HMS Bulwark, one of the Royal Navy’s two amphibious assault ships, has spent a significant amount of time out of active service, accumulating over 2,730 days in port, according to data from Open Source Intelligence analyst @TBrit90.
Initially entering extended readiness in 2017, Bulwark transferred her role as Fleet Amphibious Flagship to her sister ship, HMS Albion.
In the same year, it was revealed that cost-saving measures proposed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) might result in the decommissioning of both vessels. However, these plans were reversed in 2018 by then-Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson, ensuring the ships’ survival for the time being.
Fast forward to 2020, HMS Bulwark entered dry dock for phase two of her optimised support period. At that time, the MoD anticipated that Bulwark would return to active duty by mid-2023 following the completion of a final phase three recertification. However, recent developments suggest this timeline has shifted.
As of March 2024, then-Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence James Cartlidge, under the previous Conservative government, indicated that HMS Bulwark would only return to active service “if required.”
This announcement has led many to question whether the ship will ever resume full operational duties. A source within the Royal Navy suggested that despite earlier commitments, it has been clear for some time that the vessel’s return to regular service was unlikely. The notion of readiness “if required” subtly confirms this.
One of the key issues at play is the Royal Navy’s struggle with staffing. It has been apparent for some time that there are not enough sailors to fully crew HMS Bulwark once she emerged from refit. This has been a significant factor in the ship’s extended period out of action and raises concerns about the long-term viability of maintaining large, resource-intensive vessels like Bulwark.
Adding to the uncertainty is the Ministry of Defence’s shifting language regarding the ship’s future. Initially, a firm timeline was provided for her return to the fleet. Now, the emphasis is on maintaining the vessel in a state of readiness, should her capabilities be needed. This represents a marked departure from previous assurances and suggests that HMS Bulwark may remain in port for the foreseeable future, with no concrete plans for deployment.
The status of HMS Bulwark has been a subject of controversy for some time. Both Albion and Bulwark faced potential decommissioning in 2017 amid the Royal Navy’s budgetary challenges. Public and internal defence sector backlash led to the ships being spared, yet their roles remain diminished. While the ships are technically active, only one appears to be fulfilling its intended operational duties, with Bulwark left in limbo.
Despite over 2,730 days out of action, HMS Bulwark remains a symbol of the Royal Navy’s amphibious capabilities, albeit one that may never again play a leading role in future operations. Whether the ship will eventually be reactivated for significant operations or quietly remain in port depends largely on the evolving priorities and resources of the Royal Navy.
Positive trends amidst challenges
While the situation surrounding HMS Bulwark remains uncertain, it is important to note that the Royal Navy has demonstrated a positive trend in fleet availability recently among its escort vessels. A recent snapshot of the fleet reveals that 47.37% of the Royal Navy’s escort vessels—Type 45 Destroyers and Type 23 Frigates—are either active or immediately deployable. This marks a notable improvement in the operational availability of these compared with mere months ago.
For example, the availability of the Type 45 Destroyers has increased to 33.33%, and the availability of the Type 23 Frigates has risen to 55.56%, reflecting a strategic focus on getting more ships back into active service.
The improvement in the Type 23 Frigate class, in particular, stands out. Despite the removal of HMS Argyll from service, the Royal Navy has managed to enhance the readiness of the remaining frigates, ensuring that more of them are prepared for immediate deployment. This show effective fleet management and also a potential shift toward more efficient maintenance practices, which has contributed to a higher proportion of active ships within the fleet.
This increase in availability is a promising sign, suggesting that despite staffing challenges and the technical complexity of the fleet, the Royal Navy is steadily improving its ability to maintain and deploy a larger portion of its vessels.
When we look at Royal Navy’s inventory, we foresee a force of 30 major vessels (frigates and destroyers). Let’s be honest, it is less ans less likely that we will invade other countries, so this kind of ship has a decreasing usefulness.
Exactly the type of thinking in 1982…
And ‘82 was why the Albions were built and they have the C2 capabilities that the Bays lack as well as being MILSPEC. It is a big threat when an Albion and two Bays with a QEC, T45 (or two) & T23 (or two), and maybe Argus rock up somewhere. We can come ashore where and when we choose and most countries wouldn’t be able to do a whole lot about it. That is a very large stick that HMG put aside at their peril. The mis think is that it is all about contested beach landings in some WW2… Read more »
Bang on!
They are essentially vital for reenforcing the northern flanks and therefore a vital deterrent against Russian in the north.
Indeed.
Given we are currently reliant on the Bays to masquerade in the LPD role even they are secondary vessels tells me this is all about an ongoing financial and staffing crisis in the Navy and nothing to do with their apparent military usefulness.
Indeed with Sweden and Finland joining NATO you could argue the northern flank role has significantly increased in importance. A flexible amphibious capability would be ideal in this theatre combined with a significant airlift capacity. What have we actually done is to diminish these unique and high quality capabilities.
Exactly.
Precisely so.
The MoD’s recruitment drive is in the hands of some seriously deluded individuals. In essence they have projected rather than analysed the demographic that needs to be sought out.
30 ? Its more like 15
In the French news’ paper I read (DSI), they tend to see Royal Navy at double than French Navy. We can barely reach 15 ships with Admiral Rornach FDI Class, light Frigates, will UK should received ships from 4 different class, going for 30 majors ships. May be they are overly optimistic.
2 Horizon+8 FREMM +5 FDI= 14
You are absolutely right. Although that I think us why politicians and bean counters have got us to where we are today. If you have that mindset that you and them seem to have, you don’t need artillery, tanks, AFV, engineers, fighter jets, ground attack aircraft, transport aircraft, ships, submarines. All easy to cut and we have. It would take more than a decade to get back anything near to what we should have in my eyes. In this case we are talking Amphibious capability. One of the key roles of an amphibious force is that threat over the horizon.… Read more »
Good post 👍
It is not politicians and bean counters. It is the culture and what bring votes.
When WW2 will be a verydistant past , it will be even worse in cultural arena.
Politicians are not immune from the zeitgeist. Our Chancellor is not only too young to remember WW2, she’s too young to remember the Falklands and her only vague memories of the Cold War will be Periskroika and Glasnost. Her formative teenage years came after the fall of the Berlin Wall and before the twin towers, when we were talking about a new world order and beating swords into ploughshares: the time of the peace dividend.
I don’t know. In the past, earth was not as populated as today. We (France, UK) were respected and feared. We were powerful. At the moment, let’s say it is no longer the case. So a military action will be challenged. And I a not assured we will prevail.
Spot on!
Until we do need them but have nothing left. They’re also extremely useful just ferrrying forces across to the continent or elsewhere in the world.
In reality the Albions are profoundly important in regards to the northern flank and considering how salty Russia is at present, showing the UK can reenforce those northern flanks quickly with the RMs is very important.
I understand that trained personnel numbers are slightly below target and that certain trade specialists are hard to recruit and retain. But given how many ships and boats are unavailable for active service and unavailable for long periods of time, why are there not enough people to crew the small number of vessels that remain active.
What happens, for example, to the crew of Ambush which hasn’t been to sea for over 2 years?
Why is it beyond the wit of our politicians to understand that they are grossly under funding defence?
Please list the things you would stop paying for were you in power. Our polititions of what every persuasion must make important decisions as to where to spend our money. Just saying spend more on the military without considering the impact on other spending is just not acceptable. Please list the schools and hospitals you would close as the cost. Need I also point out the larger part of the article that states that they are unable to recruit the numbers they want.
I see so you use the emotive schools and hospitals argument. When I suggest there is a hard cap on the benefits bill you will scream about the poorest and most vulnerable in society. I’m afraid that isn’t true. The level of benefits lost to fraud is enormous the migrants [I include the Eastern Europeans] all have WhatsApp groups on how to game the system. Loads of people cleaning benefits of all kinds are doing just enough legit work and then topping up cash in hand work. The reality is that the black economy in the UK is enormous fuelled… Read more »
BOOOOOM!
Boom indeed mate, boom In deed!!!
Well put, 500 hotel beds are being paid for at full rates ‘in case’ more illegals ‘may arrive’ , three quarters of a million pounds spent on ‘researchers ‘ to visit Carrivean countries to ‘investigate’ their feelings toward the UK??? And billions in aid to countries that actually don’t want it! The list of wasted money is legion, tighten that up, make military service more attractive, and look to upgrading all the armed forces
A sober and clear eyed analysis. Why then is not this level of thinking seen in how public policy is delivered? The mystery is beyond reason.
Totally, mystifying isn’t it….
It isn’t hard to stop very major levels of fraud. The problem is that it costs money and time to tighten things up. So in the short term it costs money. I’m not against benefit but I am against benefit fraud. I wouldn’t be surprised if you could save £10Bn without disadvantaging anyone. That is before you make people pre-qualify for benefits by doing some kind of job. Any kind of a job really. The reality is that in the realm of public policy is that there are plenty of people like me who do deliver clarity. But by the… Read more »
I’m going to say something that sticks in my throat but Blair was 100% right about something National ID cards. Why do we have so many fraudsters, so many illegal immigrants, legal but illegally working student visas rather than other European countries. The French have bluntly told us that we are a soft touch and because of our libertarian tradition we balk at the idea. It’s not rocket science the Passport and Driving Licence Biometric systems are already linked so all you do is turn the latter into an ID card and having a provisional licence for everyone 16+ is… Read more »
I’m afraid you are right.
However, forging driving licences is a mail order business…
So SB, 100% concur with you, you’re general opinion and view. Your view used to ‘broadly’ be coined as Conservative, before the Tories turned socalist and blew the benefits Bill to £85 billion!!! In a nut shell, your wise words need to be copied and pasted ( overwritten) over the Red, happy clappy socalist Tory idiots that led the country onto the rocks… Of course Labour have initially paid their TUC £10 billion protection money and will now borrow and spend like there’s no tomorrow. They will ask the TUC how high to jump and wait for orders, there will… Read more »
Bang on the nail there dude. Interestingly, attempts to gain answers to the true cost of immigration to this country, are now met with… “for health and safety reasons, those figures cannot be released any more”. Supposedly, the cost of these immigrants has spiralled so far out of control, its again supposedly, in the billions now.
An articulate post, well written SB!
Foreign aid budget £8.4bn
Asylum hotel budget £6 ban
Then I would save money by reducing our eye watering social housing bill. 70% of Somalis in Britain are housed in state social housing.
There is a lot of low hanging fruit that could be used to provide a military uplift.
Absolutely.
Quite apart from the gush of money being given away for nil economic benefit to the rest of society a number of non defence related mega schemes seem immune from scrutiny or are too big to fail or cancel. What will the final bill for HS2 be I wonder? One of the most over worked terms today is ‘sustainable’. What is sustainable about printing money with no end in sight?
Ballooning costs of HS2 are due to stupidly. We built things 100 years ago at pace because we didn’t stop when someone found a newt or digs up a price of pottery
We also didnt have to pay workers very much, provide decent standards of living ,or give a damn about H&S.
Yes there needs to be balance. We’ve go OTT on some aspects. There is only so much museum space for bits of old pottery after all😀
Poland defence budget now at 4.5% GDP sure they Hospitals and Schools are doing just fine.
Any evidence to say they aren’t?
Poland has ‘shut its doors’.
How many hospitals did we close to pay for the 5-7% of GDP spent on Defence in the Cold War…I also don’t recall the waiting time for operations were as bad then either.
My point is to suggest extra defence spending implies we cut back on something else
Infact we had a hell of a lot more hospital beds during the Cold War than we do now..400,000 in 1974, 350,000 in 1980 and today we have 103,000 so only 25% of the total at the hight of the Cold War….
Wow. Any thoughts as to why?
Oh Andrew. Replace schools and hospitals with foreign aid for opera houses for women in china and gender reassignment treatment for children and your argument just falls apart. Also when the last set of cowardly mid-wits were in power they decided that letting people die of cancer in the long run was less important han being seen to be doing something during Covid. You can wave your willy around as much as you like and you can bang your pots and pans at the morally easy parts of government however being Prime Minister is not the same as being a… Read more »
^^^^ This ^^^^ here, here….
Wtf are you talking about. You’re seriously mixed up in the head if that’s what comes out of it. The primary responsibility of a PM is not defence. It’s ensuring everyone has opportunities to make the most of their lives. You are seriously f.up
I’m sorry didn’t realise I was engaging with a stroppy teenager I naturally assumed you were merely a fool. But no government is not only about giving you things. I’m not sure why you haven’t come across concept that the principle duty of government is defence of the realm. I mean even the government admits this. Try Line 1 page 1 of the armed forces covenant: “”The first duty of government is the defence of the realm”. So if it’s the first duty of government (ahead of all others) and they knowingly, deliberately fail at it then it looks like… Read more »
Rubbish, and I did not talk about giving people stuff. To ensure people have equal rights to oportunity in life, is far more important than defence. Going back to my original statement. All these things have to be considered together and choices made as to were cash is spent and to say just have more military is not the answer. Fortunately we do not live in America with a massive army amd am uneducated population and failing infrastructure amd limited access toneducation amd health care. The source of funds for any enlarged military can be found in the various backhanders… Read more »
Andrew I appreciate that you’re talking from a position of principle where you believe that any money spent on defence is bad and consequently money spent anywhere else other than defence is good. Some of us have other perspectives. Other perspectives built on experience and knowledge and from listening to warnings given by some very swiitched on people and their telling us that the age of the “end of history” is over. It’s fine to have utopian views but not when utopia conflicts with reality. There are real substantive gaps in British defence capabilities. We have practically no ground based… Read more »
So you open with a deliberate falsehood, in an attempt to justify your following point.
I have at no point said spending money on defence is bad.
What a dishonest person you are
That Defence is the first duty of government is an aphorism quoted by Sir Keir Starmer several times during his election campaign. You don’t have to believe it, but there are good reasons for it, not least because when other countries are limiting your trade opportunities, your foreign policy and your Internet access, you don’t get the opportunities to make the most of your life.
” …mid-wits…” Devastating; excellent! 🤣😂😁 Mind if that description is expropriated by others? Wouldn’t wish to indulge in copyright infringement.
Gender affirming health care is still healthcare, so if you are talking about cutting it, you are talking about closing hospitals.
I get there’s a bigoted reaction to GAHC, but it’s much like saying “I’m not saying that we should close hospitals, just that we shouldn’t treat cancer.”
To equate Gender affirming healthcare to Cancer is somewhat disingenuous.
They are not & never will be comparable.
I don’t think so. Gender affirming care has a proven correlation with the reduction of suicide in people suffering from Dysphoria.
In many cases it is literally lifesaving treatment.
So yes, they are comparable.
(The only way that the provision of life saving care for the two cases are not comparable is if you think that Trans people dying isn’t as big of a deal as Cis people dying in which case: I know a place that existed from 1933 to 1945 that might suit).
Re the GAC – this is a myth pushed by WPATH. And given rationing is inherent to free public heath care it is perfectly appropriate to debate what healthcare is funded. Given the very high, life-long costs associated with GAC and the fact it is unproven to improve matters, not wanting to fund it as a taxpayer is a reasonable position to have. Also, national security is a common good and not something I can manage/contribute to as an individual – healthcare is. Abolish the NHS and the market/charities would step in, as they did prior to its creation. Abolish… Read more »
Subsidised Parliament resturant & bar to start with.
I’m not sure what part of the discussion your replying to, so excuse me if I don’t know what point your making. I happen to know an Ex MP and I can tell you that the purpose of subsidised returants is supposed to be for the staff of MPs who arnt paid that well.
Hi Andrew, Way back you were responding to Incogneto, “Please list the things you would stop paying for were you in power.”
What I as hinting at was that more should be done to ensure the richest & most privilaged pay a bit more rather than taking even more from those with very little. MPs seem wedded to their perks & looking after the ultra wealthy who bankroll them. We’ve had decades of cosy deals for the ultra rich, one reason public services & Defence are starved of funding.
I agree that defence needs to be better supported.
Yours is one of the more intelligent comments on this post Frank 62.
I agree with your rationale.
Re-gendering on the NHS
Cancer treatment for people who walk outside the front doors to… smoke
Cancer treatment for people who walk outside the front doors and drink alcohol
Treatment for anyone who abuses their body and … suddenly… needs NHS treatment to save them.
People in prison for rape. Chemically castrate them. The Czechs do.
People on unemployment benefit, whatever, for more than three months. They’re scamming, investigate them.
Let’s move on…
Railway
Public Service
Civil Service
And the military
Wholesale challenge to the way we do things.
I’ve been with my… firm… 2 months, the waste is legion.
Statistics, damn statistics and lies.
33% of T45 is TWO ships. Wozzers.
Do the maths on the T23s and tell me you are equally impressed.
Appalling journalism to report a ‘fact’ without actually questioning the fact.
The availability of the type 23 frigates rising to 55.56% reflects the decommissioning/sale of ships that weren’t active, rather than any attempt to get more ships back into active service. If the bad news about Northumberland is acknowledged and she is decommissioned, availability will rise again to 62.5%, without a single extra ship actually being made available.
The original plan post 2010 was.
1 LPD and 1 QEC in service.
1 LPD and 1 QEC ER/R.
Then once PoW was ready, PM Cameron announced both carriers would be crewed.
That, and an active LPD, is beyond the RN at this time, shockingly.
What’s the best mix. 2 carriers active for much of the time or 1 carrier, 1 LPD?
Would the RN gain now going back to one of each, given the planned role of the LRGs and the RM?
Wernt at one time at least the QE class supposed to be able to support marines as an alternative. I had thought that amounted to one arranged for the F35s and the other covered in helicopters : Transport and Appachie
Yes, it was discussed. Others considered it madness you’d plonk a carrier close enough off an enemy coast to be usable for helicopters given ASM risks. I understand there was that thinking behind getting the new ER Chinooks as well as for their SF role. We need a LPH/LPD combination of vessels for the RM, with more helicopters and faster LC types. Or, lots of smaller MRSS type vessels. Neither exist now. I had this conversation with the RM themselves on Twitter recently and they did not reply when I challenged the spin they were producing with pointing out the… Read more »
Good points. I have never understood why it is seen as too risky for a carrier to launch helicopter landings from 50 + miles offshore but OK for an LPD to launch landing craft from less than a couple of miles. Neither vessel is well provided with self defence weapons but a carrier could operate a half squadron of F35 to provide CAP.
USMC plan is moving to smaller more dispersed platforms. Perhaps as you suggest smaller MRSS are the answer. But the last comment I read was a senior officer wanting MRSS to be large non complex warships.
Indeed mate, weren’t the bulkhead doors specifically widened in build on the QE class to permit RM’s ‘armed for bear’ to easily get to the flight deck without being impeded??
Don’t know, mate, sorry.
Only in POS I think, but then someone realised that using a £3 billion Aircraft Carrier as an LPH was a seriously stupid idea.
The mods to PoW were quietly dropped.
Tbf they quite probably are not in a position to be allowed to reply to that kind of query.
Yes, that’s very true. I do like to inject a bit of reality to spin though. 😈 The LRG concept is as short changed as some other areas of defence currently.
As you know, I’d have them back as a LI Bde if LRG is not going to be done properly, they’re inbetween two stools for me.
You knocked that one on the head M8. It really is that simple and to be perfectly honest even if they deal with the recruitment / retention issues the Maths will not change. QE goes in for her 1st big scheduled refit and overhaul fairly soon, it will be interesting to see what they do with her and her crew. Do they reduce her to standby/lay up till POW is due her refit and man an LPD or just keep on with 2 carriers which can’t both have Aircraft ! The only long term alternative would be to actually increase… Read more »
Morning mate. The traditional LPD is seen as superior to a Bay as it has comprehensive C2, ammunition storage, and the welldock carries 8 Landing Craft, 4 LCVP 4 LCU against 1 LCU or 2 LCVP ( I think? ) in a Bay. A Bay is no LPD. But. I think, if the future Commando Force is getting smaller ship to shore connectors and with the manpower crisis, more Bay types are an obvious no brainer, with that few crew!! Alongside I’d still go for 2 carriers with the Drone tech progressing and mixed airwings, including rotary ASW assets. Tealeaves,… Read more »
To add, Paul informed me of what an Enforcer was the other day. 😏
Absolutely, the two QE’s are absolutely key assets, they need to give maximum bang for the buck, full project Ark Royal ( including angled deck) to safely land larger drones and facilitate full higher speed Rolling vertical landing capabilities on the F35B.
They will make exceptionally capable RM launch platforms, with the size to embark a large bespoke air group.
They need to be used alongside somthing akin to a fleet of lean manned enhanced Enforcers.
The Enforcer has a flight deck so why use a CVA up close rather than as a CV. The Enforcer really is a very clever design.
No it isn’t an LPD but it may be what’s affordable and if it is an Enforcer then it has a few extra tricks. One of the big issues with our LPH is we gold plated everything and when we picked an HV Electric drive we really went too far.
??
You mean LPD not LPH?
Ocean was the LPH had a diesel drive and the whole thing was a dogs dinner.
As for HV or DC electric drive its used onT23, T45, QE, LPD, RFAs. The new SSNs will have it.
LPD electric drive had issues. I know from personal experience. That was a bad design at the time of the HV to 440V power converters. The issue with harmonics was sorted out.
Yep
Thats about the sum off it.
The point about 3 bays for one LPD in crew terms is a valid one at the moment but the question is would you want to send them into a warzone to invade. The real question is, at the moment it does not look like beach landings are something we want to attempt any time soon but remembering the 2010 review (which we know had no other strategic thinking than how to cut costs) getting rid of the invincible class, immediately colonel gadaffi action kicked off and we hadn’t got the right equipment. The latest defence review should be looking… Read more »
There are two carriers available now because neither of them has spent much time at sea. Eventually one of them will have to go into refit and at that point the RN will only ever have one carrier available.
Agreed & correct.
A disigenuous article regarding fleet deployment numbers . A larger proportion of the fleet readily available doesnt translate to more ships as we only have a tiny amount to start with , down to 9 frigates and only six destroyers , less than half of which are deployable , not to mention the attack subs , none of which are at sea . If the landing ships are laid up what are the Royal Marines training on . They are elite troops who need to keep up their readiness . All afforts must be made to get Albion and Bulwark… Read more »
LRG(S) uses a Bay and Argus. They are with elements of Forty Commando RM as we speak in the Pacific and Indian Ocean.
LRG(N) has 1 Bay ( it was planned it would have a LPD too once ) though 45 Cdo are often deployed directory ashore to Camp Viking and other places.
If we get both Albion and Bulwark back to see at the same time, which has not happened since 2010, it means even fewer escorts active or no carriers, as the personnel do not exist.
Shocking isn’t it.
That is a good point regarding training. Another capability on a hiatus?
All efforts need to be put into recruitment and retention. Without people, its all useless. I’d be much more interested in hearing about the MODs/RN’s plans for getting out of this manning black hole. Same for the RFA.
You don’t need an LPD for the RM to train. For an opposed landing or raid You can embark from any surface vessel, for coy- level it’s training on tbe ship to shore connectors that’ll be where the training value is. As for embarking, the QEs, Bays, t45s even the rivers can launch Marines (I know that the River in the Falklands is often used to practice Sea to Land HAFs by the army). What is lacking is the C2 for major joint ops, but that’s some pretty high level stuff (BHQ and above) and a TOC, whether it’s on… Read more »
Nope disagree.
Royal doesn’t need LPDs to train on.
They cant wait to get off ships when embarked.
AGRM is a different thing.
They dont need an LPD to practise with.
I guess the bonus of keeping Bulwark out of action does prolong her life to some degree and maybe for a future sale to somewhere?
How can they order 3+3 MRSS ships with crewing in such a parlous state? But it might explain why they only ordered three upfront.😏
None ordered at all. 3 FSS have been ordered.
They have no crew either!
Next move is the srapyard. They’ve been stripping kit off her for years. Actually, I doubt if we’ll see her or Albion again after the SDCR. Easy money to save.😕
If there was only 1 destroyer in the RN and it was at sea…100% deployment!!!Smoke, mirrors and statistics!!Latest SDR will see off the LPDs…Surely some sensible people can sit down together and work out what UK defence is for?What does UK in 2024 and beyond aspire to do security wise in Europe and the wider world?And then the biggie…What will it cost and can we afford it?Because we cannot do everything and our blue water status is inexorably turning turquoise.Meanwhile China churns out the equivalent of the UK fleet every few years…May not be as good as our stuff but… Read more »
If the RM are not fighting tooth and nail to retain the LPD’s then they are blind because the next step will be a further significant reduction in the overall size of the Corps. You cannot justify 5000 personnel with its its own training establishment, uniforms and equipment for ship boarding and small scale raiding. As for the RN to loose its amphibious shipping means it is no longer a full spectrum maritime player. The answer is to have only one carrier active at any time alongside an LPD. Far cheaper to run and man than two active carriers, which… Read more »
Unless we have somewhere to invade by definition these ships cannot be active. It might be good to see them training for such a role but in reality the mere fact that they are there and usable if need be is probably good enough.
This could be where, if only the RN reservists could be organised in a way that actually crew a vessels, even with a small cadre of regular personnel.
True.
Argentina, Russia and China are very Happy with your comments
I doubt it. The Argentinian Navy (what there is left) would retreat to port at the first sign of the British fleet. Russia already use a strategy of keeping their ships on the active list when they are probably incapable of leaving port & they haven’t got any sailors anyway as they were probaly sent to Ukraine. China would know that if push came to shove the British would get a crew to man their asset even if it meant training them enroute.
That’s not exactly true. They might not be putting troops ashore, but an LPD off the coast with a full Battlegroup on board sends a big message.
And an LPD carrying a hold full of medical and humanitarian stores with logistics soldiers developing a disaster relief COA send a equally big message.
Hold!
Good god man!
It’s a vehicle deck!
And? It’s an instrument of foreign policy. Just because they’re not putting troops over the beach doesn’t mean they are useless.
Not saying that…
I am saying it’s a vehicle deck not a hold!
Ah gotcha.
Surely it has a vehicle deck as well as a hold not instead off?
What is the point of posting an article like this? The “percentages” are meaningless as there is nothing there is there? The state of the RN is widely known, so why try and gloss over an appalling situation?
So here’s a possible scenario: we retain both QEC; we retain a LHP (Argus); we lose both LPDs; we build 3 MRSS ( 16,000 ton, 2 or 3 spot Enforcers); possibly keep 3 Bays depending on what happens to the T32 motherships thing.
The idea would be that the Enforcers would have Albion level C3 but could be lean manned ( say 90) most of the time when they are part of LRG.
I’d take that if they also increase no of posts.
To be honest I hadn’t thought through the crewing requirements; I’m not knowledable enough. But yes, posts and skills would need to be right RFA vs RN. What you could do is replace Argus with a proper LPH so we have 3, 2 of which would always be deployed, paired with a big ‘Enforcer’ – built to custom RN design for well deck size and C3. The issue we need to solve is the routine operating costs and manning of the LPDs. They are superb ships stuck in port because they were designed for a single high intensity task which… Read more »
Well I think we all know the Type 32 isn’t going to happen… The escort fleet will never get to 24 – especially after this upcoming SDR.
I can’t see what’s wrong with Bays as T32 MCM motherships.
The whole point of the Type 32 when first announced by Boris, was to increase the RN escort numbers to 24 and restore the UK to the premier naval force in Europe.
How the Type 32 is roled is for the Admiralty to decide but the RN desperately needs more hulls.
I understand and broadly agree. Boris was a man of instinct. He understood that culturally, geographically and historically we are an island nation and that a healthy RN and a healthy UK go hand in hand. All good. That said at the moment we are boracic – we need to be clear how many ships we need to do what and where. For me, if there’s any money going more T26 would be my preference.
“For me, if there’s any money going more T26 would be my preference.”
There is only enough capacity to build one or two more T26’s, before it would interfere with the future T83 destroyer program.
Good point; hadn’t considered that. Even so, another 2 would be good.
With anti British Starmer I only can hope massive cuts in the SDR.
We have 2 active carriers 2 active T45s 5 active T23s 0 active SSN Several of the inactive ships have been inactive for over 2 years 3 Astutes inactive for 1.5 to 2 years, This is not mainly a result of crew shortages. It is a consequence of serious mis management by the RN. The submarine maintenance problem should have been avoided. The Astute design was finalized 25 years ago so drydock needs were known then. West, Zambellas and others prioritized the carriers. Escort numbers were cut and replacements delayed for a decade. So now we have carriers and to… Read more »
The SSN issue has a lot to do with the single point of failure ship lift.
when that happened you then got affected by the nuclear refit drydocks now needing to be super dupper safe to stop a massive earthquake and tsunami in Devonport causing a Fukushima type scenario!
Just admit that its over..scrap…Labour Just isn’t interested in Defence..and if we are really honest with ourselves, we have already lost even before a shot has been fired
It must be fun at your house? Is there any ever anything positive you have to say about our military? Which is superb in so many areas but which is far too small.
I would like to add that ” The British Armed forces are second to none “…but I am just being realistic about our politicians…they have one eye on the next election and the other eye on their Bank account..no matter how noble the fight, some grubby politician will give it away for 30 pieces of silver
Our precious few amphibious ships are vital for landing troops, equipment & supplies. If we scrap the capability it’ll be like cutting a foot off. Using helicopters is incredibly more expensive & more limited.
War is likely. We’re in phoney peace right now & should be gearing up, not considering further cuts to what pathetically little we have left.
I helped build Bulwark at BAE shipyard.at Barrow-in-Furness.Between 1998 and 2004 when she left Barrow for sea trials,we built HMS Bulwalrk,HMS Albion and RFA Wave Knight,three capital ships.We actually received an award, which I still have, for the fastest assembly of a ship on the Western Hemisphere.If we could build those three capital ships in six years,why is each ship taking so long in refit.By the way our reward for such good work was to give the future surface ship work to the Scottish yards because the Labour government of the day had an election coming up.Our reward was another… Read more »
Excellent post Mike. really interesting read, thank you.
You weren’t a welder where you?
If you are I want to discuss the welds I found in the weapon lift shaft on Bulwark!
Seriously, you are right. Barrow got screwed over.
I served on Bulwark for 3 years and was heavily invested in the Amphibiosity world and was a great proponent of it. We did stuff in the North and also in the Far East. I also put together and ran a refit package for Bulwark in 2010/11. Even then cutting the cost of the refit was a big driver because of the unique kit they had onboard. We, the ships crew, Abbey Wood and the Dockyard got very creative in juggling budgets to get work done. Crew wise and not including the RM LCU / LCVP AGRM crews or the… Read more »
Since we increasingly need to focus on the threat of high-end conflict against peer adversaries, how useful are these ships likely to be in that scenario? What differentiates these ships from the Bays is the ability (theoretically) to operate in a heavily contested environment. But would you really plan to attempt a contested landing against anyone with a serious ability to defend themselves if you could possibly avoid it?
Bulwark and Albion will never again set sail under the White Ensign
The cost of running HMS Albion or Bulwark – £24m a year, or 0.01% of the NHS annual £200Bn budget. Of course if we get rid of these ships and the had to build new ones, that would be a £1bn at least…. It would be foolish these assets which have already been paid for. The extended periods in maintenance mean that their OSDs could be extended, taking pressure off the Royal Navy’s building programme – which with Dreadnaught, T26, T32 and FSS, plus autonomous mine warfare mother ships, is already significant. They are big platforms, and European Navies have… Read more »
Dont want to point out the obvious, but getting rid of more ships automatically increases the percentage of active ships. It doesn’t mean jot!
The interesting points about Bulwark being placed on long-term extended readiness, is not a blatant financial exercise as suggested. The core problem overall is that the armed forces are being shaped by lack of personnel in key areas, the only way that this can change is to involve the reserves in filling some of the acute shortages better. The easy fix is to recruit more regular personnel instead, but the MOD have sold off so much infrastructure since the end of the cold war, this has now started to impact on how many regular recruits can be recruited. It certainly… Read more »