Assault ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark have been scrapped, alongside HMS Northumberland, as well as several other capabilities.
Defence Secretary John Healey confirmed in Parliament today that HMS Albion, HMS Bulwark, and the Type 23 frigate HMS Northumberland will be decommissioned as part of a broader push to modernise the UK Armed Forces. The decision comes as part of a series of measures to retire what the Government called outdated military equipment, saving £150 million over the next two years and up to £500 million over five years.
Healey explained the rationale for the move, stating: “For too long, our soldiers, sailors, and aviators have been stuck with old, outdated equipment because ministers would not make the difficult decommissioning decisions. As technology advances at pace, we must move faster towards the future.”
The Albion-class amphibious assault ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, had already been in extended readiness under previous governments, incurring significant maintenance costs without being actively deployed. Healey clarified: “Both ships were effectively retired by previous ministers but superficially kept on the books at a cost of £9 million a year.”
HMS Northumberland, meanwhile, has been deemed uneconomical to repair due to structural damage.
The Defence Secretary assured MPs that these decommissioning decisions were made in close consultation with service chiefs and align with the ongoing Strategic Defence Review (SDR).
Healey emphasised: “These are common-sense decisions which previous governments failed to take, decisions that will secure better value for money for the taxpayer and better outcomes for the military.”
While acknowledging the significant operational roles played by these vessels in the past, Healey stated: “Their work is done. We must look now to the future.” He also confirmed that no redundancies will result from the decommissioning, with personnel being retrained or redeployed.
The decision to decommission these ships is part of a broader reform programme aimed at addressing what Healey described as a “dire inheritance” of defence finances and capabilities. He noted: “The first duty of government is to keep this country safe. That is why we are injecting investment and introducing tight financial controls to fix the foundations for UK defence.”
Healey also announced reforms to streamline defence operations, including the creation of a new Military Strategic Headquarters and tighter prioritisation of spending.
The retirement of both Albion-class ships raises questions about the future of the UK’s amphibious warfare capabilities. However, Healey reassured Parliament that the Royal Marines would remain a critical component of the UK’s defence strategy. He quoted the First Sea Lord, saying: “The threat is changing, so we must have the self-confidence to make the changes required.”
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
What are they planning to replace these platforms with? Nothing. Same old spineless defence secretaries.
In theory they will be replaced by 3-6 MRSS but once again a capability has been cut long before the replacement arrived.
These ships are only about 20 years old and still had life left.
I would rather we had stuck with the original plan of only having one carrier active and rotating them, allowing enough personnel to keep an LPD crewed and active. I am sick of seeing two carriers at sea with no aircraft on either.
The one on one off system that the LPDs were in and like you suggest for the carriers was terrible. It resulted in numerous gaps in availability. Sorry your ego can’t take ships doing training than just having planes sit on deck
It has nothing to do with my ego except for the fact we now have a very unbalanced navy that has weak amphibious capability and has put all of its eggs in carrier strike despite the RN still waiting for key components of carrier strike to come to fruition (FSS, F35 weapons integration, escort numbers).
We should have both capabilities. Thus govemrnt and oast have let us all down.
Give the train drivers a load of money for nothing and miners oendion fund 3 times the savings in thus announcement.
Neither if which give a monkeys uncle about defending thus country ofours that has given so much to allow them to be selfish (unions) and goverment plus treasury who dint care. Shame on you all.
Thus will all come and bite us.
Hiw can they make these decisions before output of defence review. Oh that review is just a paper cover up.
Mate, will MRRS also have a limited tanker oiler capability?
Pretty unlikely but with the sale of the two Wave class tankers it would be a very useful addition plus the loss of RFA Argus’s small oiler capability when she is retired then I HOPE they think serially about adding it
cheers, thank you
We don’t know yet, we have to wait for the SDSR to see future plans, but yeah probably nothing.
Absolutely – it didn’t take long for the axe to fall. We were lead to believe that no decisions on defence were to be made ahead of the SDR. I’m all for modernising the Armed Forces but this is a cut – plain and simple. No mention of what will replace them or what the strategy moving forward will be? Are we to keep an amphibious warfare capability? What will be next to go? There is already talk that the Treasury is looking at scraping the carriers. Absolute bonkers! The Tories were terrible on defence (Sunak was well known to… Read more »
I’m not aware of a ship ever leaving extended readiness, I suspect that what SoS says about the vessels being effectively retired previously is all too accurate.
Ships are put on ER then cannibalised, often without any effective record of condition being kept. Not much point in a ghost fleet. Better to be realistic about what we really have, then when the public realise the full horror of the situation maybe there will be some pressure to change things – pretending we have Albion and Bulwark doesn’t help.
In the short term the Bay class LSD ships will take over the
They only plan to buy 3 MRSS so those are now basically the three reaming Bay class.
This stupid decision reminds me when they scrapped the last conventional carrier in the 1970s. 40 years later the UK has 2 larger carriers!! How will the navy project amphibious force without these rather new ( 20 years old) vessels? Better to mothball them, like the Americans did with their WWII battleships, so they remained operational 50 years later.
A sad day, with a mid-life update Albion and Bulwark could easily last to 2040 – and undoubtedly will do so under a foreign flag – India?
I fear that the RN has reluctantly had to sacrifice its amphibious capability in order save its carrier strike capability. Not enough money and personnel for both any more.
They’re too crew intensive for what they are. We’re never going to get a MLU in the end
Agreed 👍
To be honest a good move, might up set a few people be we can not crew these ships any way and were just keeping them for the sake of it. Will they be replaced? umm doubtful.
I am no fan of Labour but its about time this matter was resolved, keeping them but never using them is pointless. The are big not well defended targets and the frigate was in poor shape and not able to be modernised.
I disagree Martin- one should remain operational the other in extended readiness (laid up). I’m pretty sure they’ll do this with the carriers in SDR 25.
It worked well in the past, without Fearless and Intrepid the Falklands would probably have remained in Argentine hands.
To be fair the debate is pretty simple, we simply don’t ever allocate enough money to defence, and in particular the Royal Navy. We are an island nation almost totally dependent on our sea lanes, so a weak underfunded navy is a dereliction of duty by successive governments!
Sky News is reporting that Wave Light, Wave Ruler, 17 Pumas, 14 Chinooks and all 47 Watchkeeper are also being chopped!
Correct.
So a defence cut dressed up as modernisation.
Just so. It’s always “jam tomorrow”.
In 2005, Britain had a young HMS Ocean, the two Albion class LPDs that were just a few years old, four new Bay-class vessels for the RFA. That was a very formidable and well put together amphibious capability, perfect for supporting Norway and other allies. Now once again it is ‘jam tomorrow’ and our amphibious capability has been gutted to next to nothing whilst the French has three modern Mistral class. The UK should have leapt upon the chance to acquire the two Russian bound Mistrals. We would have had far more modern and capable replacements for the Albions at… Read more »
On the flip side we now own 2 aircraft carriers compared to zero in 2005 (well was decommissioned in 2005), so not all bad news.
Wrong, in 2005 we had both Albions, Ocean, Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal. We could field a bigger maritime fixed air wing then with planes that had a much higher availability rate than the F35 and could also sustain higher levels of battle damage. hit one of the many doors on the F35 and you can’t land the plane. It sends a bad message to the incoming US administration and shows that Trump is correct in his assertion that Europe doesn’t take defence seriously.
Meanwhile Australia continues to invest in amphibious capability with the contract signing for 18 Landing Craft Medium and 8 Landing Craft Heavy for the Australian army with both types to be built by Austal in Western Australia. The 18 LCMs based on an indigenous design by Australian company Birdon will have a payload of 80 tonnes (2 Redback IFVs or 1 Abrams MBT) with a range of 2,000 nautical miles operating up to Sea State 4. They will be able to use the well dock of the RAN’s Canberra Class LPDs as a ship to shore connector in addition to… Read more »
I am very impressed with Aussie defence projects. What you listed is all good news.
Meanwhile £26bn is spaffed at the NHS with no controls as to how it is to be used, and £6.9bn a year is spent on housing illegal immigrants.
We are housing zero illegal immigrants as once they have been assessed as illegal they are deported. We are housing asylum seekers, with the bast majority eventually granted it, it’s just the last government didn’t staff the departments to process the claims faster because it was in their interest to make it a bigger story.
Once that backlog gets dealt with them costs will come down.
Well said, the old narrative spouted on and on and on about housing illegal immigrants who are really asylum seekers needs to be flattened for the deliberate inflammatory situation that it generated and supports.
If they come in illegally , they are illegal immigrants- I fail to see how they shouldn’t (or indeed cannot) be viewed as sure.
Whether or not the legal migration route should be better is another point entirely however I fear we will have to agree to disagree on this particular intereptation.
What I don’t think you see, is that the UK Home office has had a policy for decades where they don’t send back people to countries deemed too dangerous. Atm it includes Afghanistan, Iran, and some others.
A genuine asylum seeker would collapse with relief as soon as they reached a place of safety. Not then proceed to travel half way round the world to gamble their life being smuggled into the country. They are grifters trying to bypass the legal migration system, nothing more nothing less.
Precisely √
Entry to the country by rubber boat or the back of a truck is illegal Hungary and Poland have the right idea
Hmm, So why are they not claiming asylum in the first safe country, if you and you’re family we under genuine threat why risk cross several safe countries illegally where you potentially risk deportation back home, no person truly fleeing for their life would. And of course why is Labour ‘smashing the gangs’ if these are all asylum seekers, essentially government is looking to remove the organizations that brings what you call genuine asylum seekers to the UK, that’s odd and has no logical grounding. The government is quite clear these are largely people paying gangs to enter the UK… Read more »
No they are not deported. Hardly any ever are. If they are granted leave to remain costs do not come down. They are merely transferred to local government. As these people are officially homeless and have no local support network they ‘jump the queue’ for local housing and go straight to Category A for social housing allocation. This takes no account of the lifetime cost of these people considering many are illiterate and at most will have low income jobs. The cost alone in benefits is astronomical over a lifetime. This also takes no account of crime. Denmark did a… Read more »
No they are not deported. Hardly any ever are. Most of those who are not granted leave to remain are deported. If they are granted leave to remain costs do not come down. They are merely transferred to local government. As these people are officially homeless and have no local support network they ‘jump the queue’ for local housing and go straight to Category A for social housing allocation. This takes no account of the lifetime cost of these people considering many are illiterate and at most will have low income jobs. The cost alone in benefits is astronomical over… Read more »
Yes of course they are and look at all those pigs flying your deluded if you think they don’t cost us millions
This is ridiculous short sighted nonsense. However, this should safeguard the carriers. It’s sad to think the RN can either have carriers or amphib capabilities, bot not both.
And to be fair the train drivers can earn around £70k per annum for a three day week.
So not all is lost!!!!
Given the pretty announcements before it – this scrapping, GCAP being safe, RCH155 is on, Boxer/Ajax are on, long term weapons procurement looks unchanging – what is the SDSR even for?
Entry the country by rubber boat or the back of a truck is illegal Hungary and Poland have the right idea
If you want to increase defence spending to 2.5% or whatever the govt will have to squeeze the NHS etc. This will be unpopular so you need documented analysis, requirements and a plan for how you propose to spend the money.
Well Argentina will be pleased ! I bet they ask how much we want for them
Just an observation I don’t want to get into a Trump Musk debate. Argentina’s President was partying with Musk and Trump last week whilst our PM is feuding with at least one of those in public and hasn’t been exactly polite about the other in the past US may well start supporting Argentina’s claim 🙂
I would not be surprised, for the moment Trump admires Britain of Churchill and the Queen. If he realises that UK is nothing anymore like that he might well change.
Now is not he Time to scrap the Assault ships sound a lot like John Knott in 1982 scrap all ships that the Navy has and then 1982 Falklands we need all the ships we can muster even had to STUFT to get war ships refueled to reach the Falklands Putin must be laughing at us. We couldn’t even take back the Isle of Wight
Interesting approach, essentially pause defence procurement to wait for the SDR so they can figure out what they need despite clear capability gaps, yet decide to make cuts before they know what they need especially with replacements such as MRSS potentially a decade away, how does that work ? It shows there is no real seriousness about defence at all and it’s the usual rhetoric, push decisions to spend down the road and keep cutting. If a potential war in Europe isn’t enough for them to get serious, especially with allies seemingly getting more serious what will it take for… Read more »
Well, I guess this shows that the SDR will just be another huge set of cuts……..
We kind of knew that was going to happen with Northumberland, which also suggests Richmond will go next year. Westminster, Northumberland and Richmond were build in successive years at Wallsend, and if the first two were irreperable, chances are Richmond will be too. Almost every administration for the last decade or more has tried to can Albion and Bulwark. A superficial analysis suggests it’s a no brainer. However, after more efforts are made, DefSecs seem to come around to saving them. Is this because of their role as command ships, which could be a particularly useful for the JEF, or… Read more »
Have we ever known a Def Sec to actually give more to the Armed Forces, all they do is cut and expect the Military to do more. At what point does it fall over? Unfortunately Defence, never wins the voters but Health, Environment, Education etc all do. It doesn’t help when the defence procurement model is not fit for purpose and hasn’t been for some years.
We knew cuts were coming the government has made a number of commitments that need to be funded from the existing bucket of money, so whilst increasing salaries and improving accommodation is welcome its costs along with other things like having to fund leasing back of the Chagos islands mean without increasing the Budget was going to lead to cuts. It does seem the SDR is a bit of a facade with so many decisions being taken before the review is completed.
I’m sorry that’s really not a great decision on the Albions, I can understand getting rid of one of them..one bulwark is just coming out of refit cycle and would happily have keep going until the MRSS were ready. Let’s be honest, I suspect the RN decided it wanted to keep the carriers at higher readiness…personally I think it would have been better to have one carrier at extended readiness and bulwark…but that’s just me. Shedding Pumas before the Medium rotor is in place is a mistake We knew the frigate was beyond repair Watchkeeper…well ok But I’m really surprised… Read more »
Yeah Albion and Bulwark will not be retired until 2033 meaning they will still have use for the next 9 years assuming Putin doesn’t start WW3, by then the RN will hopefully have fixed its manpower issues and got replacements plus they will be due for replacement as Bulwark will be 33 years old and Albion will be 35 years old
Albion and Bulwark are being retired this year…
I hate to say this, but if the assault ships are to be scrapped, will the Royal Marines be next ? And if we keep the RM, will they have enough transport to get them to the bad guys ?
No they are not deported. Hardly any ever are. If they are granted leave to remain costs do not come down. They are merely transferred to local government. As these people are officially homeless and have no local support network they ‘jump the queue’ for local housing and go straight to Category A for social housing allocation. This takes no account of the lifetime cost of these people considering many are illiterate and at most will have low income jobs. The cost alone in benefits is astronomical over a lifetime. This also takes no account of crime. Denmark did a… Read more »
Perhaps the decision has taken into account (a) little or no money being available to keep them in service and (b) few if any people being available to maintain and crew the LPDs (and RFA ships)?
Why do some people attempt to distract others with their views on “illegal immigration” rather than focusing on the issues directly arising out of this article?
The financial pressures that have lead to these cuts are in large part due to illegal immigration. That’s why.
At last – you are so so right – what the F has this got to do with immigration ?
Keep on topics folks.
I would not be surprised, for the moment Trump admires Britain of Churchill and the Queen. If he realises that UK is nothing anymore like that he might well change.
Do our RM swim ashore 🤔 And why is it the UK get rid before any replacement 🙄
Questions for anyone knowledgeable:
How would the UK reinforce Norway or the Baltics with Royal Marines or other land forces, without Albion and Bulwark? Is air-lift deemed easier?
How would the UK get land forces to shore on the Falklands (or any other overseas territory) without Albion or Bulwark? Are there other current seagoing platforms?
Would Albion and Bulwark now be too vulnerable in close landing situations?
Will the UK retain any Chinooks for heavy lift in a scenario such as those above?
What Investment Mr Healey????? What lying rubbish. We have cuts yet the “review” hasn’t even reported. We are happy to throw taxpayers money at the Railwaymen, the Junior Doctors hijacked by the left and of course overseas aid without any reform
We continue with the the poor defence planning and lack of orders etc within defence for the last 10+ years.
Hopefully ( and sad to say ) a new US administration will force us into spending a proper amount on real defence and a contribution to NATO.
We are currently a disgrace
So when are the Royal Marines being dispanded?
They won’t be.
But they’ll make do with Bays which apparently “replace” LPDs!
More spin. A Bay carries 2 LCVP and 1 LCU.
A LPD has 4 of each, plus a BARV, plus has c3 facilities and bigger storage.
But as the RM have been reduced to a light raiding force in RIBs it’s all ok. 🙄
Idiots
Only fools (government and voters) looks at the cost-savings in losing a capability, while ignoring regeneration or lives lost not having said capabilities.
How indicative of the UKs position globally ….irrelevant and weak comes to mind.
Allies will know they cannot count on the UK even more so now.
People on here and in the higher echelons really don’t get retention. The biggest driver of leaving is scrapping ships and squadrons – no one wants to hang around in an organisation that is in decline! The effect of cutting a ship is the ships company just leave!
During the Falklands War, the RN had 52 frigates and 13 destroyers; after today’s announcement, the RN now has 8 frigates and 6 destroyers…..
Ok, the situation is set to improve somewhat with the Types 26 and 31 but that will put us at a best case of 13 frigates and still 6 destroyers and even the new frigates won’t all be in commission for quiet some time.
Yes, I get it that the new ships are much more technically advanced which is definitely true but the numbers simply don’t lie……
Same old Labour, as bad as the Tories. As for Healey and “hollowing out” well….. Tomorrow I’m going to cut and paste his entire speech here with my debunking comments to most of his spin. The only acceptable cut here is HMS Northumberland. The 14 older Chinooks go to “speed up” the 14 new builds? Last time Labour tried that con trick they cut T45 7 and 8 In order to “speed up” T26, and look where that got us. At best there will be a numbers gap. There s money, HMG spend it on their priorities, which are elsewhere.… Read more »
I really don’t understand what the SDR is for. Announcements are being made weekly or even daily. There won’t be anything to say come the SDR except you’re stuffed, but sorry, now it’s too late to do anything about it.
Now the RFA is the only option for Littoral ops maybe they can sort out their pay rise (especially as Wave kight and Wave Ruler are also being chopped).
With Russian agression in Europe, with China surrounding Taiwán and building a formidable navy It,s a BETRAYAL scrapping the armed forces as this and previous government are doing.
What,s Next ? To sell the Falklands to Argentina and Gibraltar to Spain ?
TRAITORS !!
Maybe this is a stupid idea. How about converting the two Albions into “arsenal ships”? Plenty of room there for several MK41s. Add some decent systems and radars and you’ve potentially got two mobile long range naval platforms which could even have some ABM capabilities? Complement the T45s.
Like an Aegis afloat set up. I believe the US is looking at using disused oilfield drilling platforms for ABM/SAM platforms.
Sad day for UKPLC. We wont be able to land troops and armour on a contested shoreline. That is a big mistake.
No ability to rapidly reinforce an island chain, offshore location or an exposed flank of NATO’s. What is this specialist role being replaced with exactly?- answers on a cigarette packet as it is entirely unclear and therefore non-existent.
Spend £9m a year on Bulwark keeping a skilled workforce in gainful employment and maintain our puny military capability? No, that needs desperately needs to go to Ukraine to make up 0.00007% of the aid we are sending them. Ahhh, money well spent, now, who wants to do the interviews for middle management at the NHS