Amid speculation that the Defence Secretary aims to retire both HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark from active service, the Government has claimed “no final decision” has been made on the ship’s futures.
The following exchange occurred today in the House of Commons.
Richard Drax MP (South Dorset, Conservative)
“One decision my Right Honourable friend could make to support the defence of jobs will be to retain HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. Could he reassure the house and the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy or the armed forces, that these two vital ships will be kept in operation and not mothballed?”
James Cartlidge MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (South Suffolk, Conservative)
“Well, I’m grateful to my Right Honourable friend who speaks with great authority with all his time on the defence select committee. What I would say is no final decision has been made on these platforms. I know there’s been a lot of coverage in the press, a lot of chatter, inevitably I know how important they are to our service personnel. But I want to reassure him that we are looking at this in the round. But in terms of jobs, We’re absolutely committed to supporting defence jobs across the piece. Obviously, we have recruitment challenges in terms of our personnel, but we also have to support British industry.”
In the words of her operators, the Royal Navy, the role of the HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion, is to ‘deliver the punch of the Royal Marines ashore by air and by sea, with boats from the landing dock in the belly of the ship and by assault helicopter from the two-spot flight deck’.
The LPDs can carry 256 troops, with their vehicles and combat supplies, and this can be swollen up to 405 troops. The ships act as the afloat command platform for the Royal Navy’s Amphibious Task Force and Landing Force Commanders when embarked.
A former Defence Secretary had warned that withdrawing the Albion class would ‘end British amphibious capability’. Lord Hutton was speaking during a debate on British defence forces in the House of Lords where he said:
“I am absolutely opposed to the United Kingdom acting unilaterally—for example, by announcing the end of our effective amphibious capability. I do not believe that the QE2 class carriers—they are brilliant ships and I am proud to see them serving in the Royal Navy—have the equivalent capability. Neither do the Bay class ships. They are incapable of supporting and mounting large-scale amphibious operations with the fighting vehicles that the Army now has.
Our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan led us, rightly, to conclude that they needed to be better protected: they needed to be stronger, heavier vehicles. We need “Bulwark” and “Albion” to retain that capability. So we must tread pretty carefully. I am all in favour of the defence industry co-operating with government in the efficiency review: I think they should. I am certainly in favour of our thinking carefully about how we use the overseas aid and defence budgets together to secure greater security results.
But it is hard to avoid the obvious conclusion that we will need to spend more now to preserve UK effective capabilities. The painful lesson from history is that spending less on defence does not make us more secure; it does not make those threats go away, it just makes us less able to deal with them.”
Lord West of Spithead, a Former First Sea Lord, has argued that Britain’s security and prosperity requires amphibious capability. Writing in Politics Home, the former naval chief argues for the retention of the vessels that rumours say may be axed. He stated:
“Under fire particularly, it seems, is our invaluable amphibious capability. So what exactly is this amphibious capability? Britain’s security and prosperity requires unimpeded maritime access and transit. As an island nation, the country needs a broadly maritime strategy – one that has sea control at its core, but which enables power and influence to be projected inland.
Indeed, being an island, all operations beyond our shores are expeditionary and demand theatre entry. Strike carriers and amphibious forces are the enablers for this theatre entry capability. The true fighting power of a navy is its ability to ensure entry around the world using carrier air and amphibious forces and to cause sea denial using carrier air and SSNs.
Since 1945 this entry capability has been used over 10 times including Korea, Suez, Kuwait (1962) pre-empting Iraqi planned invasion, Brunei, Falkland Islands, Sierra Leone and the Al Faw. And the Royal Marines have been in almost continuous operations consisting of 30 different campaigns.”
American General Ben Hodges, then commander of the US Army in Europe, had said that he was worried that British forces were already stretched too far. The General was quoted in the Financial Times as saying:
“British forces have global commitments right now. Any reduction in capability means you cannot sustain those commitments. That creates a gap. I don’t know what the magic number is, but I do know that we need the capability that the British army provides, and any reduction in that causes a problem for the alliance as well as for the United States.”
Hodges served as a battalion executive officer with the 101st Airborne before becoming Aide-de-camp to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe in August 1995. He became a battalion commander in the 101st Airborne in 1997. He was Congressional Liaison Officer at the Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison between 1999 and 2000.
After graduating from the National War College in 2001, Hodges served at the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk. Taking command of the 1st Brigade of the 101st Airborne in 2002, Hodges led the brigade in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Not long ago, American Colonel Dan Sullivan said cuts to the Royal Marines and the loss of two amphibious assault ships would change the military relationship between the US and UK.
“My message is to articulate how important having that capability in our partner is. And how damaging I think it would be if our most important coalition partner potentially takes the hits that are projected right now. If you want to be decisive you have to be able to project power ashore at some point.
From a military standpoint as the UK continues to diminish and as the Royal Marines in particular take a hit, I think that our view of what we will be able to do together in the future changes.”
All game play to place this Country into pesco and eu? Like I say, watch Jeff Taylor on youtube and get a different and wider view. Just don’t vote for the scrum established parties.
Thats what Putin wants us to think.
Yes to woke!
Why can’t the Tories just congratulate themselves on successfully cutting defence to the bone and move onto something else?
Why can’t you just stop making political comments. They’re all as bad as one another.. Thirteen years of Tory cuts have just followed on from thirteen years of Labour cuts.
Yes.
14…
Nope. 13 😉so far….?
Pedantic or what. What Year did the Cons win the election? What year is it now?
And give or take a year, have they been an utterly, unmitigated disaster?
Whose being pedantic David? Tories won in 2010. It is now the end of their 13th year. You know when you replied I thought you were joking but apparently you were being serious. WOW!😱. Do stop trying to push Labour. Unlike you I condemn both.
You need to drink my coffee. Labour are pants.
14 but let be blunt we had litterally years of political parties focused on Brexit just trying to frustrate each other rather than getting on with it. I’m a remainer but the political stagnation the politcial class inflicted on the UK over Brexit is unforgivable. You have referendum you respec the reult and deliver what people voted for, its called democracy.
Well. What about when Cameron denies my vote because I worked overseas?
Sorry, but a referendum based on lies and right wing press subversion is not something I will respect. Murdock must have been in Heaven; Johnson got his bullshit moment of glory and Farahe became a talking head for a while.
And now Cameron is back – it’s pantomime.
So your comment echoes Trump where he was robbed of the presidency. Dangerous ground where we don’t except democracy, its the path to authoritrian society. Remain side we lost becuase the arguement to stay in the EU were not framed correctly and the EU didn’t take the threat seriously and cut us the slack we needed.
That is a total mis-attribution of the facts.
2015/6 in an attempt to ‘gerrymander’ the vote, people who had not been resident in the UK for 10 years were denied the vote. Fact.
Why the EU should treat us as speshul is beyond me, could you explain that one?
As to accepting the result, I’ve no choice but be damned sure in 5 years time, I’ll be pushing for rejoin once the catastrophe that was Brexshit is fully revealed; and, I hope our democratic parties will be doing the same.
The difference is when labour cut the UK force were not cut to the bone , the tories have now gone past cutting the military to the bone its now not fit for purpose.
And there don’t seem bothered 😕
Another Labour supporter. How boring in this going to get ?🙃
yeah Geoff – spot on ! Heavens to Betsy -as if a Labour government will magically pour further defence funding when they get back to power. God help us all.
Doubt Labour will supply any more money to defence; then again, I doubt they’ll waste time on cutting inheritance tax either.
My politics are quite center actually I’d prefer labour at this time because the tories have been awful and the corbyn lot have been silenced , but my comment is the fact you can’t ignore it .
The “Corbyn” lot have been silenced. Very, very temporarily. Wait until the month after the election. Look behind you..👀
If you think they are gone you should check out the pro palestinian demonstrations because the same people are organising them
I think you will find that yes the defence budget decreased during labours tenor . When Labour left power the defence budget was a shade under 3% of GDP and the funding for the nuclear deterrent was funded separately,
One of the first act or the incoming Tory/Lib government was to roll funding of the nuclear deterrent into the defence budget with zero increase. It then declined year on year until it hit 2% ( with a lot of interesting accounting) and has kicked up to 2.2%
We are having a conversation about equipment cuts, although you may be right. What I know is that their all crap.
And therein the essential truth of the thing -well said Geoff
Considering the first role of government is defence of the realm , it is surprising how little interest they have in it.
Sad but true.😕
Michael, I think much of that additional 1% (i.e .the 3% you reference) was channelled to Opex in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict.
Given the trend, I do not believe so. Either way the Tory/lib Dem government rolling the Strategic deterrent into the overall defence budget made a substantial dent in the available budget for the conventional armed services.
good point MH, thank you.
Not quite sure why, but my reply to you got caught up in a review- I wasn’t being unpleasant as far as I’m aware!
Just to set the record straight, the cost of the nuclear deterrent (procurement of the system, maintenance of the system, and operation of the platforms that deliver it) has always been in the defence budget- as confirmed by parliamentary questions for the V-bomber fleet, the in the 60s for Polaris, and in the 80s for Trident.
Admittedly, Treasury gave the MOD some extra to help in the 60s, something that hasn’t been repeated since, but it’s always been there. I’m not quite sure where the assertion came from that it isn’t- no-one has ever provided any documents to me to show otherwise.
I tried sharing a link backing up what I say above, but that may be what got me into a review cycle. Suffice to say, if you go on the House of Commons library and search nuclear deterrent funding then you’ll get a report on it.
Either way, successive governments have repeatedly cut the defence budget to the point of collapse, which is a negligent piece of policy that does us and the rest of the world no good. I think we’re both agreed on that point.
On your final point, we do agree
From a brief internet search using George Osborne and Nuclear deterrent kicked up a Guardian article which may go some way to explain the confusion.
I tried posting the link and fell foul of the auto moderation. Just as I suspect you did.
Thanks, sounds like a baked in thing with external links. I should be able to get that on Google from the key words and I’ll check it out.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
If it were a Labour government on an austerity drive I’d be making the same comment, and expect to be in a few years, but that doesn’t let the current government off the hook.
Conservative government is about the small state and market forces will deliver solutions, so their core aim is to cut public expenditure which is the definition of austerity. Which means we have been living in austerity for 13 years and counting. It’s why every public service is failing to deliver compared to before 2010. Conservative voters will think that is a positive as it helps support their mind set that they should all be cut /sold off because private companies will provide them better, which is the fundamental aim and definition of the right wing.
I don’t believe either party will reverse the trend on the military cuts, mainly because the public doesn’t care and so it doesn’t win votes and also the economy is completely on its knees and getting worse, meaning that it can’t be afforded anyway.
I agree completely.
Obviously when Labour cut expenditure they don’t call it austerity, so the scenario is unlikely. My point was simply that the current government has achieved their ideological goal of cutting as far as possible without killing it (at least not killing it during their stay in power.) So they can cash in on whatever ‘win’ that was for and move on.
Getting rid of amphibious capability could sound a lot like axing the marines depending on how the tabloids take it, and that’s not something you want to have to defend in an election year. So far they’ve gotten away with the cuts because no-one cares enough to pay attention but this is risking that at the worst moment.
I have to agree with Geoff, there not indication defence will improve. If Labour was serious about defence why did it vote in JC as leader, they didn’t exactly give those who are serious about defence great poliical choice last election. So they are partially responsible or where we are. They do seem to have upped their game on defence, but as per my score card still not good enough and there’s nothing tangible. Just we’ll spend x, get closer to EU and do a review. So sorry both are as bad as each other.
On these ships, I doubt Tories will outright cut them this close to an election. They might tie them up and then let Labour deal with it.
See my reply to Steve. I agree that both parties are as bad as the other.
I think you will find over the last 50 years Labour smashed defence just as badly
“No final decision has been made” which means they’re going to be disposed of.
The ‘final decision’ will probably be made on the day of, or the day before, Parliament next breaks for Recess, allowing no time for debate in the Chamber.
I can smell mothballs already.
I’m afraid so Graham, mothballed and sold off in the next Defence Review by the looks of it.
👍
It means they are waiting for something big to happen so they sneak out a press release.
O/T but Janes reports that the Germans have withdrawn their objections to UK sale of more Typhoons to SA.
And we can but hope for a few more for the RAF pre Tempest?
You would think a production run for SA ought to lower the price to the UK.
Government? Don’t we mean that merchant banker of a oxygen thief who masquerades as the British Defence secretary who does as he is told by the main Merchant Banker who like his ethnic counterparts in Scotland, London, Ireland are more concerned about how they look on the world stage (with free gizzits) than they are about the people they are meant to represent .
All I see with this lot, is a means to cut MOD spending by getting rid of much stuff as possible, so the money the MOD receives appears to go further.
Interesting how nobody at Whitehall appears to recollect how a previous attempt to cut the British Amphibious arm, turned round and bit them on the bum.
Have a look at BBC iPlayer – Defence Minister’s Questions today… Please have a mild cup of tea ready 😉
How can a island nation with 14 overseas territories get rid of its amphibious assault capabilities are they nuts
Absolutely agree, the UK heavily leaned into power projection, why give up one of its main tools
So at Defence Minister’s questions, Grant Shapps showed that he does not understand his Albion Class from his T23s, 26s and 31s; completely fluffed the question. Maybe he should meet Michelle Scrogham for Labour as they would seem to have a similar level of understanding of the Military.
Earlier on, we had an absolutely ball-ache of ‘we don’t comment…’ Healley(Sp) was equally crap for the Opposition.
I’m not at all interested in the loons of Reform but we need better political parties than this – at least people who understand their briefs.
I find it very interesting how the PM loves to cabby around the Uk and the World on RAF assets . You’d think somebody who likes to use the RAF as a bespoke taxis service, would ensure that he spent more money on people who defend us and not the people who hate us.
You scruffy urchin. Forces personnel are trained to deliver without question; you is getting flogged you ungrateful upstart.
I suppose that after 30 years plus of cuts to the armed forces what we have left can easily be picked off by the bean counters looking to save money to spend on the needy welfare state. Past their sell-by date, thirty-year-old Frigates sailing the Atlantic, no problem, just say we don’t have enough crew and scrap a few. Not enough main battle tanks, no problem as we won’t be fighting in Europe. Not enough fighter aircraft, no problem, buy a few drones to make up the numbers. but not too many. Not enough troops, no problem as it’s all cyber warefare anyway. You couldn’t make it up.
Spot on 👍
The trouble is there are many (even on here) who will argue that that is correct.
Well has it says in the Article I also think this will change the way the USA sees Britain has an partner in Defence .Do our government care a less. 🙄
Well we can kiss the Falklands goodbye, no longer be able to deploy the RM’s to reinforce Norway and may as well just scrap the Marines.
Unless of course they announce that both are just going into extended readiness reserve with a skeleton crew but will be brought back when recruitment allows.
That way they can man the frigates and destroyers.
The latter is of course wishful thinking !
I do have to wonder what happens if they do scrap them and the Amphibious capability.
The Political downside will be massive as the knock on is that we no longer need to build new MRSS as replacements. It blows a hole in the NSBS and scuppers the long term future of large shipbuilding in the UK after the 3 FSS.
I t does rais the question of what will happen to MRSS
I know I am preaching to the converted but to even think about removing this capability given we are a maritime nation is nonsensical. That said we are in an election year and I think we all know that those in power now are unlikely to be so come the result of the same. As for what the new lot do (I won’t be voting for any of the major parties nor the likes of Reform) we shall see as and when that happens. Where are all the billions we seemingly spend (something like $65 billion in 2023) actually going?
Yet another assault on our assault ships.
Gentleman, my feelings are reflected in most of the posts on here but please if you feel as strongly as I do then do what I have already done and write to your MP. I have written to two so far and expressed my strong views on the insanity of any decision to remove our amphibious capability.
A good suggestion and one I will be be undertaking tomorrow.
My particular MP is an ex-Defence Secretary- however he was sacked -but ultimately proven correct so I’m sure he has an axe to grind ..and he’s looking to get ‘nominated’ following recent boundary changes…so lets see if I can get him riled up…
Who?
my moneys on Gavin Williamson
Correct …I emailed him.a few times prior to and after the Huwaii scandal expessing my support for his stance on the matter ,and also during covid…tbh he did reply and I also caught him walking up the street knocking doors and we had a chat…whixh was ‘interesting’ so I think we are best buddies now 🤣
Healey is at least making the right kind of noises. It remains to be seen if it is political point scoring or genuine attempt to rebuild this countries armed forces.
He seems to be a big fan of GBAD judging by a couple of Times articles, as well as NATO. That might mean amphibious ops but also just MCM and the GIUK gap.
Any sensible politician wouldn’t be considering it in the first place. Invaluble ships that should only go OOS when replacements are ready.When UK ground/amphibuous forces are so tiny, it’s only best to retain as many elite & flexible units like the RM. Ideal expeditionary force command & transport ships as well as several other roles..
The sale of the RFA Largs Bay to Australia proved to be a very short sighted and foolish decision. The mooted scrapping of these LPD’s will also prove to be a monumentally stupid and economically, not to mention militarily naive decision. There again, with that thick as mince placemat for a Def. Sec. who is surprised? They’ll probably scrap Wildcat next as there’s too few surface ships to justify them!!
Some very happy RAN folk over here in Aussies though! Would be grand to see the MOD replace Albion/Bulwark with Mistral or Canberra class LPH.
” but we also have to support British industry”. Why is this part of his answer? How is it relevant to whether we can muster enough crew to continue the one active/ one at readiness approach to the LPDs?
Because THAT is the priority for HMGs for decades regards the MoD budget. It does NOT go towards giving the 3 services the personnel and kit they need of the right quality AS WELL as quantity, It goes to HMGs fat cat mates in the MIC, and on the nuclear deterrent.
AUKUS and TEMPEST are two more examples. Yes, important programs. But of the multiple tens upon tens of billions spent or due to be spent on these two, just WHAT will the RN and RAF receive in return?
Another 7 SSN to replace what we already have an x number of Tempest?
Still in numbers insufficient to what the military need and what HMG expect them to do when grandstanding on the world stage.
The MoD budget is to support the UK arms industry. Sooner people get their head round that the better to see why numbers will always be below what is needed.
As a life long naval enthusiastic that served in the RNR for many years, I have sadly become accustomed to expecting the worst for the Royal Navy and rarely been disappointed. The government has lost interest in adequately funding the Royal Navy because complacent voters have. If the RN consisted of just one rowing boat the vast majority wouldn’t mind – it’s 42 years since the Falklands War, 79 years since the end of WW2, and 110 years since the start of WW1.
“We want eight [new battleships] and we won’t wait” was a popular cry in 1908. As the Home Secretary, Winston Churchill, wryly noted: “The Admiralty had demanded six ships; the economists offered four; and we finally compromised on eight.” It’s impossible to imagine anything similar today.
Never mind old chap. I understand that the recent re-furbishment and re-decoration of the Royal Artillery regimental foxhound kennels at Larkhill has gone very well, coming in on time and on budget. At a cost to the taxpayer of only £145,000. It’s so good knowing that the Army has it’s priorities right!
Just looked into the case. Absolutely preposterous, as others have claimed, the charity should be the one paying for it. What is the need for a hunting kennel? I understand maybe household division need extra spending to leave a grand impression when tourists visit, but I doubt a hunting kennel is necessary. I truly wonder how much army expenditure could be cut down from unnecessary expenses to those that matter such as the housing for personnel. The same personnel leaving in droves.
As an island nation which has heavily orientated its armed forces to expeditionary warfare (two big carriers but can’t form a proper armoured division) it seems bizarre to get rid of two vessels that enhance that capability.
This isn’t an ideological or strategic decision. Simply a “Let’s eliminate that line item” decision.
Isn’t this all part of the pre-MRSS rearranging and remodelling of amphibious capabilities? I also thought there was a recently signed agreement with the Dutch on exploring new ships designs to replace the Albions, Argus, Bays etc. Surely that hasn’t been scrapped already!? If they sell anything hopefully they’ll get enough to put towards something newer.
I would rather they commit to something and sign a contract first that they can’t escape before withdrawing the class. Maybe even only withdrawing once the same number of hulls is already in the water but not past trials. At least the Italians get the Navy right in that they find the money regardless for their ships. They don’t dither around and keep reducing the order.
Yes, we signed an agreement of cooperation with the Dutch on a replacement for the Bays, Argus and the Albions. Not a peep since but I think it was listed as one of the unbudgeted programmes that was included on the Defence budget hole for this year, so it is still a thing.
There’s been a lot on the previous Albion article comments about what MRSS and T31 could be, so would recommend reading that
Good Morning from Durban. I am on the same page as everyone here regarding the possible loss of these fine assets, but lurking in the background is an arguably far worse catastrophe for the RN. We are down to just 9 functioning Type 23 frigates. These already old, some past retirement date, and much of their structure heading beyond the point of no return. The earliest we can expect in-service Type 26/31’s is at least four years from now, so the question is-how will the RN be able to fulfill all it’s commitments let alone provide protection for even one Carrier task force over the next 4 years? We now have only 15 Destroyer/Frigate assets available at very best not even allowing for refits/breakdowns or heaven forbid attrition in the event of conflict/war. One has to ask the question-how did we arrive at this point(kind of rhetorical question!)
All of which is soley down to 14 years of Tory mismanagement of the economy and particularly defence. Shrapps will scrap these fine ships and along with it the UK’s amphibious capability for one reason only – to pay for Sunak’s pre-election tax cuts giveaway.
Really? Type 23s all ordered under Tory government. From 1997 to 2010, not a single replacement frigate ordered by New Labour. T45 class cut from 12 planned to 8 to 6 by Labour. Carriers plus F35 ordered by Labour with no additional funding.
The 2010 cuts made, rather clumsily, by the coalition were necessitated by the financial crisis, another Labour failure of Brown’s removal of regulation from the BoE.
The more important question is what,if anything, can be done to improve the situation? Unless the build schedules of T31/T26 can be accelerated, the answer on ship availability is not much, and numbers will fall further. But the RN top brass needs to focus on improving recruitment and retention and stop pretending UK is a global naval power. Cutting senior officer numbers by half ( or more ) and recycling any savings to improve conditions for the rank and file would be at least a sign that the leadership understands the problems.
FAIL. Political context please.
Don’t worry the RFA will plug the gaps as they always do. Navy on the cheap. Although having said that they are also having recruitment and retention issues themselves. Interesting times ahead I feel.
Apparently, according to the Braid at Defence Select cmtte in late November (?) we no longer have commitments, we have taskings.
Ergo, if Ministers do not task the RN, everything is fine; hence the SSN fleet were tied up alongside because they had not been tasked, and that was fine.
Read today’s Telegraph, 9th Jan by a former officer who joined in the 90ts on why people don’t want to join RN and RFA and the state of all fleet assets quite a truthful Frank look at the Navy overall .
If you can’t get people into the Navy then ships are irrelevant. When you think you can get the equivilant of nearly 39k pretax salary from the state and by working a couple of days a week, it has to be asked is it worth joining up. Don’t take my word for it have a look at a web site called entitleto .co.uk
Put in 2 kids, rental of 1000 per month, and 16 hours work at £10 per hour week (£160). I was entilted to £1925 of tax free benefits per month add in my 160 per week tax free income thats £2500 per month. Even if its say 5k out that still a equivilant of 34k pretax salary.
From the RN web site I need to be a Petty Officer to get 41k a year but don’t work 2 days per week, have to be away from family for months and can’t run an ebay side hussle from a T23.
What gets me – ships to be de-commissioned – Marines Amphibious ships look doomed, Bulwark can’t be in that good of condition anyway.
We talk big to Putin, yea we do and cut defences – We can’t afford to help Ukraine anymore – What happen to Global Britain? Best is we have defence agreements with Australia, Japan and others – China must be quaking in their boots laughing.
So in will come Labour and probably spend. maybe cut the nukes. make a mess of country and in three to four years, cut defence again.
So Reform to the rescue – Not really Farage after last election fumes at 1st past the post and wants PM, hence reform party – Cool – Tory’s will never get to power because under PM, there will be a permanent Lib lab Pact.
Private Frazer was right – We-re doomed,We’re doomed.
Send code settings over.
TRUTH is the code