HMS Albion has arrived in Izmir as Britain’s Littoral Response Group North continues to operate in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The Royal Navy say that more than a thousand sailors and Royal Marines are deployed with this response force, which is led by amphibious flagship HMS Albion and includes RFA Argus, RFA Mounts Bay, HMS Defender and three helicopter squadrons.

The group also had a workout earlier this week.

British forces conduct ‘formidable’ amphibious assault

What’s happening?

Op ACHILLEAN is a large-scale operation which sees amphibious assault ship HMS Albion lead HMS Defender, RFA Argus and RFA Mounts Bay to the Mediterranean.

British Littoral Response Group deploys to Mediterranean

RFA Argus is fitted with an extensive and fully functional hospital to assume the additional role of Primary Casualty Receiving Ship. Due to remain in service beyond 2030, in July 2022, it was reported that Argus would assume the future UK Littoral Strike Role after a refit to convert her to this role.

HMS Albion tweeted which ships will make up Littoral Response Group (North).

Under plans announced in the recent defence review, there will eventually be two Littoral Response Groups regularly deployed in regions of strategic importance to the UK, one with a focus on European waters and the other looking to the east and south of the Suez Canal. They are designed to put the UK’s commando forces in forward positions, where they will be able to react quickly to any crises but also continually work with allies.

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

67 COMMENTS

  1. A very impressive show of capability, now the MOD has to begin one hell of a battle to protect future projects in the face of the new Chancellor’s warning on department saving. It would be a mistake to think the Ukraine war will ringfence defence because it won’t. My main fear will be the Army’s programmes and how the MOD can if necessary, recoup the Ajax investment if canceled. We face a new phase of Primeministership as No11 could become the hub of the wheel in the coming months as it demonstrates a new and aggressive stance to convince the IMF the UK expenditure is under control. As for Liz Truss, the powershift to next door will test her mettle and in so doing her capability to be an effective Prime Minister.

    • Well a start would be to stop promising unfunded tax cuts to the wealthiest section of the country. Trickle down economics never have worked and the markets know it.
      The jump in borrowing was also a big factor. The U.K. has over spent for a long time and truss over estimated what is seen as acceptable borrowing.
      What would be sensible is saying we will have no unfunded tax cuts, will try to keep public spending the same or lower than current levels and we will generate extra income by a one of energy tax. The money from this will be set aside to make the country more energy efficient (insulation, better efficiency etc etc) and invest in greener U.K. made technology over the next 2-5 years. As a reward to the energy sector for this we will allow new offshore gas/oil projects and help speed up green energy projects.

        • Yes that was a big issue. No10 made a issue about it. They could of done a sliding scale starting small and raising it but that wouldn’t have the same press release appeal. Main thing is to get a reduction in fossil fuel usage. Better spending the money on free insulation, green projects that work etc

        • David, I agree with your comment. However I also have an issue that no one can explain to me no even MPs. The problem is this the cost of gas has gone up, we can all agree. Yet the price to the consumer has gone up 60% more then need be. The reason that I use this is simple, the UK producies electricity, 40% of the production is from gas. So why are we paying a cost increase of 100% when the cost to the supplier has only increased for 40% of the material. Put it in a simple way you pay £100 per month electric, you have a cost increase due to the gas situation of 10%, the method being used at the moment you pay the 10% on the £100. However, the real cost increase is only on the 40% which comes from gas, wind has not got more expensive, nuclear producies if online or offline and as far as I know the sun shines without me or any company in the world switching it on or off. So my increase in payments should be say the 10 % of the 40% of national gas useage that equals £4.

          I know blaah blaah from my side but I did check offical paers to see the break up of UK electricicty production, and gas was 40%, what companies seem to have done is taken the increase in the cost of gas and applied it to the 100% market.

          I have no issue on paying the extra on the gas issue, as where we pay money people in the Ukraine are lossing their lives. I do however object to paying the same increase of wind, solar, nuclear etc which makes up 60% of the electical production of the UK.

          It is an issue that I want to bring before my MP but although she has an office only a few minutes from me it is locked and you cannot see her.

          • Not sure but I think the energy generation and distribution industry is set up so customers pay a price which is averaged over all sources: renewables, nuclear and gas. The gas is bought at high prices on the global market. It looks like the cost averaging is done after generation but before distribution so its the distribution companies who benefit not the customer. I read Welcome to rip off (Tory) Britain..,😉

          • Ron UK consumers forced to pay energy world prices at sky high levels and have pleasure of baked in extra tarrifs for developing wind farms and China/French nuc power. The energy policy doesn’t work for consumers a windfall tax was the simple solution during a war. It is effectively war profiteering by energy producing companies.

          • It’s very true and an issue with our power generation market in the UK, we link the price of renewable generated electricity with the price of gas….most economies have decoupled this as renewables are cheaper than gas. There are a few issues:

            1) the international price of gas has lead to our oil and gas producers have made a fortune. We ( the public and business have paid for these massive unexpected profits). In a different age they would have been described as profits from profiteering and been managed as such.
            2) the link between renewable electricity generation prices and the price of gas has lead to the same level of profits as the gas and oil extraction industries, again in another age it would have been classed as profiteering and managed.

            The sad thing is that these are profits that are caused by enemy action and war, they are unexpected and event the energy generators and gas produces are admitting it’s the case and have said they would have no problem with a rebalance and management of this profit ( as they really know and agree it’s from a system that has forced them to be profiteers). But this present governments dogma prevented them from using the profits to manage the economy ( reduce the cost of renewable electricity and increase windfall tax’s to fund things like providing business rates reduction to support struggling business and help combat inflation.

          • You’re not the only one baffled. A few guys a lot smarter than me try to explain it below. It’s all way over my head.

          • Unfortunately the UK pays the world price even though it is capable of becoming once again self sufficient.

            I say the Government should modify the licensing framework whereby any energy generated within the UK Economic Area is sold only into the UK market, and not exported, so that the price can be a UK-market price and energy reserves are conserved as a strategic resource.

            When the intercontinental gas, oil, and electricity connectors were put in, the energy companies then exported from the UK depleting the UK ‘s reserves for the future -hence our current situation. Also any green energy stuff is usually foreign owned and exported. We must contain our UK energy market to protect industry and consumers form these world forces so the UK becomes self-sufficient..

        • To be honest, that was not the problem. The big problem is the cost of government borrowing and Weakness of the pound ( if we were a net exporter this would be a potential strength not weakness).

          The energy relief scheme did not cause the instability in these two areas as it’s been know for ages, was expected by the government bond market, currency market and Bank of England ( they had costed it into the interest rate rise) and would have actually acted to help reduce inflation so was needed and was cogent with every ones fiscal policy at both the BOE as well as the rest of the world.

          The raise in cost of government bonds, run on the pound and need to for Bank of England to rise mortgage rates with the surprise tax cuts with all its impact on cost of living ( prices for food ect will go up more than they needed to) and impact on mortgage rates going up and the cuts needed to public services due to increased cost of government debt.

          So it was all the other stuff not being costed and supported by the financial balancing organisations that are experts that causes the other stuff, otherwise know as government incompetence.

          The sad thing is if they had followed process, provided proof of impact, got the Bank of England, obr etc behind them they may have been able to put through some reasonable tax cuts at some point, but you can to cut tax at a time of Massive inflation while your central bank is trying to manage inflation increasing interest rates to remove purchasing power for the system.

          basicly the issue was fiscal incompetence, which has lead to:

          1)increased cost of government borrowing.
          2)reduced ability to used tax cuts as a way to grow the economy at the correct time ( due to increased borrowing cost and loss of bond market faith in the conservative government).
          3) need to return to austerity due to increased government borrowing cost at a time public services including key area like defence and health are being batter by massive risk ( war and pandemic).
          4) massive hurt to normal people, when everything costs more ( borrowing/mortgages and imports such as food and products)
          5) The reduced pound will act as a push on inflation ( increased cost of imports) which will need to be countered with increased interest rates.

          so what the incompetence of the last few weeks has done has put local U.K. only drivers for the U.K.to go into a spiral of increased borrowing and increased inflation at a time of massive international upheaval will put massive breaks on growth as well as add inflationary pressure…..

          add in the social implications of our key public sector services having who decade of wade stagnation and exhaustion and we are in a state ( to note, the NHS health care professionals are going to either strike or walk away from the NHS in droves, when we have 100,000 vacancies ( 10% ish of the workforce) and around a 20% year on year demand in key areas…

          I can’t even describe how I feel about our leaders and it’s got nothing to do with an action that all governments across the world are doing ( protecting their population against energy price increases).

        • Which at present gas prices will cost about £12Bn…….not £60Bn……..it could be hedges to a max of £30Bn if half the gas was locked in now at market prices.

          The real elephant in the room is the fact that the gas market pricing is fictional. The market is actually dysfunctional. Britain’s LNG terminals are actually set up for import only so they can’t be used for export. The only export route is via the existing pipeline networks which are of limited capacity.

          So essentially saying that if we didn’t pay X for the gas it would all go elsewhere physically cannot happen.

          So something like 60% of our gas cannot be exported without years of heavy engineering.

          Just as the electricity price mechanism is nonsense as 60% of the kWh are generated in a manner that does not have real volatile cost base. Profits yes, good profits yes: casino profits NO.

      • Agree, and Hunt will take a serious look at windfall regardless of Truss’s resistance. Sadly for her Hunt is a sledgehammer and I fear there will be blood on the carpets in Downing Street. We witnessed the nest of vipers between Blair and Brown but this new team could spell trouble for Truss’s authority. Hunt will help to save her position by delivering a much improved fiscal package that I’m sure will calm the markets. Remarkably, the Minister of Defence not only backed Truss but won a 3% of GDP by 2030. However, in just a few weeks the MOD will be looking at cuts, you could not write this stuff. To make matters worse, Hunt did say today that all departments will have to find savings including Defence. I feel some sympathy for the PM but running roughshod over the instruments of finance was a bad move and proved that a lion’s share of UK fiscal management is not in No11 but in the IMF HQ.

        • My position has been until I see the money hit the bank account and starts being spent nothing is secure in government spending.
          I used to work in a government dept and come January-March a mad spending spree would be happening as giving money back (having it in the accounts) come April was not an option as next years budget would be cut.
          I would love to think that has changed but I doubt it

    • Too late for that, if Hunt fails she goes down with him, if he succeeds his reputation will be restored and she will look increasingly like the Putin in any relationship with Xi. No win situation for her it’s simply a matter of getting rid looks worse than keeping her in place while stripping her of any real power so as to reduce any further harm she can cause. I suspect they may try to keep her there in such mode and replace her before any election with the argument it’s a fresh face, fresh ideas and all that’s needed is the time to show it. Hunt will need to seriously stabilise matters for even that to have a snowballs chance in Hell mind.

      • A lot of us on here wanted Mordaunt (and I still do) and were concerned about Truss for reasons that have become sadly obvious the last few weeks.

      • I believe as I mentioned above hunt will deliver and will have a majority of the party with him including the 1922 committee. With only two years to the next GE I can see Truss performing a figurehead role with Hunt watching her back. Any attempt to remove her could as you say worsen the perception of a firm hand on the tiller. Sadly, for her, being seen as a pretty face at the helm is the last place she wants to be. Interesting times.

        • To be honest I think the kindest thing for her and the best thing for the country and the conservatives would be for Ms Truss to go now. She is already struggling with press conference speeches. Prime Ministers question time would be excruciating. No point in turning an embarrassing mistake into a national TV humiliation and pointless nervous breakdown.

          • You may be right PP, but the international damage and the perception of crisis could be more destructive to the economy than the mini-budget if she goes now. The period of post-pandemic adjustment has been difficult for the World and Putin’s war just worsened the situation. The reason the financial world reacted as it did was to witness the otherwise steady as you go Uk fiscal management suddenly act as if a huge windfall had fallen from the heavens and needed to be spent. Sadly, no such event just the belief that matters can be improved by getting into greater debt! Truss’s punishment for her actions will be the ‘Hunt factor’ and the shift of real power to No11. However, this may be too compromising for her and she leaves without votes and debate. That being the case, the current Defence Minister could be a strong choice and he might be capable of protecting the MOD budget from the approaching storm? Okay, I can dream.

          • Like yourself, if he can be persuaded to take it on, even as a caretaker, I think Ben Wallace would be a good choice. What is needed now is realism, gravitas and fortitude. He has leadership skills, national and importantly, international credibility.

          • Agree. I doubt he would have made the last group if he’d stood the first time around too much b.s. and show business (or is it smoke and mirrors). However, now the dust has settled and we can all see the wreckage, Wallaces’ qualities and stability are just the right mixture for prime ministership. 🙂

          • What this have shown is how the markets and some political capitalists are dependent of taxpayers money.

            Why suddenly after billions created out of thin air in QE and more billions wasted that made 10% inflation there was a reaction to a miserable cut in tax?
            Manipulation.

          • I agree, national stability does indeed have its foundation in the co-operation of and tax collected from all working people.
            When times are hard and you are struggling your sense of unfairness is made more acute. IMO this the reason there was such a sharp reaction to the cut in tax for the wealthy.

          • Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. When it rains it rains on everyone.

    • The target is 3% by 2030. The question is what about between now and 2030? Will it be a continuous ramp up, or 2.2% for the rest of the decade then bang: 3%? Given that there will be at least two general elections between now and 2030, the target can remain and yet be effectively gutted.

      Hunt was for 2.5% during his run against Boris, one of the few Tories who seemed to get it, so I’m hoping that the extra burdens he places on the MOD are less about “finding savings” and more about spending money in the UK, returning a higher proportion to the exchequer.

      • As has been amply demonstrated by politicians from all sides just recently, they flip and they flop. I know Hunt recommended an increase to 2.5% of GDP. Now he Is chancellor and he is buttering us up for swinging cuts, defence as always will be top of the spending agenda and those that have to find the savings will make a hash of it the 3 services will infight. Need I say more.

      • Can we write it into law that defence will have a minimum of 3% GDP plus minus inflation by 2030. It will give defence some security. I know that Germany did this before WW1 with Tirpitz and the Sekt tax. I think that the spelling anyway it was a tax on bubbling wine to pay for the fleet expansion.

  3. MRSS to replace RFA Argus, RFA (all of the) Bays and HMS Albion (and sister ship)? Believe MRSS will be an extremely important shipbuilding exercise to perform well from requirements formulation, conceptual through detailed design, build, test and ultimately ops. and maintenance. 2030’s? Hope the UK shipbuilding enterprise has started rhe planning necessary (e.g., infrastructure development, business rationalization/teaming, etc.) to embrace the challenge. 🤔😳

    • MROSS and indeed FSSS has the potential to become a thorny issue for UK PLC, as I’m not entirely sure we have the capabilities people wise to actually design and build them. Wouldn’t be at all surprised to see FSSS go to a foreign yard, or at least a foreign yard that is going to supply a lot of technical know how to the British yards that might build them.
      Lack of experience in this area is one of the reasons the ‘Tides’ were built abroad along with costs. In the intervening years nothing has changed build wise here, so unsure how we as a nation will build them!!

      • FSSS will be an important indicator of whether UK PLC shipbuilding enterprise is headed toward self sustainment over the long term. Believe Ben Wallace, if given sufficient time, budget and authority will make an heroic attempt to guide the enterprise in the correct direction. Will there be buy in from various stakeholders w/ own agendas (w.g., shipyard mgt., Civil Service, Unions, etc.)? As an outsider, unable to provide definitive answer. Believe all elements necessary for potential success either currently exist or are readily feasible in future, but w/out properly planned execution by all parties, success not guaranteed.

      • The Tide Class build contract was very tight. Hence the South Korean Builders got hammered when the build went wrong ( HV cabling for the drive motors and the underwater paint scheme.)
        Rumour has it that the MoD and Shabby Wood are looking for some serious NDAs to be in place for the FSSS contracts. Hulls built in Spain and Military kit fit out in the UK. Thats not going to go down well!
        The new STUFT seabed vessel will be modded to RFA spec at Cammel Laird and the deal to take it from civvy into military service is already done.

        • How does an NDA help to cover up were multiple 40kt vessels are being built??

          Building naval ships is expensive.

          Breaking the drumbeat and not building naval ships in number for decades is even more expensive.

  4. I know this is on the wrong page and a bit cheeky but interesting addition to the debate on Ajax.
    Defense Express website
    ‘Ukraines Armed Forces are using British Ferret Mk1 Armoured Cars’

    • ? For this specific article? Damn, just had eyes examined by leading opthalmologist and pronounced 20/20, going back to demand refund; only observe one in header photo. 🤔🤓😎

      • Yes, there are five boats yet only four boats named. Oh, if you’re having eye problems I’d recommend an optometrist above an opthalmologist.

        • Ahhh…that photo was not present on my original feed. Perhaps an RFA Tide(something)? There appears to be RAS op underway in foreground.

          • Adverts cut off my first reply.

            Basically, there are four names but five boats. Who knows, I recognise a type 45 to the left but the rest are ‘beyond my ken’, I wasn’t RN. Sorry if I was a bit gruff with the optometrist jibe, long week!

    • The 5th is one of the Tide class tankers. Mybe not intrinsically part of the LSG, just turning up for RAS. I can’t tell hich one from the pic. Maybe someone else knows?

  7. Negativity negativity negativity so easy isn’t it and so many reasons for it! But yet again the RN, with the RFA and (I know I know) the RM have pulled it out of the bag and showing how to man, run, plan and train! Good show all round!

    • How dare you paint a good picture and ruin everyone’s moan fest.
      We are f**ked and the forces couldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag on a raining Tuesday morning. 😂😂😂😂😂

  9. Look for me it is simple, however, I am not sure how. The UK defence budget must be either increased to 3% GDP or remove the SSBN budget and leave what is the current GDP as is.

    The RN needs 12 SSN or 8 SSN and 12 AIP subs, 25-30 surface comabat ship, and four major assault ships eg LHDs 25-30,000 tons. Plus 80 F35Bs.

    The RAF needs only in combat aircraft four interceptor squadrons (UK defence) 10 multi role squadrons, four deep strike squdrons, six land attack quadrons plus support squadrons such as P8/E7/ A400/ C-17/ tanker/ heavy helicopter etc. Thats a total of 250 plus opertional fast jets with 60+ in reserve training units etc. Some might say its to much we don’t ave the money etc. Lets look at if diffrent to see why I have these numbers. We have the UK to defend, so a pure out and out interceptor is useful, we have NATO obligations so a mulkti role aircraft and a deep strike aircraft (Russia is Bigggg) is usefult. the RAF also need to support the army so a modern Jaguar is a good idea. Still wonder if the old Mossie would be good, four .303s, 4 20mm, 8 underwing rockets and 4,000 lbs of bombs. With 400 mph and able to hang around for an hour as a ground attack even in the modern world she could dish it out.

    As for the British Army, government has left them without a purpose. So lets rebuild from the gound up. In Europe the main threat is Russia. To face this we need a main fighting force to work along side our European friends. So a division of MBTs with Art, infantry support is needed. We also need to help Norway so a light flexible unit based on LHDs is required. So the European Division would be 150-250 MBTs, 300-500 Light Tanks, 600-1000 IFVs (35mm-40mm gun) and 1800 APCs or variations. A total of about 25,000 troops. Based in mainland Europe. Each LHD would have two dedicated battlegroups, one heavy one light. Each about 800 troops either based around tracked MBTs etc or Boxer. Using the four LHDs a Norway support mission could be carried out with four battlegroups or a Falklands mission could be carried out with Bays and Points supporting. That is about 35,000 troops with a purpose, then we add the air assault brigade a futher 5,000 troops, the Gurkha brigade. These would be the main fighting formations, they do not include, Royal Signal major units Regt and above, REME, AAC, Logistics, Intel.

    In the far East the threat is China, to be able to help the US, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea with four amphibious battlegroups might not sound like much but these countries would be grateful for the help.

    • Stopped reading at 12 SSN or 8 SSN ands 12 AIP Subs.

      It is never ever going to happen.

      Just for the RN side of that list they could never crew it let alone afford to build it. The training and recruiting plan could not sustain it.

      Its a wish list wet dream.

      • Danielle had it in a post on another topic. Let others provide the mass, we should provide the “good” bits.
        However, given the non existent state of our national missile defences, a couple extra T45 to provide this duty in the North Sea would be nice.
        AA

      • I think it is fantastic, love Rons posts. His army one the other week with 4 or was it 5 Divisions each of 5 brigades or something was a joy to read.
        Totally fantasy fleet but great reading. I’m still enjoying myself trying to work out the CS CSS for such a force.

        He’s right about removing the deterrent budge from core though.

        • I think the issue is more that when Osbourne moved the deterrent budget over into the core budget, the deterrent bit didn’t actually follow across. Hence ‘Core’ was left picking up the bill.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here