The retirement of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark has sparked sharp criticism in Parliament, with Sir Julian Lewis MP labelling it “a black day for the Royal Marines.”
The Conservative MP for New Forest East referenced the Defence Committee’s 2018 report, “Sunset for the Royal Marines?”, which described scrapping the amphibious assault ships as “militarily illiterate” and strategically short-sighted.
“Does [the Defence Secretary] agree that we have no way of knowing whether the absence of that capability for the next decade will be an incentive for somebody to try something like the Falklands?” Sir Julian asked, highlighting the strategic importance of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark in conducting opposed landings.
Defence Secretary John Healey defended the decision, asserting that it aligns with modernising the Royal Navy and optimising resources.
“Far from it being ‘a black day,’ as he says, this statement signals a bright future, which will be reinforced by the SDR [Strategic Defence Review] for the Marines and their elite force,” he argued.
Healey acknowledged that the two ships were initially planned to remain in service for another decade but revealed they had already been effectively decommissioned. “Neither—given the state they are in and decisions taken by the last Government—were set to sail again. In other words, they had in practice been taken out of service, but Ministers had not been willing to admit that.”
The Defence Secretary assured MPs that the Royal Navy’s amphibious capabilities would continue with the three Bay-class landing ships and RFA Argus. He also highlighted the focus on future multi-role support ships, which he described as offering “greater capability and a broader range of ability for the future.”
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!
The RFA which they’re failing to pay, and the theoretical MRSS that’s a decade away?
MRSS will be more than a decade away.
1) I am not sure the MoD and Navy have yet to agree on the programme requirements
2) Then there might be a design competition involving multiple companies
3) Then they actually have to be built in a shipyard. Which one as QE carrier maintenance takes up the Rosyth dry dock, H&Ws future is currently uncertain and in theory is still building FSS until the end of the decade and Glasgow is busy with T26 + T83.
4) UK shipbuilding operates at a glacial pace, so getting even 3-4 hulls let alone 6 will take years
5) A very slow standing up and trials process.
6) RFA will be so small it is hard to see that it will ever be able to generate crews for MRSS.
At this point I have given up, there is no silver lining.
The reality is that, as of right now, Britain’s amphibious capability is defunct. The Albion-class vessels are done, and the RFA is facing serious challenges manning the LSDs. Whatever the defence secretary claims, the logical move now would be review the future of the Royal Marines themselves. If all you are going to have in the future are three low-end “multi-role” vessels, arguably you don’t need an amphibious force within the navy. You could return the Royal Marines to the army as part of an integrated special forces force with the budgetary bonus being that everything is reduced in size.
Which might be what they intend long term.
Dismantle, oh we are now too small no point keeping the capability, we must merge into the EU defence force.
You got it.
Royal Marines will stay as a raiding spec op force.
In what strength?
They were established as a Brigade once.
It seems the need for more Grey Zone resources saw the Bde dismantled, yet what we lack now is mass.
We could have done with an arctic trained 3 Cdo.
If we were overrun by Russians and the entire navy was sunk. Our aircraft shot down and the army mullered, any defence secretary would say it was a resounding victory.
Getting rid of assets is a win win for any government.
Bright future…ordering an “up to ” amount of unspecified agile equipment in an unspecified time.
AA
Victory (for us) obv. AA
So, Defence Secretary Healey already knows what the SDR is going to say?
I thought the review was supposed to be politically neutral and about assessing and defining the required capabilities and the needs of the armed forces in order to carry those out. It seems the SDR already has its answers.
Healey is clearing the decks for the SDR. Is anyone really surprised? Lets be frank, the LPDs were gone a time ago. The future platforms are QEC and MRSS
That’s the problem. MRSS are future platforms and will be more than a decade away. We could do with an interim capability.
Argus being converted to LSS is the interim, the littoral strike ship was part of future commando and the last year that’s all she’s been doing off in Asia and Africa with 4 commando Merlins. Ship to shore aviation is the most important part of amphibious warfare now, the Albions were ridiculously crew hungry, Albion needed an extensive refit and Bulwark had been pushed back and delayed to an unreasonable time scale by the previous Gov, on top of that they offered very little high end capability when compared to our NATO allies similar LPD due to the lack of permanent aviation facilities. They only really existed as a token budget option that are obsolete; being built for yesterday’s doctrine.
We’d get a more rounded and efficient amphibious capability having 4 MRSS built to fill spec all with twin or triple hangars than we will with the mess of 6 budget ships we’ve accumulated over the years. Despite everything we still have a significant amphibious force much greater than Germany, Spain or Italy – just not as great as it could have been.
There is no UK amphibious force as of 2025. Cardigan Bay awaits refit and there are significant problems even manning half the ships in the RFA. UK amphibious capability is significantly less than that of Italy and Spain (which actually both have through-deck amphibious vessels) and Germany has never deployed an amphibious capability.
“Ship-to-shore aviation is the most important part of amphibious warfare now”.
The effectiveness of aerial transport in contested operations is highly situational and matters if you are one of the bods being dropped in there. If you’re positioned in the Landing Craft, the scenario varies significantly compared to deploying forces on a contested beach. Four Merlins on Albion or Bulwark will be vulnerable in such an environment.
Reflecting on my experience during the Al Faw operation, we faced a significant challenge when the U.S. 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit arrived with larger landing craft aimed at delivering heavy reinforcements. We were critically low on firepower at that point. If memory serves, we deployed 45 helicopters, ranging from Chinooks to Merlins, to move 800 troops to the bridgehead and to individual objectives. The inherent risks with helicopter operations are notable—they are susceptible to enemy fire (as they did) can collide in-flight (as they did killing Royal Marines and air crew) and may be grounded due to adverse weather or smoke conditions (as they were). In that engagement, we lost five aircraft to enemy action, accidents, and collisions.
Moreover, helicopters typically lack the capability to transport vehicles that can provide substantial firepower, munitions, or water supply, which is a critical limitation. In contrast, landing craft like the Albion can carry 4 LSU tanks, each fully manned with 35 Royal Marines. Landing Ship Utilities (LSUs) excel in nocturnal operations, showcasing a tactical advantage absent in helicopter deployments. LSUs can facilitate the transport of several thousand troops in highly contested air, a capability helicopters cannot match.
Than Italy? You’re kidding yourself, they’re building 3 new LPDs and have a marine orientated carrier and an entire LHD for their marine force
Argus is worn out and will be retired before MRSS
Modified Point Class?
Like your thinking here but maybe too big? They could do with some defensive armament which should be coming spare now. And an extra Phalanx on the Argus.
Once revered – the RN is a laughing stock! let down by mediocre politicians and Sea Lords. It barely has the capability to sink another ship, it can barely be called blue water and it retains 2 amazingly capable carriers with limited escorts! It’s no wonder service pax are leaving – the RN is a sinking ship!
Thanks mr. Healey, the future of the R.M. is secured but without ships, isn,t ? Conservative or labour, they,re the same, defence is not a priority for both.
What’s the out of service date for Bulwark and Albion?
It was 2031 and 33 iirc, but they won’t tell you that
Had they been used and utilised as originally planned, they would probably have run on into the late 2030’s with life ex refits.
Just as the class was being worked up, the sandbox wars went into overdrive and sadly both ships never really reached their potential.
In the long years of counter insurgency desert warfare, they were viewed as pointless white elephants by many.
Ah yes, the old “capability replaced by Bays” spin.
No. 4 LCU, 4 LCVP Vs 1 LCVP or 1 LCU, plus Mexeflats.
C3 capability vs none.
A knock on which of course will not be highlighted by HMG, what happens to 4 Assault Sqn RM?
Two other RM Craft Sqns were quietly binned
when Ocean went and an LPD went to reserve.
These are the RM elements that operate the assorted landing craft of the LPDs.
I hope 4 remains for the Bays.
As for the RM. Their own LRG(N) plan barely lasted a few years, as it was meant to have a LPD and a Bay.
As always it’s assets cut now for jam tomorrow, which won’t come in the way they vow it will. The Tories did it, Labour are doing it now.
Historically, they have form. They vowed 8 T45 when reduced to 12, ended up with 6, to “speed up” T26!! Sound familiar in Healeys speech yesterday re MRSS?
They also closed RAF Cottesemore which would enable a buy of 22 Chinooks. Never happened, the Tories ended up buying a much reduced number.
Tories vowed so many F35 by 2023, then quietly ignored.
There are dozens of examples.
I give Healey no benefit of the doubt AT ALL.
I hate seeing cuts and despair at the state of forces are in, but, realistically were we likely to carry out an amphibious landing? Right now the concern is right in the heart of Europe.
The Falklands keep being brought up but a landing should not be needed. Fly some more typhoons down and deploy a sub and the Argies couldn’t get close to the islands.
The Royal Navy is not going to carry out an amphibious landing of any consequence anywhere in the world now because there will be no real amphibious capability. The Albion-class ships will be gone (even though Bulwark was just completing a prolonged refit) and there are serious problems even manning the Bay-class. As of 2025, the UK has given up its amphibious capability in all practical terms.
Hi folks hope all is well.
Well what a surprise….not
How on earth can the RM conduct any landing now? So much for the increase in defence to 2.5% when possible. We are informed over the last 24 hours that defence is to save 500 million over 5 years. 100 million each year. This simply indicates a cut each year, where is the intended increase then? This government is just getting worse each week, more lies. The previous government was poor on defence, however, this one is an absolute disaster! Felling absolutely fed up with the way our military is at the moment. Who do they think is going to do the real messy jobs to keep us safe and sound when the UK military is being bashed with constant cuts.
Not quite George, it’s a cut in the bottom line not the top. So in a way, this is positive….
What it does mean though is that we a now missing some significant capabilities that can’t be brought back to life quickly.
The writing, like Albion and Bulwark, had been on the wall.
I believe that Bulwark, like our new Def Sec, is in the dock. Let us see what the SDR brings if it comes in time. It might not. The sale of Argyll seemed to happen so fast it was gone in a blink.
Its the usual “Cut today and pacify the the critics by promising some nice jam in 10 years time”. Of course tomorrow never comes. The RN’s amphibious warfare capabilities were second only to the USN’s 20 years ago, all now just a memory. We can only look enviously at the navies of countries such as Australia, Egypt, South Korea, Italy, …
Isn’t Argus about 87 years old ?
Hehe , build in Italy in 1980 as a merchant ship so 44 years old. I think it flexibility and cost is what makes it last.
The decision to decommission these vessels is being justified through projected savings of £150 million over the next two years and £500 million over five years. However, I find these claims unconvincing. The ships in question have effectively been in reduced operational status for several years, but their removal significantly undermines our littoral operational capability—arguably our primary mission. The loss is not limited to the ships themselves; it also entails a degradation of critical expertise in docking maneuvers, logistics for large-scale amphibious operations, and close support for smaller Special Forces landings. The assertion that South and Argus can fulfill these roles is misleading, as neither possesses the Command and Control capabilities inherent to Bulwark and Albion.
Bulwark and Albion, despite being two decades old, have spent less than six years actively operational during that span. Discussions with former RM colleagues indicate a marked decline in morale within the Corps, with concerns that the removal of our littoral ships foreshadows a larger reduction, potentially leading to downscaling the Royal Marines. Once this downward trajectory gains momentum, it becomes increasingly challenging to rectify. Officers perceive limited prospects for advancement, while seasoned NCOs see their opportunities for varied postings diminish. This trend inevitably impacts recruitment, as potential candidates may seek other career paths.
Regardless of the narrative presented by Healey and Labour, this decision represents a significant reduction in capabilities that we cannot afford, particularly when one considers the current size of the Royal Navy, which comprises fewer than 20 operational vessels. The implications of losing platforms at this scale are both noticeable and concerning.
Believe your assessment may be largely accurate. Quite sobering to realize that a premiere UK capability was comprehsively vanquished, not by an enemy’s force of arms, but instead, was defeated by a nominally allied bureaucrat’s computer and accounting software/spreadsheet.
… comprehensively…🙄
I thought Healey said somewhere that it was costing £9 million a year to keep the two LPDs in reserve, hardly a huge sum. Albion was never likely to sail again under the White Ensign, but I thought that she might have been used as a source of spares for Bulwark. Unfortunately it seems (or so we are being told) that after “nearly” completing her refit in 2023, a subsequent year of neglect (by the previous government of course!) has resulted in a rapid deterioration of Bulwark’s material condition.
The cuts in the Armed forces are non STOP, but after the next S.D.R the situation will be even worst, once Again I repeat, the goal is to scrap tbe Armed forces , the promise to increase the budget to 2,5% G D.P. is only this, promises in vain without any real improvents in equipment or capabilities , it seems Britain is governed by traitors but not only now, long time ago. Excep for the nuckear deterrent and the Carriers (if one of them not stored or sold) Britain is going to be irrelevant in military terms.
Time to revisit the carriers as LPH. Eight Junglies, some Wildcat, 8 F35b with some Crowsnest and Pingers contributing to all round defence. We can actually managed that airgroup now.
Until the British government puts an end to their Net Zero situation and their adoration of foreigners money is only going to get tighter.
Yes, if you include Argus we have 3 LPHs, 2 of which can operate as CVF. If 1/3 in refit any one time we can always field one CV and one LPH. Aim for 2/3 Bays available at any one time. Transfer the mcmv role from the Bays to a new ship so they are exclusively ‘landing ships’.
They already ruled out the carriers as LPH and Argus is done in. Theres no ship to take over MCM from Bays until ones actually built.
I wouldn’t bet on it. Now apparently the spectre of one of the carrier being mothballed ( sold) has once again raised its head.
The barbarians are at the gate and we are sending clear messages to Putin .
Here is a thought. We should disband the military. All three branches. Get the national embarrassment over in one go instead of one farce after another.
Somebody should remind that cr***n Starmer that education, health social security etc can means NOTHING , if you can defend the country!!
We should scrap the deterrent and use the money for proper weapons. Do you in your wildest nightmares imagine the metro gentle human rights barrister Sir Kier would launch a retaliatory strike on Russia? Of course not he would never be the man to kill hundred of millions of Russians even in revenge. So scrap it and buy bullets that might just get used one day against waves of Russian and North Korean cretins.
NO, British CASD is just Not only to defend us, but the rest of European NATO members, except France. So the POTUS will have say, if any threat to ENATO members. We agreed to this 60 years ago!
France has it own nuclear doctrine.
Do you think it time then that European NATO contribute financially to UK and French CASD?
As it stands, nuclear, AUKUS and GCAP are destroying UK conventional capability.