The operational future of HMS Bulwark remains uncertain as the new government continues the previous administration’s approach of keeping the amphibious assault ship in extended readiness, only to be deployed “if required.”
Recent statements from the Ministry of Defence confirm that, despite ongoing regeneration work, the vessel is unlikely to return to regular service unless deemed necessary for defence operations. This mirrors the position under the previous government, which had already shifted expectations away from a clear timeline for the ship’s return to active duty.
In response to a question raised by Andrew Rosindell MP on 14th October 2024, Maria Eagle, Minister of State for Defence, reiterated that “one Landing Platform Dock (LPD) ship has been held in extended readiness since 2010 so that she can be regenerated if required.” She further explained that HMS Albion has now taken HMS Bulwark’s place in extended readiness, allowing HMS Bulwark to undergo regeneration. “Once regenerated, she can be ready to deliver defence outputs if required,” she added.
However, no specific timelines or forecasts for the ships’ availability were provided.
This echoes statements made earlier in the year by James Cartlidge, then Minister of State for Defence under the previous government, who also suggested that HMS Bulwark’s return to active service was conditional. Cartlidge had noted that the ship would be “regenerated from extended readiness and maintained so that she can be ready to deliver defence outputs if required,” implying that the vessel’s operational future would depend on strategic needs rather than a set schedule.
HMS Bulwark had initially been expected to return to regular service in 2023, with clear timelines for its regeneration and maintenance. However, this commitment has shifted over time, with the emphasis now on maintaining the ship’s readiness for deployment only if necessary.
This approach, described by some as “extended readiness under a different name,” has led to uncertainty about the long-term future of the Albion-class assault ships.
While HMS Bulwark and its sister ship HMS Albion remain valuable assets for the Royal Navy, their fluctuating operational status highlights ongoing questions about the UK’s amphibious warfare capabilities and the crewing concerns required to maintain them.
Despite public outcry and media attention when plans to potentially scrap the ships were leaked in the past, both vessels still, on paper, remain in service.
The Ministry of Defence’s current position suggests that HMS Bulwark, although not being immediately returned to the fleet, will remain available for deployment if defence requirements call for it. However, with no firm commitment to reintegrate the ship into regular service, its future remains as uncertain as it was under the previous government.
Am i right in thinking this is all smoke and mirrors and that at the end of ‘regeneration’ they’ll both be in extended readiness?
Bulwark will at least not be part stripped like Albion, but yes, no crew for either.
Two articles in Navy Lookout raise other questions. With the PFI contract for equipment transport with AWSR apparently expiring in 2025, and if HMG has considered the possible USMC “toe in the water” interest in an Australian Stern Landing Vessel system. Is a potential for a reduction in the size of landing ship, and increase in numbers, a realistic option?
That concept is broadly address by MRSS, no?
Yes. You would hope so.
Those medium landing vessels don’t really suit us, they don’t have the legs to go anywhere.
They’ll suit fine for backing up defence of Europe…..
With a couple thousand marines? Less than pointless
Surely a major issue here is crewing? If multiple smaller vessels require a greater number of crew collectively, then under current conditions this seems like an unlikely option. Even though I would suggest that as the accuracy of missiles and drones accessible even to minor potential adversaries increases, it makes multiple smaller ships a far more resilient Concept.
PFI would cost at least double and leave us with massive debts as it has in every instance
Neither will set sail under the White Ensign ever again.
2 Carriers. No LLD.
Or 1 Carrier, 1 LPD, as was the 2010 plan until Cameron said in 2015 that both Carriers would be crewed and operational.
What would we choose? The Admiralty seems to have chosen the former based on the lack of personnel.
Ah Call me Daves short sightedness strikes again…
How can the Navy practice landings without both these ships. It’s such a waste of taxpayer money not to use them. Instead they rot away in Devonport. Another cut back, just how many ships do we have that are operational, most being upgrade or disposed off. It’s a very sad day. Back in the 1970s we had more ships displayed on Navy Days (what fun) than we have in total today.
It’s almost as though all that Russian & Chinese UK investment has bought decades of cuts running down UK armed forces to what Russia/China would like to have. It certainly doesn’t sem to me to be in our interests.
HMGov will probably sell one to Argentina and withdraw the FI guard ship before this parliament ends.
That is harsh.
Albion and Bulwark are toast…
Gunbuster would have an interesting take on this – how long would a crew need to qualify on just one of the platforms; he has written the past about certain crew needing courses before going on board.
So, IMHO, this is Govt spin and they should be challenged on it.
I am severe danger of concussion from these utter cretins. If there is a better option on the table great but can we please for once not have a capability gap.
Or do they really think the bad guys will give them 5 to 10 years notice on hostilities, because I have news for those in power “ they already did”
Better yet, give them to the Ukraine forces, they could make use for a wee holiday in Crimea. The Turks will bitch about it going through the Dardanelles but as it won’t be coming back out, who cares?
They’re no use to Ukraine with escorts, just big targets in the black sea.
Why. The rn don’t have sufficient escorts for them.
All they need to do is get there. Quietly load them with troops and equipment in Europe away from Russian eyes Into the Black Sea straight to Crimea.
You seriously think the Russians won’t notice this “sneaking” to crimea and bomb it to hell?
Fortune favours the bold!!
It is so left field the Russians would never expect it although a modified ro ro ferry might have a better chance,
Given that the Ukraine has been systematically stripping Crimea of radar coverage and some suitable camouflage to fool satellite And the F16 flying cover,
The ship could stay close to the coast under Ukraine missile coverage. Backed up by a massive drone and missile strike .
I think it can be done.
It is clear that amphibious mission is a pipe dream as long as Argentinians are as they are.
In broad terms the amphibious capability for a armed forces of this size should be special forces.
One of the biggest concerns about UK armed forces is the lack of resilience of which deployable reserves are a key element. So, in theory, having the LSDs at readiness could be seen as part of that resilience .The problem is that the Albions have a specific limited function and are unsuitable for other roles. If we had a reserve of destroyers/ frigates, having extra at readiness would be seen as a positive benefit.
Further complicating the situation is the ongoing change of amphibious operations to smaller scale raiding. If this is the future, the Albions will have no role. But until MRSS are available, they are all we have to conduct amphibious operations even on the smaller scale now planned.
So keeping them probably makes sense.
I think the Dutch idea of OPV-landing ships have legs.
Not really, too expensive and complex for an OPV, not large or capable enough for substantial amphibious ops
The last statement I read about MRSS is that they were to be ” large non complex warships” which explains why the joint review with the Netherlands was ended. But the question remains- if the future of amphibious operations is to be smaller scale raiding, do we need large vessels? It’s all a bit confusing.
The point is you don’t need substantial amphibious ops.
Even small ops need air support, half a dozen landing craft, ships can’t be that small.
LPDs
Looking like day’s could be number sadly ,not good for our Royal Marines . Would be wise to keep them in Reserve but do any HMGs do anything wise . 🙄
Never seen anything like this in my lifetime it’s going beyond gross incompetence now to actual malicious design to weaken our Armed Forces on purpose.
Here we go again, Albion, Bulwark and the Royal Marines. Can’t our government understand that in some ways the two LPDs with the RM are possibly our most flexible combat arm.
Not only that but with some reworking of both LPDs thay could become very useful command and control ships. Possibly a Ballistic Missile Defence Radar Ship. Good motherships for minesweeper operations with USVs. Also good motherships for ROV/UUV operations especially if a moonpool could be built into the well deck. No one would know what is being launched or carried internally.
I understand the against arguements, age, size etc, then again the US Navy has had the Blue Ridge class since 196x and still going strong. The size of the LPDs with their well deck/ vehicle deck could be used for workshops launch areas for UUVs/ROVs. The flight deck for RUAVs.
So in many ways these ships could be used for several dedicated tasks or as a multi role command mothership.
However, as I wrote at the start the Royal Marines with their LPDs are the most flexible of our combat arms, able to go ashore with their equipment anywhere in the world without the need to have a dock. I would prefer if the RM could get one LHD and two LPDs so they could act as a independent force escorted with an AAW destroyer and two ASW frigates. That though in current situation is wishful thinking.
Yep,smoke,mirrors,flim flam.. .Both ships mothballed indefinitely…Then too expensive and outdated to refit so sold/scrapped by 2030/2035.
The Albions are essential assets for the UK. We’re a island nation with both overseas territories & allies we need to be able to rapidly ship troops & equipment to whenever necessary. We either keep them or build replacements once they’re too old/far gone.
Things are turning very nasty globally & likely will get far worse. The time for cutting vital capabilities is way past. We should be regenerating, restoring & expanding, not cutting our own throats.
A ship and her company need to continually exercise to be at peak performance when required. This is not achieved by the vessel sitting in port doing nothing with no company to operate her.
Meanwhile, a merchant vessel is being used to deliver army assets ashore in an exercise. Is this amphibious assault on the cheap without the need for assault ships and the expertise of the R.Ms?
A total rethink is needed. The LSD concept is just too dangerous with the seismic shift in drone and missile warfare. Even the US is changing tactics. Ideally we could use tilt rotors from a distance but due to the cost, something which can operate our considerable number of Chinooks would be the answer followed by ro ro and mexeflote when safe enough to do so.
Surely if there’s one thing we’ve learnt from Russia’s War on Ukraine the days of ships like Albion are well and truly over. They are ‘not’ a valuable asset, just a first-class target.
Then how do you plan to say, retake thr falklands
FFS, hasn’t our defence capability already been skewed enough by the bloody Falklands? Firstly garrison them properly so we don’t lose them in the first place, secondly be prepared to use strike capabilities against the Argentinian mainland, thirdly if they ever managed to forcibly reoccupy the islands again, the San Carlos LPD scenario is out of date. We were damned lucky to get away with it last time, they won’t be so stupid next time. As said Ukraine shows the days of LPDs stooging around are over.
And yet LPDs continue to be built by other nations. You still have ti move the troops and equipment, there’s very few ways to do that other than a floating metal box, delivery is a different discussion
I agree.
If you say you won’t do anything that is vulnerable you never do anything in warfare!
All attacks carry risk.
Key is to plan them to mitigate that risk as much as possible.
And yet LPDs continue to be built by other nations. You still have ti move the troops and equipment, there’s very few ways to do that other than a floating metal box, delivery systems is a different discussion
AHH! the wise politicians think one day they can just call on the ship and it be there within three days fully stored and fuelled ……….