The Ministry of Defence has responded to concerns regarding potential reductions in amphibious capability following the shift from Albion-class Landing Platform Docks to Bay-class ships.
David Reed, Conservative MP for Exmouth and Exeter East, raised the question, asking for clarification on the implications for capability.
Responding to the query, Luke Pollard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, confirmed that no reduction in capability has occurred:
“The previous administration had no plans for either HMS Albion or HMS Bulwark to return to sea ahead of their leaving service in the 2030s, therefore there has been no reduction in capability.”
The Albion-class ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, are set to be phased out in the 2030s. However, Pollard highlighted that alternative platforms remain operational and effective.
Pollard discussed the capabilities of the Bay-class Landing Ship Docks, stating: “The Bay Class are highly capable ships and, alongside RFA Argus, will continue to support Royal Marine operations until the introduction of Multi-Role Support Ships in the early 2030s.”
The Bay-class ships, designed for amphibious warfare, provide logistical and operational support, and their inclusion ensures continuity in amphibious capability during the transition period.
Looking forward, the Ministry of Defence reiterated its commitment to enhancing amphibious capabilities through the introduction of the Multi-Role Support Ships (MRSS) in the early 2030s. The MRSS programme is expected to modernise the UK’s amphibious fleet and further bolster the capabilities of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines.
So no one’s told the minister that one of the Bay class has already been laid up then
nonese do these clowns think we’re stupid? if a taxi firm loses two of its cars, it’s ability to provide a service IS AFFECTED. the MOD is not fit for purpose and should be replaced by a new organisation.
It is just incoherent ramblings TBH.
My main concern is that even if the money taps are turned on now things are so atrophied in terms of manpower and skills that nothing detectable will change for at least 5 years.
However, we could fix the recruitment and retention in all three services which would improve matters more than somewhat.
No, it is lying.
Blatant at that.
No reduction compared to one being laid that was due a refit and one still being in refit.
Even before the retirement of Albion and Bulwark Australia arguably had more amphibious capacity than the UK with the RANs two Canberra Class LHDs and one Bay class LPD.
The ADFs capacity to land troops and vehicles over the beach is set to increase significantly. The first of 8 Landing Craft Heavy based on Damen’s 3,900 tonne LST 100 for the Australian Army is commencing construction in Western Australia in 2026. Each of the 8 is equivalent in to the old HMAS Tobruk (RNs Roundtable class) Together they provide an additional 31,000 tonnes of amphibious capability.
This is in addition to the 18 Landing Craft Medium for the army also already contracted to be built in Western Australia. At 500 tonnes displacement they will deliver 90 tonnes of vehicles across the beach.
The RAN currently operates 12 LLCs (4 per LHD well dock) for ship to shore transfer (1 Abrams or 2 Boxers). All up the ADFs investment will deliver an amphibious fleet of over 111,000 tonnes displacement.
In effect the ADF (Army and RAN combined) will have an amphibious capability able to land a force the size of the entire Royal Marines (approx 5,000 troops) and their equipment over the beach or by helo in a single operation.
just when are we looking like a need for the royal marines 6 storm any beaches been needed? the need is for a HLP. modern warfare demands the need for insertion of forces by chopper, not by brave soldiers running through sand to attack pillboxes the MOD seems to be so out of touch and looks like it still thinks war at sea is carried out by two opponents sailing in a line past each other dreadful organisation close it.
Agree, it’s strange that no one ever seems to notice the two massive helicopter carriers the RN has designed to land hundreds of soldiers by Chinook and Merlin backed by F35B and Apache.
Unfortunately Albion and Bulwark were out of date because they had zero aviation capability.
It’s been stated the carriers will generally not be supporting the Royal Marines, and they rarely if ever practice with them.
Plus you seem to have missed the fact the entire FCF strategy is based around water borne raiding. Something the Albions would be fantastic for.
We’re not getting enough or any good choppers for the marines anytime soon
Apache can only operate from ships in very calm seas. The undercarriage is to fragile for deck landings.
Andy, you seem very sure about how ‘the Royals’ will be used in future conflicts! There is a need to expect the unexpected.
Offcourse we have two 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers designed to operate as an LPH as well. Kind of evens things up a bit.
Upgrades that, if I recall correctly, were never made.
There has been a consistent quiet RN design investment in helicopter assault. Both T26 and T31 flight decks are Chinook sized. R2 can lily pad a Merlin. Both R2 and T31 can accommodate significant numbers of RM compared to T23. Argus has been modified into a 2/3 spot LPH.
Even Spain with 2 lpd,s , 1 LPH and other planned will have more amphibious capability than Britain.
No reduction in capability Sorry but that’s Bullshit and HMG know it 🙄
Need new PAC V for to days army 🪖🪖🪖.
Does nobody ever challenge what these inept clowns say? We live in a nation of sheep who just accept every line of bull shit they are fed.
Utter lying rubbish. They have already stated clearly that the MRSS will not replace Albion and Bulwark. Only the Bays and Argus.
Oh I see! So lay up a vessel first before selling/scrapping and it’s not a reduction in capability.
How do ministers trot out this drivel with a straight face!
I wonder why the headline says that the MOD is asserting that. Had it come as an official announcement from the Ministry it would have had a certain amount of evidence backing it up, and would have been far bigger news. It came from a junior minister responding to a written question in the House of Commons addressed to his political boss, the Secretary of State for Defence. It should have read:
“No reduction in amphibious capability insists Defence Minister”
Maybe these idiots need to get out of their offices and look at the refit cycles for the Bay class and Argus ? Or look at the lack of RFA seafarers and the hard decisions having to be taken to keep only half the Flotilla at sea!!!!!!!
When they sell one of the two aircraft carriers in the future strategic defence cuts (review) they will say that they have improved the fleet air arm capacity, they laugh at people and think that we are idiots.
I don’t think they will sell one of the two carriers. A Possibility could be a downgrading of the readiness of the second carrier..
All coming to an end really….Would a big squadron sized RN be a better ,more affordable bet?Just T31/T26/Darings/Rivers/last of the 23s/Mine Warfare vessels..Sell off everything else including the F35b(Swap for F35 A?).Operate in North/South Atlantic,West of Suez…No CSG…RFA just fades away…Still enough hulls to keep tabs on Overseas Territories etc…Leave Indo Pacfic to the United States/Local Navies
I think we are at the low point. I think the SDR will confirm 13 new frigates + 6x T45 ( morphing to T83), 2 QE LPHs with a a dozen maybe 24 F-35s, 3 littoral/amphibious (Bays, Argus > morphing to MRSS hybrid LPD/LSD design ), 5 R2 OPVs, + motley collection of R1 and MCMV to be rationalised, + oilers and FSS, + the subs. If T32 happens it will probably be 3x MCMV motherships.
I think we are reaching the low point as the only talk is increasing spending and the question is how much, there are no more smoke and mirrors left to play, this article displays the desperation that they are at the end of the spin envelope to becoming lies that aren’t even feasible. I actually take the point from the minister that in reality they haven’t cut the amphibious ability this year, it was 2023 in reality.
I’m really sceptical about the MRSS replacing anything as I doubt it’s going to be a proper warship and therefore only replace the bay class but no one’s pointed out to mount a contested landing, 3 ships are pretty easy to destroy especially as they’re not going to be built to warship standards. In the end it’s that age old decision of what our politicians want our armed forces to do, if they want to grandstand on the international stage then resource the armed forces to do it ( the good thing is Trump will say so). Far too many European nations discussing Ukraine / middle east issues without putting their money where their mouth is.
Agree MRSS is something of a litmus test for the SDR. We have pulled out of the joint project with the Netherlands who want to replace their large LPDs and Holland class OPVs with a single hybrid design; I’m guessing something like a Damen cross over design; in sifficient numbers to delivering humanitarian assistance to their global ex colonies. I suspect the RN want a ‘proper’ large LPD cum LSD i.e. a design that can do assault and deliver follow up materials and vehicles. Hence some of the concept designs you can see on NLO…very big ships. Thing is the SDR has to identify a strategic reason for building such expensive ships; to retake the Falklands, to add to US / AUS in the Pacific, for Norway, just in case? ….all above my pay grade.
It could go lower for a time unless T26 and T31 build schedules can be improved. I doubt that the defence review will deliver anything radical. There isn’t much left to be cut and too little money to add much.
International commitments like Aukus andGCAP will take priority.
I’m so sorry I have to agree with you. The Hunt class will go before we even understand how to deploy the autonomous systems with their associated motherships and at least three more T23s before HMS Glasgow or Venturer reaches operational capability. There’s a possibility, perhaps a probability, that RFA Cardigan Bay will never return to service. We haven’t hit the bottom yet, and unless the Prime Minister takes a road trip to Damascus, there will be several more tough years to come. If the Chief of the General Staff is right and we go to war in 2027, it could well be at the lowest point of the Royal Navy since the sixteenth century.
The UKDJ is an outstanding military news outlet for the U.K. with great coverage of all the latest developments but a couple of things that I would like to see:
1. I appreciate you need to get hits but click bait articles like this one which are a rehash of an earlier article based on the same MOD statement need to stop.
2. An editorial challenge of the lies contained in this article and similar ones by HMG. UKDJ did a great job in debunking statements from the SNP on shipbuilding and the same now needs to be ruthlessly applied to he U.K. government.
Keep up the good work.
I suspect the assertion relates to the fact that there are no agreed NATO standing tasks or scenarios that would require the ships in question. The issue is whether there are other contingencies for which they might nonetheless be required (The Falklands War being an obvious example of a situation where providing for NATO taskings did not result in the Navy being properly equipped for amphibious assault in the South Atlantic). The key question is ‘in what circumstance do the Albion’s provide a means to achieve a desired effect that can’t otherwise be achieved? In my judgement, attempting a contested landing against a near-peer adversary in the 21st century would be pretty suicidal.
Absolutely ridiculous.