. The US has acknowledged it cant stop the drones buzzing its bases so the solution isn’t there today.

        Russia and Ukraine have learnt the solution is to attack in small dispersed numbers. North Korean troops recently didn’t not learn this and got wiped out on mass.

        All your equipment in a single slow moving assault ship is currently a bad idea.

        The way I see it is low flying long range helicopters are the solution, get the troops on the ground as fast as possible and before the enemy has a chance to react. The albions didn’t have hangers and so would not make good helicopter launch platforms.

  8. Nothing new here but it is interesting that this was not stated to be subject to the forthcoming SDR.
    I remain puzzled by the continuing lack of detail on the design of MRSS. If it is going to have similar capabilities to the Albions, why not keep them ?
    If it is to be very different, in what way? Better armed, larger aviation facilities? Before the exact design is finalized, there needs to be clarity about what they are expected to do. Beyond ” large non complex warships” nothing.

      • True but given how many ships are in long term refit and inactive, shouldn’t the RN have enough people to crew one Albion on rotation?

      • I would assume ships of this nature no matter how conceptually I proved they are are going to remain quite manpower intensive, at least if they are ever to carry out their prime function. Hopefully they can be more flexible in nature so they can carry out other functions generally but no idea how practical that might be but if there are going to be even 6 (let alone 8) of them with the small size of our fleet there will have to be a strong argument for them being strong allrounders surely.

        • Mistral class of France is sub 200 crew, so there’s certainly room to do better. They can be somewhat multirole but end of the day you can only cover so many bases

        • Size of fleet….allrounders. Good spot. Be interested to see how the SDR sees things. If the best deterrence is presence this might argue for ‘up to 6’ i.e. 4 deployed forward based all rounders which have good self defence, are lean manned most of the time but capable of being quickly transformed into credible LPDs when required.

  9. “Up to” is a journalistic euphemism used when somebody wishes to exagerate a likely outcome. The MoD and it’s grade-inflated apparatchiks use this sort of term all the time. Translated, it means that “we would like 6 but unless we cut 15,000 MoD civil servants its only going to be 2. Or even none at all

    The sheer size of the national debt – now £2.8trillion, means that the government has to borrow more to pay the interest on our debt

    The most recent monthly figures show the government borrowed £17.4bn in October 2024, which was the second highest October figure since monthly records began in 1993.

    Borrowing since March has stands at £96.6bn, which is £1.1bn more than for the same period in 2023. In the last full financial year, to March 2024, the government borrowed £125.1bn.

    The amount of interest the government pays on national debt fluctuates. It hit £9.1bn in October 2024, equivalent to an annual £108bn – the highest October figure since monthly records began in 1997.

    Simple arithmetic shows that the bulk of government borrowing is used to pay the interest. The amount borrowed is then added to the national debt. Clearly, this is unsustainable and will ultimately result in hyperinflation, like Zimbabwe and Venezuela. After 14 years of economic mismanagement, Labour may well be forced to make savage cuts to the defence budget – before the IMF turn up and force us to anyway

    • The debt and its continued growth is an issue. It shouldn’t be so hard to try and stay in budget. A bit of tax rises and a bit of savings.
      I would give pensioners and all benefits 2% under inflation. Tax rise for 3 years on businesses making over £1m profit. No more tax breaks, international companies etc. highest tax rate up 1%.
      All government spending has to be cut 2%.
      At least that would be an attempt and it’s for a few years then will be reviewed.

      • Current 2025 spending is £1200b

        Pensions £220.6 billion
        Health Care £230.7 billion
        Education £115.6 billion
        Defence £66.2 billion
        Welfare 157 billion

        • The government spend on healthcare is a bit lower than you mentioned, the department of health and social care budget was 181 billion in 2022/23 it will move to around 203billion in 2024/25.

          But we do have copayments ( private individuals paying for care) and that takes it up..but that’s not government spend.

          Also pensioner benfits cost is lower estimates are 137 billion for 2024/25
          Costs for working age benfits are estimated to be 137 billion for 2024/25
          Cost for disability benefits will be estimated to be 90 billion for 2024/25
          Cost for housing benefits will be estimated to be 35 billion for 2024/25
          Total benfits bill estimated for 2024/25 will be around 400 billion.

          Now the NHS keeps the population healthy and productive, the schools educate the future generations, defence is necessary to prevent crippling wars, pensioners need to be looked after and so to the disabled..but the working age benefits are essentially broken, people who work should be able to earn enough to live, not require handouts.

      • The last goverment have so many contracts out to their mates at non economical rates because they believed in privatisation was the solution to everything. The issue is they didnt stop to think whether that was always true and gave a lot of bad value contracts out. The move to bring military housing back into public hands is a good start reversing this. Same with the rail companies. Using public money more efficiently will hopefully mean that more money can be freed up to spend on the military.

        My concern is however it could go the other way, as there is times when public ownership is not the right option for value for the tax payer. Each case needs to be considered individually.

        I really don’t think a massive increase to the percentage of gdp is practical with the current state of the goverment purse but I do think we can do a lot more with the current spending.

          • Look at the USA and see how little they appear to get from spending so much. High end forces cost a lot of money especially in things like training and readiness. Can’t just count numbers of tanks.

            Also France spends more money than it appears as they have central government defence funds outside of military budget as well as paramilitary.

    • It seems to me we’ve had a succession of governments who have gone all-in on solving (read: paying for) the world’s problems, while showing absolutely zero desire to support our own country. The very fact that Labour are creating brand new capability gaps – in the face of rising tyranny and the possibility of wars – that will take nearly a decade to even start replacing says it all.

    • UK governments have been net borrowers every year since 2001 when Brown’s commitment to stick with Tory spending plans ran out. The banking crisis hit the UK harder than most other countries because of the size of the financial sector relative to the economy as a whole. The coalitions attempts to rein in spending( bonfire of the quangos)
      were only partially successful with damaging cuts to defence offset by an increase, made legally binding, in foreign aid. Though not reducing, debt remained manageable until the double whammy of COVID and the energy crisis. The responses to these added @£500b to the national debt, pushing it towards 100% of GDP.. Compounding the problem was the issuing of a lot of index linked securities, taking advantage of low interest rates but very expensive as inflation soared.
      Even though the headline debt is overstated- @25% of it is actually owed to the BoE on securities it bought as QE, the UK is still borrowing to fund day to day expenditure. The deficit is structural and given the current levels of taxation can only be addressed by reductions in expenditure.
      Seeing the outrage over the loss of WFA and the rejection of WASPI claims, it is going to be hard to wean the British public off their appetite for freebies. But if it isn’t done in a coherent sensible way now, deeper cuts may be forced on us in a future crisis.

      • Look on the bright side at least we are not Japan..a nation dedicated to doing national dept better than any other nation on earth..while spending $400 dollars on each and every manhole cover in the county.

      • Most coherent and accurate post on the UK’s financial situation that I’ve read on here – and as a regular topic, there’s been a lot!

  10. It would be nice to have a through deck LHD desig if that would long the lines for the replacement. I think bae systems has a design that also allows deployment of landing craft from the side as well.

    • This must be correct that two LHA/LHDs would be the better solution if the RN/RM wish to remain committed to Amphibious Warfare; any other alternative(s) means the UK isn’t serious about having an Expeditionary capability in particular or defence in general (which might, of course, be stating-the-obvious).

  11. The Govt can “up to” until the cows come home, but history has shown that anything that is cut is never replaced. With the exception of the Carriers which we cannot afford to planes on. So the likelihood of “up to 6” is little to none.

  12. Not even worth reading all of the Lords words. They’re cobblers.
    We will be lucky to get 4, and 3 is the most likely.
    Cancellations down the line won’t be linked to the cuts now.

    • 3 is almost guaranteed, big question is how big will they be, BAE has a near 40,000t design which means the amphibious fleet may grow in tonnage and capacity while being reduced in number.

      • 3 are guaranteed … until they aren’t.

        The only reason why some might be built is because it means jobs in the U.K. After that, they could be scraped at a moments notice. As case in point, the Albion-class are being retired after only 20 years partial service and even after Bulwark underwent a 72M pound refit for absolutely no operational purpose.

        Such is the reality of UK defence policy.

      • Have you watched the Naval News video on the BAE offering?
        They seem to be properly going through how to make the whole amphibious business more efficient, with a sort of well dock flyco and full elevator access between vehicle and hangar decks.
        It seems wildly ambitious but the other offerings seem to be a warmed up bay and the now defunct Steller offering, which although fabulous, isn’t what the Navy need.

    • I agree, 6 was always ambitious, with the cut of the 2 Albions it’s going to be hard to justify more than 4. I would say it will be three.

      Personally I think they need

      2 commissioned ( RN) full fat amphibious vessels that are capable of taking belligerent actions, with a full command and control set up as well a decent weapons set for playing in the littoral, including a set of medium guns and CAMM and offensive drones.

      2 logistics landing docks as auxiliaries, with a defensive weapon set ( 40mm guns and CIWS) including Role three medical suite

      Then I think they need a good set of 3-4 logistics ships to take over sea lift ( point replacements) again I would make these formally auxiliaries.

      That would do it.

      • Would the Canberra LHD type be more to your “full fat” thinking? Or a Trieste/Favourite/Wasp type, something that could potentially handle F35Bs if needed? And the auxiliaries more an Elliade/Enforcer type?
        Do you reckon they’d go for 6 of the same type or a 3-3, 2-4/2-2 mix? With Navantia buying out H&W there’s some potential UK build options.

        • They want a common class so they can be aggregated to increase capability, though not much capability to be gained with only 3 or so ships.
          They won’t be flat tops though, can forget that.

          • Maybe a one type for all six may not be appropriate. 1-2 out 6 with a greater helicopter capacity like an Ocean/Mistral may be very useful. Anyway we’re still waiting on the first 3 to show themselves and who/where gets the build.

        • The plans, made before Ukraine, are being rethought. I have no doubt that until they’ve gone up the chain and down a few dozen times and some new agreement arrived at, ministers will still brief that the plans are “up to six ships”. The Navy will be wanting to go for something more fighty than the Bays, but there will be no budget to speak of. So it’s anyone’s guess where the balance will lie when the ships are ordered, because as always MOD will wait until at least two years after the last possible minute to do so.

          • Personally I don’t think 6 ships of the same class will really work properly, the RN cannot afforded to build and crew 6 proper Amphibious assault ships and the logistics landing dock type role is different as is the role 3 medical…in the end they are trying to push three competing needs into one hull. Your never going to get the following three things all together

            1) the command control, weapons fit and capabilities of an amphibious assault vessel.
            2) the role three medical requirements
            3) really efficient logistic movement of loads of stuff.

            Three needs..are probably more efficiently served by 3 different ships.

  13. Very concerning that every statement Labour have made on defence can be summarised as “we’ll do up to the bare minimum”

  19. Frankly I’d rather see a clear requirement, plan, budget and manpower pipeline for 4 than hear the same old waffle about ‘up to 6’ which I think we all know is very unlikely to happen.

  20. I need up to 6 Jaffa cakes to have with my cup of tea to enjoy it, but there are only 2 in the packet.
    As vague as it was before.

  21. “Up to” hmmm. A classic and unmistakable way of saying we’re gonna promise the world and end up giving you far less. I’ll be surprised if the final number is three but don’t be completely dumbstruck if it’s, in the end just two.

  22. The statement is meaningless, they may as well have said “up to 12”. No one (zilch) now seriously believes that more than the first 3 will ever be built – these are (apparently) at least in the MOD’s Equipment Plan, even if currently unfunded. Any more is just residual wishful thinking by a few RN/RM officers who’ve imbued a tad too much Xmas “spirit” at lunch.

    The MRSS project is in the Concept Phase, which means a tiny Integrated Project Team (c.6 people?) with a tiny budget (£1 million a year?). But this allows the government and the MoD to keep saying that the project is active and progressing for as long as they want. We have seen in the past this go on for a decade or more (e.g. FSC and MARS) before somebody finally decides to put the project out of its misery, or (very rarely), it actually gets serious and a proper budget is approved to progress the project to Demonstration and Manufacturing.

  25. Let me see? Type 45s? Proposed 12, got 6. Type 26? Proposed 13, got 8 (and 5 cheaper, less capable Type 31s).
    We would be naive if we expected more than a 1 for 1 replacement at best. My bet is 3-4 ships, but certainly not 6.

    • That is the fundamental question that people keep forgetting, RFA vessels are not commissioned warships and that is profoundly important as an auxiliary is not under the laws of war allowed to undertake any belligerent action…so our present amphibious forces are unable to undertake offensive amphibious operations. Auxiliaries are allowed to move stuff from point A to Point B and defend themselves if attacked..that is why the Bay class were build as logistic ships not amphibious assault ships.

      • And as Auxiliary crewed ships , entering a war zone crews are able too claim ‘ Danger money ‘ whereas RN personnel just get on with it .

  28. I’m betting on 3, hopefully 4, but I think 6 is now unlikely with the RN getting rid of the Albions 8 years before any replacement.

    For me it’s actually a question of will the RN actually take 2 of the MRSS as commissioned warships and keep some form of offensive belligerent amphibious capabilities or will all of them go over to the RFA for a form of defensive, logistic type amphibious capability as we now only have.

    Fingers crossed we get 2 MRSS that are commissioned and have a full set of command and control capabilities for offensive amphibious operations, as well as offensive drones, decent weapons fit ( medium guns and CAMM) backed up by 2 MRSS decked out as logistic auxiliaries with role 3 medical capabilities.

    I do think there is a small chance we get 6 MRSS but that would likely mean no replacement for the Point class sea lift ships.

  31. “Confirming up to six” in reality means confirming absolutely nothing. Why do people keep falling for this doublespeak?

  33. It would be great and probably less costly if someone from the MOD simply said “Yes we’re building 6, we’re building them by this date so everyone (hello treasury Gimps) get out of the way”.

  34. Kind of confused by these. If the current thinking behind the disposal of the Albions is that contested beachhead landings by the RM are a thing of the past, not to mention that the ships themselves are manpower heavy, then why are they planning ‘up to 6 ‘ as replacements? Why not keep at least one operational? They can’t be in that bad condition that Brazil are looking to purchase already.
    And what’s to say that the same situation won’t happen in 10 years when the MOD will decide that MRSS is too costly to operate and they’ll sell them off again, to ” enhance future lethality…..”?

  35. But we already had two perfectly good assault ships, built to warship standards and underused because of the rotation in and out of mothballs.
    How is it cheaper to build new ships then to keep assets we have in use?
    Why is it sensible to replace proper fighting ships with auxiliaries?
    How are we going to build these ships when all of our yards are full?

    • Good points and good questions above. The timing and capabilities gap is not great. A real missed opportunity in not buying the two Mistrals years ago. We can only imagine what a capability that would have given the RN/RM instantly! H&W shipyards may now become available if there’s room alongside the FSS builds. I think the word for it is it’s all bit of a “schmozzle”!? 😆

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here