Assault ship HMS Bulwark was to replace her sister ship this year, however, it has now been revealed that the vessel will be “maintained so that she can be ready to deliver defence outputs if required“.

The information came to light in a statement from James Cartlidge, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, when asked about the future of the vessel.

In response to a question posed by Shadow Secretary of State for Defence John Healey MP, Cartlidge said:

“I can confirm HMS BULWARK will be regenerated from extended readiness and maintained so that she can be ready to deliver defence outputs if required.”

However, the Ministry of Defence had previously promised “HMS Bulwark will remain in dock to complete phase 2 ahead of her final phase 3 recertification package, before returning to fleet in the summer of 2023.”

This commitment outlined a clear timeline and specific steps for the maintenance and upgrade of HMS Bulwark, with the anticipation of the ship returning to operational service.

The latest statement from James Cartlidge, however, suggests a very different approach to HMS Bulwark’s operational status. By stating that HMS Bulwark will be “regenerated from extended readiness and maintained so that she can be ready to deliver defence outputs if required,” it introduces a conditional element to the ship’s return to service. This phrase implies that the ship’s future deployment is not as straightforward or guaranteed as previously communicated.

Instead of a firm commitment to reintegrate HMS Bulwark into the fleet by a specific date, the emphasis is now on maintaining the vessel in a state of readiness, contingent upon the need for its deployment.

An anonymous source within the Royal Navy told me:

“What we’re actually seeing with HMS Bulwark is extended readiness, just under a different name. Despite previous announcements about returning to service, I think most people knew that was unlikely. The reality is that the ship is unlikely to be deployed for any significant operations. The notion of being ready ‘if required’ subtly but unmistakably points to this being the case.”

Both HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark made headlines when leaked plans suggested the one or both of the ships would be axed but after a period of outrage from within defence, the media and the public, it was announced that both vessels would be kept, although one would have assumed, operational.

In short, HMS Bulwark’s return to sea is contingent upon an apparent necessity, indicating that the vessel will be maintained in port in a state of readiness without a definitive plan for regular deployment.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

291 COMMENTS

        • It is nice political get out to blame the previous party or peg it to the economy but it ignores the realities of an increasing dangerous world.
          Even if the budget was increase suddenly to north of 3% they could not spend it. Everything about the modern military is long lead. Whether it is fighter, ships , tanks sub or men. What I hope to see is a un treasury led honest defence review with a legally enshrined road map of how defence spending will increase , year on year to meet the defence spending target. That way the procurement planners know what they have to play with and when.
          Get some decent contract and project management people into the MoD procurement to end this blank cheque approach and ibteoduce some hard headed reality. The Ajax project being a good example. The company promised the earth and when it fells short , the public purse footed the bill.
          This must not happen again.

          • Project management that connects everybody involved is the key. It should also control the purse and keep contractors in line – otherwise, the Treasury runs the show.

          • As a project manager who has managed multi million pound projects I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that most MoD contracts that go badly wrong have two things in common.
            1) Scope Creep
            2) underestimating what can be done.

      • Yep but its on Labour to, they failled to stand up a credible opposition. Its not like my vote for Jeremy would have been better for the armed forces. Cause and effect my friend, we have Tories because Labour failed to be credible.

        Ironically its now he other way around we’ll now have Labour for the same reason, not because we actually want them but becuase the other party is so bad.

      • Hello Jim, sorry for not answering, It’s just that you might think I’m insulting you or Trolling and i don’t want to hurt your feelings, so i’ll not answer…. hope that’s ok Hun ?

          • Hmm, lets think about that….. “they” both post prolifically, they both like to talk down to others, they both post stuff that’s factually incorrect and they both fail to provide answers when asked to explain, preferring to call others Trolls …. and they both report others to admin when they can’t …

            I’m still waiting to see Jim’s explanation of his comments that China has no Raw Materials and that if a war with USA started, 600 million Chinese would die of starvation in one year….. 🤔

          • There is no question that the current government has left both the public services and the economy is completely mess and appear to be operating a scorch earth policy.

            Not sure any government could fix things in a single parliament, it will likely take a decade or more to even start turning the ship. In the meantime I suspect a lot more bad news is to come as that under investment is only starting to show its impact (hospital falling down on a doctor and patient last week because the hospital was past its expected useful life for example).

            A lot of aging military kit will need to be cut with no replacement, as large percentage of the kit is outdated and past the date it was meant to be replaced but no firm orders placed for it, just lots of projects and tenders.

            Properly upgrading and replacing stuff saves a lot of money over having to patch stuff up when it breaks through lack of maintance.

            So yes lots more cuts to come.

          • I watched Rachel Reeves deliver the Mais lecture last evening. I’m not an economist but she took the UK economy since the 1970s, and the efforts of Chancellors of both parties since that time apart like a badly built Lego and put it back together as it ought to be! That’s not saying there won’t be defence cuts under Labour but I have to say I would put her in No11 in a heartbeat. Her mastery of the subject was total.

          • She from a knowledge and vision perspective is light years ahead of all the recent options, but what I’m less sure on is if she is a political operator. Getting anything done will require a huge amount of playing the game, against a very Conservative biased media and no doubt plenty of PMs in her own party that will be looking to get ahead on her expense. We will see, assuming labour wins.

      • Jim, assuming Moonstone is right, and there is a crew shortage where would be the least damaging area which could be mothballed. T45, T26, Carriers or this ship which has little purpose in peacetime.

        It is dead easy to blame the politicians (of all flavours) however less young people see the military as a career nowadays and unless you are suggesting conscription I’m not sure what can be done about it. I severely doubt a simple pay bump is going to get a flood of recruits.

        Ministers are just (generally) people like us making difficult decisions on the recommendation of the military. We need to find ways of delivering our defence requirements for less (far less) money. We need to get creative. Blame the politicians all you want but at least offer sensible alternatives.

          • Apart from deterrence, and patrols to ensure the country is not attacked, and surveillance to ensure we know what’s going on in danger spots, military equipment enables counter piracy and counter smuggling, humanitarian aid and disaster relief, help in remote search and rescue, evacuation of civilians from other people’s warzones, medical help during epidemics (not just Covid, also think back to Argus and Ebola), colourful tattoos and parades, diplomacy and flag-flying, mine-clearance and bomb disposal, VIP transport, trade deal signing venues, providing photexes for us to marvel at on this site, Antarctic resupply, military advisors and trainers (although I realise these are more the people than the equipment and I can’t be bothered to type any more anyway).

            And don’t call me Shirley.

          • Deterrence? Either Nuclear or Conventional. How many wars have never happened because a potential opponent looked at your hardware, soldiers, training etc. and thought better of it.

            You need a big enough military to deter but not too big that you bankrupt yourself.

        • It seems to me that significant mileage could be gotten from at least a few pieces of COTS “kit”. This would have to be carefully chosen and employed since it is not made to milspec, but: the big advantage would be that since–for example–Airbus or Boeing or some Big Commercial Shipyard has already paid for their own R&D, there would in theory be major savings for MOD.

          Again this is just thinking out loud, but consider the US Navy’s “afloat forward base” vessels, which are moderately modified Alaska-class oil tankers, or the USAF’s proposal to convert 747s into cruise missile aerial arsenal ships. Surely something like these concepts, along with various types of drone platforms, could help the UK add depth to its force structure if nothing else.

      • yes Jim -straight off the shoulders of Labour proceeding 13 years of rolling cuts. In particular, Blair’s “defence review of 2004” were deep

    • I suspect so. As with all armed forces lack of personnel, this is the consequence of Tony Blair’s and subsequent Governments of all colours, social engineering of the UK with mass immigration and no sense of championing the indigenous culture and history. Many young people are in the UK who would not fight for the country, have a more globalist view, and either do not share UK values or chose to ignore world events and the harm done to others by dictators.

      • …On a small island with limited resources and a post-war stable population of around 52-million, the UK is now probably officially more like 70-million. However, sewage records and the vast number of undocumented people make it probably closer to 85-million. Yet our armed forces struggle to recruit and the UK has a standing army of only around 70,000.

        • Perhaps, with most folks living longer and our pensions being held from us so that we have to work till later in life the armed forces should consider increasing the maximum age that people can enlist? Get people up to 45 or even 50?

          • You go try a life at sea in your late 40’s early 50’s and come back to us. For most it is simply not doable OK. I talk from experience. the Military is for the young not pensioners and todays youth struggle as they simply are not made of the same stuff of past generations.

          • The youth have never been good enough, going all the way back to 5000BC. They’ll still die for you and your freedom when the time comes.

          • I don’t doubt that for most it wouldn’t be suitable but, with generally improved health to a later age these days, I would guess that many now in their 40s are as healthy as those in their 30’s forty years ago. Even if only a small percentage are fit and healthy enough it would still be a decent number out of a population of nearly 70 million to help solve the navy’s staffing problem. The RFA seems to not have the same age restrictions as the navy proper. I agree that it would not at all be good for pensioners but heck, what is the age for pension these days anyway?

          • That is the thing – increasingly people in their 50’s and 60’s are as fit, if not fitter, than 30 year olds.

            It is mostly about not accepting physical decline and doing simple things like weights.

            The statistical muscle mass loss is more to do with increasingly sedentary behaviour than anything else.

            A lot of the statistical susceptibility to other afflictions and diseases is more to do with the follow on from the loss of muscle mass than the other way round.

          • The majority of 18-21 year olds are “invincible”. No mortgage. Little in the way of outgoings, no kids or family.
            Get older and your outlook becomes (though not literally…well maybe! ) more sober.
            Commitments increase, less disposable income, you quieten down, you look after yourself.
            I was in my 40s and regularly beating 18-25 year olds in bleep tests. I ran, did weights, didn’t smoke, watched what I ate and didn’t drink as much as I did as a lad. I sailed through every medical I took.

            I am 60 this year and will have been a strawberry for 9 years .I am still fit, I run, do weights, watch what I eat. I probably drink more now than I did in the RN but then again I dont have to be up in the middle of the night to do Containment /Fire Party or OOD duties!

          • Hi GB, I just hit 60 on 29 February (leap year kid). I still manage 50ish kms a week running, knees starting to go now though.

          • Keeping yourself fit and healthy is a state of mind and it does help.

            As opposed to the state of my mind the day after the ridiculous amount I drank at a brunch last weekend during a 12 hou sesh. 2 days to recover… And doing it again tomorrow. I love the holy month!

          • Good for you Mate, at 60 you’ve earned the right to a few 12 hour sessions. Enjoy the journey!

          • You’ve a career in being prize A cockwomble with some of your posts; now to get it monetized, can you get a job on GB News?

          • It all depends on the role you do within the services. For example as a clerk in the RAF, RN and Army a person over the age of 45 can easily do the work required. However, as Leg Infantry, if they are carrying injuries and are not keeping on top of their fitness, they will struggle.

            Doing 10 to 25km marches with full kit does take a strain on the body. When you hit 45, you become more susceptible to injuries, especially the knees, hips and lower back. The mind might be willing, but the body is screaming at you!

          • That is rubbish. Who was on the T45 and T23 loosing missiles off? It wasn’t all over 40s.
            It was lads and lasses born after 2000.
            Oh and I was at sea in my mid to late 40s on an LPD. Its very doable.

          • My Dad served throughout the second world war from the age of 35 to 41 from a Periwinkle class corvettes at the beginning to a Bangor class minesweeper towards the end, I’m glad that my life has been a lot easier.

        • Let’s just blame it on the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the cold War then the rise of Social media with its Influencers deeming serving your Country is hateful too those oppressed blah ,blah ,blah .And of course bloody short sighted. Governments who think if they close their eyes problems will go away and other services that the taxpayer funds are more important than National security All MPs should have gone to Spec Savers

          • I don’t so much blame it on the fall of the Berlin Wall..I blame it on our political classes ( and publics) slavish following of the paradigm promoted by “the end of history and last man” never was there such a completely bollox idea..that the west had won history and every nation would follow the west into happy liberal democracy….maybe it was forgivable for our political classes and voting public to believe that crap up until about 2010…but by 2010 we had entered a new multi polar world in which the west had enemies and dicking around with 2% GDP spend at that point was reckless…by 2014-15 it was unforgivable and profoundly incompetent. Defence spending should have been graduating up from 2010 it should have hit 3% after the events of 2014-15 and by 2020-2022 ( china made it clear it will go to war and Ukraine happened) it should have hit 4%… we lived with 5-6% for most of the Cold War against what was frankly a far more stable and less potent enemy than we face now ( the china, Russia, Iran mix is a far greater global threat than the USSR was).

          • That’s why all those blind politicians should have gone to Spec savers because they can’t see anything that is happening outside of the Westminster bubble

          • I blame it on politicians who espouse the virtues of the free market… until it comes to giving competitive pay and benefits to the armed forces and public sector workers.

            Recruitment would be easier if it weren’t so hard to sell.

          • Yes the only thing they don’t seem to accept market forces being paramount in is the crappy difficult end of the public sector workforce…I was just checking the workforce figures in my system…I knew I have a massive hole in my qualified clinical workforce for urgent and emergency care but I now also have a massive hole in my healthcare assistant workforce for urgent and emergency care….( like around 50% vacancies) because who wants to work shifts in ED see death, pain and risking violent when Tesco pays better and had better terms and conditions as well as no night shifts and dead children….no brainier….hard jobs ( and i consider hard jobs to be those that can break you, forces, front line healthcare workers/emergency care workers, police, fire etc) need very competitive pay or else you will not recruit.

          • Are your staff delivering the service they should despite being 50% gapped? (Ignore the harm from overwork and stress on the existing staff)

            If the answer is yes then why do you need those extra jobs that have been gapped for months or years?

            Thats how its done in the military.
            Cut the gaps out so reducing the manpower requirement for recruiting. Ignore the overwork everyone else has because of “Can Do” attitudes.
            It sucks and I was one of the people who ended up triple hatted for a time because of gaps and got no recompense for the additional work or duties outside of my remit. As I was at the top of the tree they couldn’t even offer a promotion for more pay!

          • It sort of depends on what you consider delivery gun…in my view most/ all nhs systems are no longer delivering safe adequate emergency and urgent care….but because the service will always be delivered, it difficult for people to really get what that means.like the forces our emergency care services never stop and never say no…we just slowly buckle and bend getting worse and worse…but we never ever say we are sorry we cannot do that or we are closed.

            But what changes is outcomes and in emergency care that’s measured in how many hours of suffering we accept, how many deaths that could have been avoided we accept, how many less than optimal health outcomes we accept and what we are willing to loss around staff sickness and loss of staff.

            The most gross examples:( as in high level and unsophisticated )

            1)the famous four hour target to treatment and discharge…this is important for majors patients as speed of getting them to definitive care or a bed is important….a older person on a trolley will get pressure sores and may suffer catastrophic harm if they are left on a trolley for many hours ( it’s the main driver for the four hour target)….now 10 years ago our target was 95% and we pretty much achieved that all or most of the time….most systems are now looking at 60-75% achievement at best…so the government has changed the target to 75%..,the services are still operating but because they are so slow they are shit and harming people.

            2) Triage times…now you should be triaging within 15 mins…many systems are now luckly to hit 25mins and some urgent care services have not even got the staff to triage…why is this important, if you walk in with a life threatening condition you need to generally be treated within 20 mins ( many conditions have treatments that either cannot be delivered after a timeframe or loss effectiveness).

            3) ambulance wait times…I don’t believe the systems near me have actually achieved the response targets since covid infact national average responce times should be 7 mins for cat 1 we are now up to 10min average basically making resuscitation an almost pointless exercise ( in 2018 we were at a 6min 54 second average). Cat 2 calls ( cardiac chest pain and other life threatening conditions) should have a response time of 18 mins but we are bouncing between 3 hours responce time and 45 mins…this last year the target was changed from 20miles to 30 mins……

            my epiphany came one night shift..when I had filled my department, then got the porters to find every trolley in the hospital and fill that…and still had a que of ambulances that I could not offload because I had no trollies left anywhere….I had paramedics shouting at me because they had cat 1s stacking up…and I had a department full of casualties all who would be waiting at least 2-3 hours for treatment to start…I can still look down that department and see them all…feel the anger of the paramedics and the “what do we do look on my staffs face”…the on call director had helpfully told me to “piss off and sort my own problem out”..I never looked at my job the same after that…( I was at a low ebb anyway and had done 7 nights and 77 hours at that point, with only sleeping and eating breaks, and someone had already almost successfully tried to murder a member of staff…I also remember that week for the 2 stabbing a night I had)..so yes essentially we are burning our staff and harming our patients…but we still put the foot forward.

          • “essentially we are burning our staff and harming our patients…but we still put the foot forward.”

            Sounds very familiar. Its become the norm and it shouldn’t have.

          • I see the MPs have voted themselves a 5.5% pay rise, so the most junior MP is now on £91k!

        • Probably unintended but you forgot the seven destroyers and nine frigates decommissioned plus the six SSN’s or was it seven? Sold a few modern frigates of course, cancelled half the T45’s, scrapped Invincible, but hey…who’s counting? You would think there was an election coming up. I have a simpler answer. Don’t expect anything for defence from any politician of any party and you’ll not be disappointed. 😥

          • It was 6, we had 13 S & T boats and planned for 8 T2s (which was about right TBH), that got delayed and developed into the Astutes. They cut number 8 before ordering any, and a few years later tried to cancel the contract for number 7 as the unit costs had increased.
            That’s when the consequences of their intended action was spelled out to HMG in Industrial, Monetary, Political and Strategic terms by industry and so they went away to save the money elsewhere.

            Oh and FYI they didn’t cut half the T45 order. 12 were never ordered or in the programme of record. The much quoted number of 12 was an aspirational number based on a 1 for 1 replacement for the T42s.
            Once the ships were specd out it became immediately obvious that 12 was completely unaffordable, and to be fair the capabliites of the T45 were so far above those of the T42s it wasn’t really necessary.

            They cancelled no 7 and 8 and BAe invoked the contractual penalty terms, hence 5 River 2 OPV at a fat mark up.

          • I know the 12 weren’t ordered but the plan in 2000 was for twelve, reduced to eight in 2004 and then to six, all under a Labour government.

          • Yes I know, but the decision to run the fleet down was taken and just keep the T class, to be replaced with the Astutes. The great tragedy was the decision to gap design & production for 7 years post Vanguards. I watched a lot of friends and colleagues go during that period and it was a scary time. I was lucky as I was up in the far North so out of sight.
            But in fairness the PWR1 was pretty long in the tooth by the 00’s and there were quite a few incidents.
            Just wish they had authorised Astute no 8, but they didn’t.

          • Well seeing as they aren’t personal and that’s what’s was being discussed no I didn’t include them🤦🏼‍♂️.
            I also didn’t include the RAF, British Army, cuts to nurses training or the reduction of bus conductors on the route 34b

          • Not a Tiff then!

            4 weeks basic in Fisgard
            10 months Fisgard
            12 Months collingwood
            1 year sea time as apprentice
            18-24 months Collingwood.

            6 months short time promoted to PO then your first Sea Draft as a POWEA.

          • Dear Geoff.

            I have tried everything. I have no expectations of anyone and I think all politicians are lying b******s. Yet I am still continually disappointed. No matter how low my opinion of politicians falls, they still manage to drop below it. We pay their wages as they play ethical limbo, and my jaw drops watching how they always worm their way below even the lowest bar.

            How can I stop being disappointed in our democratic representatives and somehow feeling that as an elector it’s all my fault?

            Yours in angst,

            Jon of Hendon

          • I know what you mean. Political sense is like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. There is nowhere to go. The Tories march on towards oblivion, Labour will promise everything that cannot be afforded and the others don’t matter. Just for good measure my boundary has changed.

          • Excellent commentary Geoff, you beat me to it it! May I add the RAF lost 4 of it 20 front line squadrons as well during the 2004 defence review.

            Post the GFC, a couple of Tornados sqns were quietly disbanded by Labour before 2010. People have short memoires.

          • my comment stands DB. I don’t disagree with you. My point is that both Tory and Labour have badly cut UK defence. They are all cut from a similar cloth.

          • They certainly do. They say a week is a long time in politics and we get years! 🙃

          • Who recommended implemented the defence white paper entitled Delivering Security in a Changing World which proposed cutting three Type 23 frigates, three Type 42 destroyers, four nuclear submarines, six minehunters and reducing the planned purchase of Type 45 destroyers from twelve to eight?

            West, the worst 1SL ever and that’s saying something, who is now a labour lord.
            See the gem from him below

            “We must continue the shift in emphasis away from measuring strength in terms of hull numbers and towards the delivery of military effects… I am confident that these changes will leave the Navy better organised and equipped to face the challenges of the future.”

            That worked out well then!

          • It worked out well for him. He spent years convincing his masters they he should have a peerage, presumably for allowing the fleet to disappear. Talks a lot, says nothing.

          • “but hey…who’s counting?”

            Russia, China, Iran, N Korea etc plus our allies who note our dwindling resources to assist them if ever needed. We’ve had over 40 years of cuts, cuts & more cuts(in national, economic & governmental services, plus across industry) where the motto “do more with less” has been followed too long. We inevetably get less with less, but the rich have prospered relatively exponentially while most of us & the state has withered.

            Meanwhile we are drastically weak militarily.

          • Yes, sorry, I got that Geoff. It just led me to point out generally that while HMG lives in the delusional world that it’s fine to minimise forces beyond all reason, our enemies see our weakness as a great opportunity.

        • Not exactly true.

          They cut a lot of already existing billets that where or had been gapped long term. The shortages in people where already there hence the gaps.

          If nobody has been in that job for 5 years, why is it still on the manpower plot…so they get rid of it and cut the manpower requirement without cutting manpower.

      • You make a lot of assumptions and stereotypes which are not rooted in fact but provide the comfort of a simple explanation to a complex problem. Each generation has always complained about the ‘youth of today’, look at the 1970s shown’Warship’ which did same thing about that are now termed boomers.

        Also, in terms of mass immigration versus ‘indigenous people’ it’s worth remembering the millions of imperial and commonwealth subjects who served the crown in two world wars. Also there isn’t one homogenous British culture, the Gaelic speaking parts of the Western Isles probably on paper don’t have much in common with Essex and comes from a very different linguistic, ethnic, cultural and religious tradition from even other parts of Scotland.

  2. Hi folks hope all is well.
    I suppose we have to wait to use her when faced with an actual war to protect our interests. The cost of keeping in a state of readiness must be very expensive!
    Why not have her deployed to support other exercises if appropriate? It simply does not make any sense. If the issue is s a shortage of crews, then how would that change in the event of an emergency?
    As usual over to you experts on this subject.
    Cheers
    George

    • Well Reserves would be called and up probably conscription applied in a war. But certainly wouldn’t be as simple as getting people aboard and sailing it away, crew will need weeks if not more of training.

      • I’m more optimistic, look at what we did in a few months when the Falklands kicked off. Yes there were failings but these were due to other key decisions like lack of AEW not getting ships converted or ready to sail.

        Mind you the country had more spirit back then.

          • There were a lot of people in blue suits, a lot of dockyard workers…..oh and safety standards were close to non existent…..you could never, rightly, take the ‘82 approach to fleet deployment again.

          • The question is at what point parliament needs to pass a war powers act suspending H&S and resonating crown immunity etc

            Mind you the COVID acts got passed…

          • Indeed, I suspect that a world war ( conflict with china and or Russia) would see a sudden raft of powers..that would probably include anything goes ( it would be an existential fight for survival) and there would be very similar hits to civil liberties…as anyone who has studied chinas strategies for the next war knows that terror acts, sabotage and insurrection would be part of its standard political warfare toolkit

        • We had a 60+ escort fleet back then as well a massive manning c.f. today. But it was proposed cuts that actually triggered the war by planning virtually withdrawing from the S Atlantic. If the Argies had waited a year they might have succeeded. Defence sec John Nott resigned exactly because his cuts resulted in invasion.

      • Six weeks basic training things such as marching,drill physical training even washing ironing cleaning small arms instilling discipline Do’ and Don’t respecting authority after basic you gone on to your trade / branch training on completion pass out so time spent in training could amount too over 6months Hugo

    • In an emergency you cancel leave, training and draft in extra crew, even call up reserves. Nothing wrong with this approach for some ships but not our only operational LPD.

      • It’s disappointing though at this point I’m not sure the Marines even have the resources to justify and LPD, landing craft raids are just not an option, there’s no funding for new raiding craft, they’re not going to get a platform which can perform an airborne assualt. I guess crewing priorities are elsewhere.

        • That wouldn’t fix anything. Also which 2 frigates are we talking about because Argyll is the only one being retired due to lack of crew, the rest were beyond refit.

          And while yes the survey ships were retired early, drones are capable of replacing their role.

      • Don’t know if they still do this but my oppo only did a 9 year and when he left he had too do 3 years as a reservist didn’t do any Seatime would just turn up at Nelson with his kit checked over and given a cheque for 100 quid

      • Reserves back fill shore drafts releasing shore side personnel to ships. They also back fill sea jobs in less critical billets. They can also fill Op billets for specialist jobs. A good example is Doctors, Nurses.
        Thats what happened in 82.
        It also happened in Herrick when the RN/RM had battle groups, helos, Hospitals and JF Harrier to man up. Nearly 7000 RN /RM and Army Green hatted Commando forces where in country whilst the RN and RM where still doing stuff at sea. We had reserves onboard back filling billets to release people for the higher commitment that was Herrick

    • The RN will do as they have always done, manage to get the numbers from ashore and quickly put her to sea. All her basic systems will be maintained so they work. Even when the Fleet was many times larger we only ever operated one and the olds ones where is a far worse state than these units. Needs a different operation method to employ them better. Lets see if the replacements will ever hit the waves? The RN is not the service it once was sadley. 🙁

    • The carriers will be the last thing to get scrapped, this is down to recruitment issues seeing as they’re not actually scrapping the LPDs.

      • Spot on. The LPDs will be sacrificed for the carriers. Extended range Chinook order confirmed a few days ago. Join the dots. I await interest the number and design of the joint LSS with the Dutch.

        • Going to be interesting finding the design of the MRSS. The Dutch seem to want a smaller, more fighty “raiding” style vessel (it’s replacing two of their larger OPVs) but we want to replace the Albions, Argus and the Bays, all large, lightly armed ships predicated on getting troops ashore in quantity/ having a giant flight deck. I find that Ellida variants lean more towards our requirements but the best solution would be one of Damen’s new Enforcers, with the budget deciding which one from 130m up to 180m.

          • I note Mark Ayscough’s post; that the Dutch have just ordered half a dozen small (9000ton) Enforcers for their requirement for a kind of hybrid OPV / LPD. I don’t know how the RN is thinking. Seems to me that River 2 and the Bays are viewed as successful: economical, useful, flexible, available, global presence. Gives a whole new meaning to ‘patrol frigate’. What’s not to like? Does that mean you should combine the roles / designs….a crane, a flight deck, a well deck and a small gun? Dunno…above my pay grade.

          • Just to clarify on the Dutch news that came out 7 March (article was called; Dutch Navy To Replace OPV And LPD With A Single Class Of Ships), cannot post links so if you google the above it will come up.
            It isn’t clear what the makeup of those 6 purchases will be and there is quite a big gap in the cost depending on what they go with, the article quotes the cost at between 1 billion (for 6x the smallest type) and 2.5 billion euros (for 6x the largest type), but in my opinion it makes more sense to have a higher number of smaller ships that can perform a variety of roles as opposed to big hulking ships that cost a fortune to run and need to double the crew, on top of costing more to procure.

          • Thanks for the link. It looks as though the Dutch are looking to build on the Holland class (110m 3750 tons ) by adding a crane and a well deck. A Bay class is 176m and I think we will want to at least 4x Chinook capable flight decks as replacements for the LPDs and LSDs. That said I can definitely see the atraction of ordering a mixed fleet: ‘Holland ‘ sized hybrid OPV/LPDs could be the batch 3 River class?

          • You’re misinterpreting the article.
            We knew at least a year ago that the Dutch would replace their LPDs and the Holland’s; they’ve signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the RN to investigate the requirements for a joint ship. It isn’t at all certain (though very likely) that enforcer will be chosen, and no decision has been made.
            It’s not a matter of comparing RN with RNLN, we are in the early stages of a joint programme.

          • I agree. A 10k ton ship with a well deck and two LCUs is fine. Even if it could only carry 300 troops with their vehicles and kit, they would be very useful and offer great flexibility.

            Thing is though, 4 ships like this would need more crew than 2 Albion sized ones which carry more stuff. So the Treasuary as usual gets the deciding vote.

          • Depends on the size of the Enforcer being bought but if you go for maximum crew efficiency you could go for the 11500 t to replace Albion/Bulwark and the 3 Bay class at 95 crew each for a total of 475 crew (compared to the current 830 crew between the 2 Albions and 3 Bays), albeit with a significant reduction in tonnage (87,600 -> 57,500) and carry capacity, which is why I suggested we go up to 8 and scrap the 3 oldest river class giving us about the same total tonnage Though someone suggested I was sick for saying that, and it is a hard sell to the treasury if the ships are ONLY used as LPDs and not the multipurpose ship it is being marketed as.

            I know I am using very basic logic and spreadsheet math but I can only hope someone at the MoD is willing to take a punt on massively improving the crew efficiency and improving our capabilities/flexibility at the same in what is a gutted navy. It not being a UK design makes the lobbying power weaker unfortunately.

            What is crazy to me is the River class despite being smaller and less capable cost north of 100 million a unit and are a one trick pony compared to the Enforcer.

        • Rumours making their way around media circles say that one of the carriers (PoW) will be sold by 2028 to the RAN at a knock down price, if there is no uptick in defence spending as the cash-strapped RN will not be able afford to run her any longing.

          Not sure if this is real or rubbish, or some Admiral’s way of getting attention to force more money to the RN but I know there are people in the know on this forum – is there any truth to this??

          I for one, sure as hell hope not!

          • I would think that would be a strategic political decision involving the US plans for containing Chinese expansionisn. Frankly it makes more sense than Indo Pacific tours every 2 years! It would ease the RN budget and facilitate reorientation to the Atlantic, which is where the US say the RN should focus.
            More T26 frigates and MRSS become affordable.

          • Two was the right decision at the time. Of course it would be nice to keep both now if we can afford it, but times have changed. The UK is poorer and the US fleet is stretched. The US concerns about China are going to influence the size and structure of the RN. Maybe they see ‘forward basing’ of QEC in Darwin with USMC F-35B as an attractive idea.

          • Depends on how much the Australians are willing to pay to be honest, it would be a hard sell to the public/navy if it was 50% the build cost or something insulting. The ship is not exactly that old and you could argue we soldiered through the growing pains for them. I agree with the concept of bolstering allies strategically.

            I would be more supportive of such a move if A) We actually make the remaining carrier STOBAR and eventually CATOBAR (and buy some Gripens or something efficient so we don’t blow our budget flying F35Bs!), and B) we commit to building a new carrier pre-2040, perhaps when orders dry up on the frigate/destroyer replacements. In an ideal world we will have carriers with fairly different out of service dates and we can rotate between old-spare and new-active cycles and maintain shipbuilding capacity. Imagine the QE in 2045, half way through her lifespan being replaced as the main carrier by a new ship.

          • At the inception of QE there was a suggestion that we might go in with France, who were also trying to avoid the ongoing cost of 2 carriers. In the event I think BAEs influence and business interest in the the F-35 program won out over what might turn out to be where we could end up. If the French could overcome their obsession with nuclear propulsion, take the QE design and add cats and traps, we could then add cats and traps to QE and fly F-35C with the ability to cross deck Rafale. All of these things require trust and the ability to compromise and co-operate. So no chance then.

          • Cooperation with the French is a near impossibility as their defence industry is highly protected with government partial ownership. Joint projects with France are doomed from the start. I was reading a Japanese forum focused on defence that was responding to the recent interview with The Guardian from the Airbus CEO that the GCAP and FCAS fighter programs should merge and the Japanese comments were quite scathing of the French which as a Brit I cannot help but get a giggle out of. I imagine the Airbus CEO comments stem from FCAS negotiations going about as well as you would expect.

            If the QE gets STOBAR/CATOBAR I would prefer we go with either American, Swedish or maybe even Korean 4.5 gen jets rather than the Rafale. The Koreans are usually pretty good with joint production (with BAE perhaps) if the Polish sales are any measure, but Sweden I imagine would work just as well. The Rafale would probably be made in France.

            Another funny thing I saw reading about FCAS is that the French were upset with Belgium joining because they bought F-35 over Rafale and wanted to spite Belgium. With that kind of attitude, I wonder how long FCAS will take to disintegrate.

          • Agree we should fly US if QE ever goes CATOBAR. At some point the French are going to have to work with others on a trusting peer to peer basis. I’m not holding my breath. Having lost our empire I’d say we are doing better at controlling our ego; Ms Truss and Mr Johnson being notable exceptions of course. I see Macron has added to right to abortion to the French constitution in order to show the US where it is going wrong. That was just before he advanced the proposal to put French boots on the ground in Ukraine. He is surely a true leader in the Napoleonic mould. The French might take a lesson from the late great Terry Wogan…..’is it me?’
            As they say, the bigger they come, the harder they fall 🙂

          • If it hadn’t been for a certain Gen Galtiari We would of had no Landing ships The remaining 2 fearless and Intrepid would have gone by the end of 82 with Mr knotts swipe of the pen

          • Or, maybe some co-share UK, AUS, agreement, even with US? If sold/shared to/with the RAN maybe an Aus F35B purchase might follow? But hope it stays with the RN and the UK is not disempowering itself uncessarily.

  5. So even with QE in dock and a large number of sailors potentially available it’s not even worth a single deployment to brush the rust off? I’m afraid the next time we see Albion and Bulwark at sea again, they will be on the way to the breakers.

    • The issue there would be that carrier sailors don’t have the expertees needed to operate the amphibious element of the ship. And it’s certainly not worth retraining and reassigning them for a shakedown cruise.

      • Isn’t it worth retraining crew for a shakedown? If it’s that difficult, there can be no “if required”. Without trained crews or the will/ability to train them within weeks, the LPDs are already dead. They will slowly rot to the point where it will take longer to get them back up to speed than their out of service dates. Look at Daring — laid up for lack of crew for two or three years and now it’s taking stupid amounts of time to get it seaworthy and regenerated. 2017 to probably 2025. Longer than Vanguard. And longer than the period between now and Bulwark’s out of service date.

        If there are aspects of LPD operation that carrier crews can’t handle and can’t be trained for on the voyage, it’s better than nothing. At least sailors that were expecting to deploy this year can get a breath of sea air.

        • The amphibious and well dock capabilities are what i was talking about specifically. Not all sailors are trained to operate those

          • Who operates the docking down of the ship? I assumed it was navy personnel. Anyway, I don’t think they’ll reassign the Qnlz crew, the ship won’t be in dock for a huge amount of time

          • Docking down as when coming alongside that’s a Seaman’s job looking after the ship then that’s departmental Stoker’s (L &M ) machinery spaces Vent and Lighting Greenies look after All electrical components of Comms Weapon systems Ops room equipment internal and external communication Ops department muntions ,Seamanship small arms things such as painting Seaman just do part of ship work not really alot whilst alongside where as all other departments do alot of maintenance work on machinery and electrical equipment haven’t mentioned Catering ,stores and stewards

          • RM do the LCU/LCVP. Mooring is done by JRs from all depts manning up the walkways for boat ops.
            STOM is RM manned.

      • You need to be SQEP.
        LPDs have diesel Gensets and HV propulsion. Completely different command system fit compared to the Carriers.

        OK, A Chef is a Chef. A dabber is a dabber. They don’t change.
        Without qualified watchkeepers and system maintainers you are not going anywhere. That sort of training takes months to achieve.

  6. Even if she is kept in a state of readiness it means absolutely nothing. If she is to be kept along side, with out actually been put to sea or at least moved periodically they won’t know what problems will happen once she is active, been protected in a harbour is not the same as sea duty. Look at both aircraft carriers both have had problems leaks imagine an old ship like this. QE prop shaft problem was known before she was even launched that it was not running true but was is tolerances. They should operate both Albion class ships like the Vanguard subs one on one in maintenance. Before some smart **** says the Vanguards operate one at sea, one in full readiness, one in training, one in maintenance but we only got two Albion class it should be one at sea, one in readiness/maintenance/training but its swop over every 6 months ?. I know it’s so logical but we are talking government here absolutely no logic what so ever.

    • Now don’t be stupid – That would mean them actually spending money and time and effort to actually have it certifiably ready instead of just saying it is ready.
      Think of all that opportunity for failure if they did it that way….

      • I honestly think they’ve forgot who’s money it is The TAXPAYER they’ll waste it on vanity projects but forget the essentials the nations security, national health service, border security.

    • When the props were fitted they used a laser guide to check the trueness that when they found out they don’t run 100% true, the props are normally fitted before launch or they have a tendency to let in water through the big holes if not fitted. Oh look Prince of Wales are having a prop issue as well.

  7. The Dutch Navy recently announced they were buying 6 of the latest of the “Enforcer” family from Damen, which are half the size (9000t), and the UK apparently are signed up to a cooperation agreement in this area with the Netherlands, so there is a good chance the RN will also buy this class of ships when the purse strings are loosened. Hopefully that is sooner rather than later, or the old ships will be retired without replacement or go through expensive refits if decisions are delayed.

    The thing that is interesting with the latest Enforcer is that it is also replacing OPVs (Dutch navy has some larger long range OPVs) with the Dutch Navy, as I imagine that the smaller tonnage makes them cheaper to run so you don’t need to have them sitting in dry-dock when they aren’t required like we do now. Seems like a pretty smart idea, though obviously without more hulls of the ship overall capacity will be reduced. Maybe retiring the (3) older River class OPVs and the 2 Albions and 3 Bay class into 8 Enforcers would be the best solution, but it sounds expensive (well north of 1 billion, perhaps nearer to 2). Having 8 more ships that can also perform patrol duties will take the burden off other escort ships and probably will have fewer crew requirements as the Albion class needs a fairly large crew.

    • Just to clarify, I doubt the Enforcer itself will be chasing drug smugglers and guarding fisheries etc in the North sea but it can launch smaller patrol craft as a sort of mothership.

        • A bit of speculation on my part but looking at the designs for the Enforcer there are several patrol boats in what looks like lifeboat positions so I imagine you could park the Enforcer somewhere and have a number of smaller craft do the OPV work in a given locale. The river class had success with a big drug bust earlier this year but I think having faster patrol boats is more suited to this role. Plus a big ship will allow for rapid response to humanitarian issues in a given region.

          The Enforcer comes in 6 different sizes, the largest being about the size of the Albion and the smallest being the 9000 figure I mentioned. The RN could of course replace the Albion with the largest Enforcer and the Bay with a medium sized one and the River batch 1 with the smallest class, but I personally think having them all small would resolve some of the crewing issues and resolve the “big ship stuck in drydock because it’s too expensive to do normal duties” issue the RN seems to have with the Albion.

        • I think instead they are replacing OPVs with LPDs. The Holland’s do a lot of pootling around the Carribbean, with the occasional launch of a RIB to chase drug smugglers. An LPD would be able to carry more humanitarian aid, more helicopters and more RIBs all round so not such a stretch.

    • Have they announced they’ll actually be buying Enforcer? I thought we signed an MoI with the netherlands to sort out they key requirements for our MRSS and LPX so that we could build the same ship? It would be a bit presumptuous for them to go over our heads and decide on a design already. We’re definitely not using it to replace the Rivers; the Holland class have a hangar, mission bay, and 76mm at nearly 110m long.
      I think one of the 150-160m enforcers would be ideal, with 2 heli spots, full hangar and proper CIWS fitout (57 and two 40s to match T31, maybe NS110). Would give us proper well docks, 4 16m side davits if you want patrol or minehunting/LCVP, and nearly 300 EMF.

      • I posted this above, but there was an article 2 weeks ago quoting a Dutch MoD statement to the Dutch House of Representatives;

        Article name: Dutch Navy To Replace OPV And LPD With A Single Class Of Ships

        Then again, it is just a “plan” and stops shy of the actual order, being that there is still speculation of the cost and what types are under order.

        Replacing the River class is a long shot and pure speculation, but the article mentioned the Dutch were doing so to their own OPVs and the batch 1 of the River class were built around the period of the Bay/Albion, so it lines up and would be a bold decision unworthy of the current government.

        • I’ve read that article. Enforcer is the favourite; it’s a joint programme with the RN and there’s no other real competitor beside BMT’s ELLIDA, which is much more of a bay class replacement than a true LPD; lots of emphasis on lanes and dock ramps rather than shore connectors.
          As I said, the rivers and Holland class aren’t in the same league as OPVs. It’s much more than the difference between the Holland’s and T31.

    • What they are used for; they can be used as an LPD if there is a conflict, but as the Bay class has proven they can be used for force projection on the cheap, being that they are very cheap to run and do not need 325 crew like the Albion does. As for the cost, it is not clear exactly but probably north of 150m, cheaper than a Type 31 to be sure.

      What the Enforcer is, is a theoretical replacement for all active Bay and Albion class ships (5 ships) that are slated to go out of service in the early 2030s. The RN/MOD can go with 5 smaller ships (from 9k+) or 5 ships that meet roughly the size of existing Bay/Albion (16k/20k), or an alternative pitch is to buy more of the smaller type and use them for different roles. The main pitch of the new Enforcer is that it is marketed as multi-role so it could take on more roles, meaning it could replace other ships if that is a play the MoD wants to make. At the very least the 3 bay class should be replaced by the Enforcer, as all 3 are in active service and being used, this would be a capability lost to us if we let them go out of service without a replacement in the 2030s.

  8. So we were lied to. Quelle Surprise.
    I said a month ago that despite the statement made in the HoC that neither would ever set sail under the White Ensign again.

    They wont even bother assigning a crew.

  9. You have to give the Tories credit they have since 2010 dismantled the 2nd most capable and best trained amphibious force on the planet. They can add it to their exceptional record of degrading the country’s overall defence capability and every public service.
    There are some that say this country has now got an enemy within well I can see it quite clearly.
    Whilst I will never vote Labour or have done you can be sure the Tories are going to be annihilated at the next election and they need to be. Being out of touch doesn’t do it justice.

    • Ok, with the now changed strategic situation in the Nordic countries with Sweden and Finland now in NATO does the primary need for LPDs to fight their way into Norway to reinforce the Northern Flank with RM and their equipment still remain?

      I would say no. It doesn’t,

      With the primary reason gone why are LPDs needed?

      Thats the argument that will be put forward and to be honest it’s hard to counter it with…”well… because…”

      And I served on Bulwark for 3 years and did plenty of exercises in the North. What we did then isn’t needed now. The whole strategic map changed with Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

      • First of all i do enjoy reading your comments on here and respect the knowledge you have from your experience serving.
        I can’t argue about the changing situation on the northern flank but a few counter arguments if I may.
        The most recent SDSR made no mention of fundamentally removing the country’s amphibious capability so why so shortly afterwards has this decision been made. That Sweden and Finland were joining at the time was then known about.
        Despite the change in circumstances Albion was in very high demand in the new wider theatre. The Swedes and Finns in particular worked with her less than a year ago.
        The LPDs also have a wider role for the U.K. which has now been removed and another reason why the US must despair with us and our continuous cutting of capabilities.
        The list of nations with amphibious capabilities now more effective than ours is a national embarrassment.
        Anyway the real reason they are laid up is not because of the changing strategic environment or new amphibious tactics but there aren’t enough matelots and bootnecks to man her.
        That is a because of the clowns we have running the country who do not want to increase defence spending despite a major war raging in Europe.
        I have a son in RM and a cousin who is a long serving WO1 and the feedback is many are heading for the exit door. Something is very wrong and I would respect and understand changes to our military capabilities that happen over time and are explained.
        However, none of what has recently happened to the U.K. military falls into that category and this reduction is just another example that demonstrates that defence of the realm is not safe in the hands of the current Government. Probably less said about the opposition the better but a change is required.
        Personally, I think Ben Wallace got out to avoid having to undertake another round of stealth cuts after fighting hard to get more money and ultimately failing.
        The back story is public spending is under real pressure but from my background of 35 + years working for the largest provider of construction and infrastructure projects to the Government I can reassure you that the waste is still phenomenal and is actually increasing.
        All the best

  11. Aren’t there replacements being discussed for Bulwark and Albion? I can remember reading an article recently where the UK and, I believe, the Dutch, are exploring a joint project.

    • Might want to come back here in 15 years time mate…. ( bugger, I just answered a question, hope you don’t get upset with me ! I’d hate to be thought of as a troll …. It appears I have upset a few Karens here lately ) 😂

    • Yes it’s the MRSS, there are suppose to be 6 to replace the Bays, Albion’s and Argus. It’s one of the vulnerabilities in the current LPD fleet is that the LPD concept is due to be removed in the early 2030’s so the argument at the treasury and MOD is why not just get rid of it now and keep the Bays and Argus for strategic raiding style missions.

  14. Way off topic but…. There is a Hunter flying around the Thetford area with a Mk2 Hawk and a Typhoon…. just thought I’d mention it for anyone interested.

    • It all sounds so plausable in Political Speak but it pretty well guarantees they will never sail again, except behind a tug.
      Both these ships use IEP propulsion and if it isn’t used it deterioiates and when we are talking HV equipment in a salty environment then its bloody dangerous when you try to reactivate it.

      • They discovered just that bringing Albion back to life in 2009/10. My opposite number on there had a nightmare with WE Kit.
        They learned a lot and later hibernations had a lot less issues with bringing kit back up.

        However STOROBs to keep bespoke LPD specific kit going is a bigger issue.

  16. Just so very sad to have to read someone put fancy words instead of sorry folks we just can’t crew our ships… saw a documentary last year were a sailor said I didn’t really join to go to war, well that finished me

  17. So the hacking at the military while we are facing a major threat from Russia, from Iran and shortly i am convinced china, Pakistan and quite possibly Putin’s best pal innl India. Can’t afford it is bullshit. We should be spending at least 20percent of GDP to put ourselves back to operational readiness with conscription and opening armed forces to recruitment from any age, after all driving doesn’t require fitness, operating a drone doesn’t require fitness, lots of jobs don’t need ultra fit 20 year olds, even though many 50 and 60 year olds are probably fitter than today’s 20 year old coach potatoes.

    For money cut the crap, the thousands of diversity managers in schools (earning more than the teachers), councils etc. cut the pay of khans cronies, they don’t need over 100k a year for being unpopular, senior civil servants have also had inflation busting increases which unjustified the MPs own ridiculous increases for the damage they do instead of the help they should be providing.

    This country is lost and will belong to Russia unless we empty ourselves of these wasters (both parties) and take control as we should have done decades ago

    • Hello Dave, good to see you back again… hope the keyboard is fixed now….. Looking forward to tonight’s interactions here, it always seems to attract a fair few Newbies when you turn up…. 🙄

      • Thanks, hopefully less keyboard trouble but we will see. Guess there will be those that like to believe we are safe and secure in our sandcastle with the ruskies chucking bombs around

    • Will belong to the Russians? ROFLMAO. We need to survive the death throes of the recently restored but unsustainable Russian Empire. Fifty years from now Russia will have transformed or it will have become a scaled-up Hoxha-age Albania.

      Sorry, Frank, but there are days where only feeding the troll will do.

      • Well sorry pal i am neither a troll nor wrong.we are spending a lot less on defence than the Russians are on their offence. We know from experience the USA is not a reliable partner, never had been, never will be. Whatever NATO commitments have been made the USA will not stand by them, they didn’t stand by Ukraine, Afghanistan, us at the Falklands, us at Suez, hell all they did in ww2 was make a shed of profit from the sidelines staying out of it until Japan and Germany declared war, if the Russians and Chinese don’t declare war on them they will not get involved.
        For a death throw this is one hell of an invasion destroying a while country just so it doesn’t export oil, lashing out at other states as non states and Nazis just as they did with Ukraine, denying they will attack as they did with Ukraine. Don’t forget they also have Georgia l, Belarus and others. India eats out of their hand (while taking our money and military secrets and work – I know, members of the team working on tornado were Chinese and work was sent out to India), Iran and North Korea are supporting them, and don’t scoff at north Korea they are already making more shells than the USA and Europe combined, one tiny tinpot dictatorship. I tell you what, I have a tenner here if you have a piece of shit, God knows what I will do with your shit but the bet is simple, we will have been successfully invaded by Russia before the end of this decade.

        • Physically invaded by Russia? We aren’t talking Salisbury tourist style invasion, or London property market invasion? Real, genuine invasion?

          If you win I won’t pay you in shit, I’ll pay you in Roubles. In my cannon there’s no huge difference.

          • Yes I do, I mean what have we got to defend ourselves?an army outnumbered by this year’s in flux of illegals (probably anyway, not that we will ever know the true number of illegals, government admits to detecting 52000)

        • Sorry, I should respond to the meat of your post, not just the hot sauce.

          “USA is not a reliable partner”

          I’m in two minds over this. The political classes are not reliable partners, true, but the rest of America, including their military are. Our relationship with the US and the rest of the five eyes countries are a central pillar of NATO. It’s a gem that we shouldn’t devalue.

          “Don’t forget they also have Georgia, Belarus and others. India eats out of their hand…”

          Belarus, yes, Kazakhstan, possibly. Georgia?? They hold Georgia to ransom. Not the same thing. India? Are you nuts? India are already disengaging. the India-Russia military link is gone.

          • Sadly.its politicians that control the armed forces so how ever much they might ant to help they won’t be allowed. India disengaging? Phoning Putin to congratulate him is not.disengaging. and Georgia, well that’s a mess getting closer to Russia and further from us

          • These are politicians and their phone calls are irrelevant. By the money ye shall know them. India is not ordering Russian arms any more. Most of today’s Russian “arms exports” to India consists of India paying licencing fees for the indigenous production of Russian designs. Next generation, that too shall pass.

          • What part is wrong or stupid? The UK has an army of what 60k the known illegals from last year are more or less equal, there are many who made it we didn’t find

        • I find it very unlikely that North Korea is producing more shells then the USA and Europe combined. There is also a big question mark over the quality of what they produce.

          • It’s difficult to be sure for lack of numbers, European production of shells is supposed to reach 2 million shells per year next year, that’s quite a hike, the eu promised a million and delivered 300k. The USA manages 300k per year and is ramping to 800k a year. So between us sub 3 million a year after 3 years ramp up. South Korea reckons the north is already churning out 2 million a year and building capacity. So I might be wrong next year, might, but I am right 2 years into a war for our very existence

          • there is also a report that says half of the 1.5 million shells sent to Russia by North Korea don’t work and the rest often require inspection as they were produced in the 1970s & 1980’s.

          • In truth i can’t imagine the ruskies examining anything and they seem to have a fair number that don’t actually blow up, that said if a shell of that size lands on your head you probably dont care if it goes bang or not, you will have a headache. Don’t put 2020s western care and health and safety thoughts on to the ruskies, they frankly don’t care and by not caring they will have won the war before we have sorted out which risk assessment forms we have to fill in

      • I think I’m done here now……. way too many posters get things confused …. Even DM seems to get me totally wrong….. Farouk seems to be a God despite all the Racist comments…. Jim creates Trolls from his single brain cell and the Multiple account holders seem to fool virtually every other poster here….. UKDJ deletes perfectly normal posts and the whole site seems to be inhabited by folk with no actual forces related experience….. just huge Ego’s and rather rubbish Knowledge……. Looking at you Jim for one….😶

  18. The main role of the LPDs is beach landings. A senior RM officer recently expressed doubt that an opposed beach assault could be undertaken against modern defences. Add to that the plan for the RM to return to a raiding role and it’s questionable how useful the LPDs will be. If the future is insertion by air, (Chinooks?), the Albions don’t really have enough flight deck capacity to facilitate this fully with only 2 landing spots.

    • It’s all about which Country these landings are to be made though…. a couple of Albions might make a difference in Sierra Leone if called upon … (again). but it’s hard to see how they could make any impact on say, Russia or China…. or for that matter, any other country to be brutally honest.

          • We mixed in a bit, historically (where didn’t we?), but the French, Spanish and Americans mixed in more. if you want to trace back which colonial power messed the place up the most, we can truthfully say, it wasn’t us!

      • It is more about a strategic insertion rather than repeating D-Day?

        As we have seen in Ukraine getting bogged down in trench warfare is a bad thing. Having the Albions + Bays + ?? allows for manoeuvre warfare using the maratime domain.

        • Where in NATO are we going to do that now? The Northern Flank bit has changed with Sweden and Finland being in NATO.

          • Isn’t that the point?

            These give additional options that can surprise others at theatre and strategic levels?

          • LPDs primary task and its reason for its existence was delivering RM for Northern Flank reinforcement
            The primary task which was essential for NATO is gone
            Secondary, nice to have tasks will be sacrificed because the primary isn’t needed. Nice to haves are a bonus but not essential.

          • Frankly a few fishing boats would do it given how little we have, our entire royal navy wouldn’t make the force we sent last time. The level of defence is now so low we might as well scrap it all, even our nuclear deterrent is a feeble laughing stock more likely to destroy the launching platform than anything more than a hundred yards away

        • They were rather designed with that in mind as they were dreamed up by people with ‘82 experience.

          They are crackingly good platforms.

          • Yes, needed and good but then this government seems to be preparing us for our fate under the Russian regime they have already given in to, not I expect labour have more of a clue, we need to vote for a new party, any new party

      • Yep. Interesting that in the recent Nordic Response exercise, RM units went ashore from Mounts Bay. Albions not involved.

    • Glad someone has pointed out the key problem with the LPDs; the flight deck is not big enough. Remember all the discussion a while back about Mistral LHDs. Given where we are the sensible thing to do is to replace them with a Bay Class / Enforcer type design which has more (Chinook sized) landing spots.

      • LPD has 2 chinook spots. A Bay has one.

        LPD vs LPH is a balance between how much heavy ish kit you can land. Ocean had a very small vehicle deck and nothing bigger than a Coyote could be moved. Sustaining that force would be an issue without road tanker support which Ocean couldnt do.

        LPDs could do it using the LCUs to move kit ashore. However with raiding being the new thing, its a simple an in and out tasking with the need for sustaining ashore no longer an issue.
        You go in. Mallet everything in sight and leave.
        An LHD of some description would be the ideal replacement but it doesnt need to look like a Mistral. A you say a bigger flight decked Bay type would do but more than 2 Chinook spots is always going to be a struggle . They take up a lot of space on the deck.

        • LPD Chinook landing spots duly noted; also the profile of raiding versus amphibious led settlement. Mistral was just the first LHD that came to mind; I’m sure there would be more suitable designs. That said in entering into the joint design program with the Netherlands it does look like the RN has pretty much decided that we will be going for ships on the Enforcer/ Bay model rather than a thru’ deck LPH or LHD. Notwithstanding any rumours to the contrary, to me that would imply we retain both carriers; notionally one for sea control / strike and the other is the Ocean replacement.

  19. So after all the spin its now all but official – we will never see Albion or Bulwark at sea again under the white ensign. Also the end of LRG(N) and a black day for the RM’s.

    I presume that Bulwark will be retained in reserve and nominally available to be recommissioned for a prolonged period – perhaps until 2030? Clearly Albion will not now get the final refit that was planned. The question now is whether she will be sold immediately whilst buyers (India?) will stay pay a reasonable amount, or be kept as a source of spare parts for Bulwark.

    • Ermmm, Who knows really…. I see a lot about Labour on here….. about how they will be in power again soon….. God forbid ! ….. Who knows just how bad defence will be in their tenure….. NHS Sucks the life blood out of the UK’s Taxation…. Defence even given current and UTERLY APPARENT THREATS.. seems to be ignored by all but Reform….. Vote Labour at your own disgression..

    • I can’t see anyone buying these ships except for scrap value. Unlike most Amphibious ships these ones have IEP propulsion. And it doesn’t react well to not being used, HV Electric Motors and Switch gear all sat in a salty environment.
      I seem to remember some hair raising srories about when Albion was being recommisioned after extended stand by.

      • The ships aren’t that old and were built to military standards for a hard working 30-year service life. Since completion they have only been lightly used, although sticking them in to reserve for many years does allow undetected problems to emerge and fester. However, a potential buyer should easily get another 20 years of service out them.

        The main problem will be the C3I systems, a lot will be removed before any sale and what left’s will be very dated. But India (the most eager potential buyer of the ships) may not regard that as a problem.

  20. This what happens when you think the peace dividend can continue for ever . This is what happens when you cut defence spending every year for the last 35 years .
    It doesn’t matter who wins the next election unless either party is ready to actually invest in a sustainable increase in the defence budget going forward and not cook the books so as to appear to meeting the Nato aspirations of 2% of GDP then things will only get worse.

    I am not sure if everyone realises how monumentally Gordon Brown and Gideon Osborne cooked the books in reference to the defence budget , from changing the accounting methods from RoC to RoH saved 67 billion from 99 to 2022, stuffed pension spending into the defence budget, shoved MI5, MI6 and GCHQ budgets into the MoD from the Home Office and Foreign Office, nuclear deterrent from contingency funding to the defence budget.
    Our actual spending on defence is 1.6% of GDP if you use the same method up until 1998 and has been below 2% for the last 20 years .

    By 2030 we will not have a army,navy or airforce .

    • This is the goal , better to spend money paying social salaries to inmigrants and teaching lgtb and woke doctrine to children.

      • Yep 8 year old not old enough too serve their country but old enough too change their Gender what a sick world we live in

  21. One of the Carriers Will follow sooner than later.
    Russia, China and Argentina are Happy with tbe Scrap of British armed forces.
    Welcome to British ministry of defence alias ministry of cuts.

  22. Britain is no longer a trusted partner for the United States or tbevrest of NATO since its forces and weapons are being scrapped without limit and this does not look like it will end.

        • People do not realize how big the RN was in as recent as 2004 (Iraq war 2), with 31 Destroyers/Frigates, and that was down from 37 in 1997, 51 in 1990 (Iraq war 1). Obviously, our credibility is low with such a drastic reduction. You can blame the peace dividend, but that is done!

          You can say we have no money, but we had enough to blow on Covid and GDP/Debt ratio is the second lowest in the G7 after Germany, we need to invest and defence goes right back into the economy.

          • We didn’t blow the money we put it on the national credit card. It was one of those (hopefully) once in a lifetime events (like wars) which means expenditure to survive. We can’t borrow much more without the creditors wondering if we might not be able to pay the money back. Expanding the economy is a good move and brings in more funds but going bankrupt is not a good move. Remember currently Russia is unlikely to be giving us a problem as it can’t handle Ukraine. So we have a little time.

        • 20 years ago we had no aircraft carriers or Type 45s. Type 26 or 31 was just a dream.

          Yes we had a load of older stuff which was next to useless compared to say a T45.

          True we lost the Tornado which was an excellent machine but old age was its problem. We have too few replacements as yet. F35 has not really delivered.

          The Army is the biggest problem but probably the last on the military list. Are we still anticipating being front and centre in a land battle in central Europe. Probably not. Are we planning on stomping around on any other continents. Not impossible but we would rather not. The reality is nothing has been decided.

          Why is the size of the military at some previous point the right size?

          • Don,t you see the situation ? , no news about new orders or replacements , only cuts, cuts and more cuts, without de facto LPD,s, with only 120 tanks , 130 fighters and only 16 escorts, if as I suspect one of the Carriers is going to be sold in the next years, with Russian agression in Europe and China preparing to take Taiwán by force this is a very bad and dangerous situation, if you don,t want to see this is your problem.

          • Bulwark has gone into extended readiness. It has not been scrapped. The Government as not scrapping everything as you suggest they are increasing spending. However a type 26 costs 10 times the amount of a Type 23. Also we haven’t even tried a type 26 or type 31 out on the open seas. You want us to blindly commit to more without checking they work first? Pointless to commit anyway as there is (I believe) insufficent build space to get anymore started.

            Investments in NLAW or similar are far more important at this time than ancient tank designs. True more aircraft would be desirable but there are plans in place for that.

            I would also point out that a T45 has at least 5 times the power of it’s predessor So in theory you could say the Daring class is worth 30 Sheffield Class.

            I just don’t think you are giving the new ships the credit they deserve.Meanwhile our key ‘potential’ enemy seems to be losing many of their ships and planes to Ukraine.

        • Absolutely. People expect the UK to have sufficient kit to fight a world war (on its own) in peace time. It’s not realisitic. Balwark is (of all the RN kit) the least likely to be useful today. Park it up, keep it ready, so it can be used if necessary. Good move in my book.

          • Yes some or most people think we will fight Russia etc on are own. No nation can fully man all its kit every military is under maned to some degree. We are never expected to field every single bit of kit once.
            Large numbers of kit looks good on paper, it in its self is a paper tiger look at Russia lots of kit but most below average.

  24. I was discussing our military with my Sons in the pub recently, following the conscription debate mentioned in the media, I was shocked by their reaction… why would anyone fight for a country that hates you…. and their mates are of the same opinion…

    • If they were conscripted they wouldn’t have a choice surely?
      However I get the spirit of the post – and yes I do wonder why anyone would choose the military these days- although not necessarily completely due to that reason but the underlying gist of that would be one of the considerations.

    • Did you point out that they effectively are the country – if only a small part of it.

      It certainly isn’t like Russia. He is clearly not afraid to critisise the Government and he can vote and that will overturn (or confirm) the party of his choice in power (provided enough other people like him do the same).

  25. How long would it take to go from extended readiness to active? It seems to be an excuse to make up for lack of equipment and man (sorry people) power for both of them! Yet more capability decline, that is very costly and slow to recreate.

    • Getting the kit ready should be really easy. It is the fully trained crew which would take the most time. Some experienced plus some on the job training would probably be the most likely scenario. I’m guessing Bulwark would manage to sail with any task group should the need arise.

  26. If we have fewer recruits for the RN then the future has to be autonomous systems for all future ships. Smaller crews and UAVs etc. Let’s stop thinking it’s a choice. It is a reality.

    • it doesnt have to be a reality though does it – only if you accept it.

      There is a choice to be made here, decisions can be made to change that trajectory.

      Autonomous systems shoud be built/used to augment men not merely to replace them because we cant be arsed to develop and fund a cohesive military strategy.

      Still its the easiest and cheapest solution so …. crack on.,

      • It’s not easy grizzler it is very very difficult and expensive. However, like a missile, there are some things kit can potentially do better than people.

        Other countries will build ships with less and less crew members. We live in a society where less people want to do the job and we don’t want to put anyones life at risk. It’s a win win situation.

    • I think it is better to have uncrewed ships in drydock that can be deployed in an emergency by acquiring crew by some means, be that drafting retired sailors, pulling from merchant shipping crews or conscription/training.

      It can take years to build these ships so in a pinch it would be hard to rapidly build. Better to have no crew and ships rather than no ships but the ability to find crew. Japan is building 24 new frigates by 2028 and Japan has had recruitment issues for decades, even if the ships have crewing issues it’s better than being caught off guard by a war in the East China sea with no ships!

      • Totally true. The path to crewless ships will be long and hard. Your solution satisfies the truth of the situation we curently find ourselves in. A pragmatic point. Better to order that stuff which takes the longest to arrive first.

  27. If we sold a QE carrier to Oz we may well lose many of the crew who might choose to go with it. However, a swap of a QE class for a Canberra class, plus some cash, would be interesting. It would keep the RM’s happy and could carry a few F35’s when the remaining carrier is in for repair.

    • What Nonsense you speak!
      For starters, a Canberra carrier would Not take the weight of a F-35 without massive reinforcement of the deck, and to protect deck from holes being burnt into it, all just to carry only a few F-35’s! A totally uneconomic proposition! The RAN is also struggling with crewing, so very much doubt they could crew even one QE!

    • I suspect, for example, the T23 crews will enjoy the T26 much better.

      Having not long had the carriers we would be daft to get rid of them. They are highly useful.

      Bulwark is also highly useful in extended readiness.

  28. Maintained in extended readiness is OK by me for the time being.
    This when the security situation absolutely does not warrant scrapping capabilities hard learnt & hard financed by a long standing & undoubtedly maritime nation, situated at both a prime littoral and deep ocean crossroads – but where decisions upon which surface & subsurface assets are most urgently required on the front line now, both in offensive scalability & unit numbers, are still being resolved.

  29. Hands up who surprised by this…..

    It’s irrelevant anyway, Bulwark will sit alongside until SDSR 2025…..

  30. Andy, I think it’s likely we’ll see Labour cancel the type 32 project. We’ll be lucky to land on 19 surface warships. They’ll probably place one the QE carriers in extended readiness as well. The Bay class vessels in the RFA are likely to be at risk and I would not be surprised if the one (or both) o the Wave class tankers are retired as well.

          • Thanks Gunbuster. I had a question the Albion class, that I hope you can assist me with.

            Given they have no onboard hanger, how do they manage to maintain helo ops? I imagine the aircraft take a bit of a beating exposed on an open deck.

          • They stay outside parked as close to the front of the FD as you can get them. Cover them up with covers. If embarked for a period the Woos do what they can. They can stl do most things just not in a hangar. No worse than deploying into the field.

  31. Russian news agencies have already reported the news and of course they are happy. The British defence is pathetic.

  32. Nothing the w⚓s in Government of any party say can be trusted..period ! We were told they were safe ..now not . £297 billion on the 9.4 million layabouts in this country, some local many imported. Use some of this money ..or the aid to Ukraine.. should be a loan not aid ..and the foreign aid budget..said many times before.. needs to be repeated at MPs ..plus the theft of money like PPE for example..one of many..all money that could pay for a properly funded armed forces .

  33. You’d have to start the T32 project to be able to cancel it. It’s been stuck in “concept” for a number of years. That’s better than the T83 though, which is yet to make it out of pre-concept.

  34. Cuts cuts cuts cuts and more cuts. Money being spent on everything except where it is needed I.e. on the defence if THIS country and it’s people. Instead billions are spent on paying off the interest on Government debt due to waste, inefficiency and the incompetence of our Politicians.

  35. Uk Govetnment debt as of 2023 was around 2.5 trillion pounds. That is 100 % of GDP and equated to £38,000 per person.
    Politicians keep spending money we don’t have and not where its needed. Defence should be a top priority in these unstable times.
    Note £2.5 trillion pounds is £2,500,000,000,000. Crazy

  36. I served on Bulwark as WE WO Systems Engineer. We were Amphib Flagship. It was my last sea draft, though not my last sea time.
    Crew wise, minus the RM lads manning the LCU/LCVPs and the WAFUs for the flight deck it needs around 270 people at most. It’s not a lot and I doubt crewing them is a major driver in the decision, but it will be an added bonus for drafty.

    Things have moved on strategically following ivans 3-day jolly into Ukraine.
    Sweden and Finland are now in NATO and with that the need to reinforce Norway using amphibiosity is diminished. Royal has a permanent base in Norway now and equipment is stored there. You don’t need to do landings. You can move equipment using a RORO directly to Norway or via Sweden from Mainland Europe (Denmark) via the new NATO Boating Lake formally known as the Baltic Sea. That is a massive change in NATO Northern Flank requirements.

    So, I suspect that the RN has looked at the Primary requirement (Northern Flank Reinforcement) and said it can live with the LPD Capability Gap because of the RM base in Norway along with Sweden, and Finland’s capabilities now being in play. remember it’s done similar risk mitigation before when it gapped Harrier and CVS capability Nobody ended up speaking Russian or Chinese as there first language despite the furore in the MSM.

    Thats not to say LPD’s won’t be missed. The C4ISR capability is second to none in the RN and you cannot replicate it on a Bay. For out of area tasking, they are an ideal platform.

    Recent comments by Labour Defence Spokesman have said they will overhaul defence and make it fit for our troops NATO commitments. They haven’t mentioned anything outside of NATO commitments and specifically said troops…no mention of RN and RAF. I cannot see the LPDs coming back. More worryingly if/when Labour get in anything not needed for NATO may well be up for cutting back. So Middle East, Far East, strategic airlift may all be going.

    • Of course the primary benefit the UK brings to NATO has not changed; our maritime situation & naval capabilities, both surface & subsurface, as referred to earlier.
      As you highlight with regard to the European mainland, NATO has significantly increased in size lately – bringing, among other advantages, yet more land force expertise to add to that already existing within states well orientated to land warfare.
      I do note Healey states that the Army is smaller than since Napoleonic times, but the above do not seem to make this statement particularly relevant to the UK’s defence priorities within European NATO.
      In the meantime, the USA is having to consider accommodating it’s NATO responsibilities with countering equal or greater security issues from an aggressive China. She is stating she cannot do this alone So all expertise in agressively defending the supply routes and further maritime threats across the Atlantic, for instance, will be far more valued in Washington than any sudden pivot towards bolstering the numerous mainland forces in Europe.
      This at the outset of conflict has to be our immediate strategy.
      In the meantime, and as a side glance, I’m interested in Varadkar’s resignation immediately following a trip to the White House, it seems.

      • I did 3 years in a NATO HQ. For the UK, outside of CASD and at the time Afghan, filling NATO billets was its top priority and that included the NATO billets on the ground in Afghan. If you don’t pull your weight in the HQs or other NATO establishments then you cannot influence NATO doctrine and policy at the big table.

        The Napoleonic thing…It has zero relevance to a modern army even one in such a state as the UK.

        Napoleon & Wellington didn’t have Tanks, Artillery with the firing range of modern systems, C4ISR, Mech Infantry, Modern Logistics, Attack Helicopters, Helicopter Envelopment and a myriad of other stuff that modern forces now have.

        A single modern battle group would wipe the floor with both sides nowadays and be ready for a brew by lunch time.

  37. I think alot of ships rather than being decommissioned should be in a deployable state ,Evan if thier not deployed.”Mothballing” ships like the USN did in the 1930s led to a hundred lend lease ships for the Royal Navy and Royal Canadian Navy in WW2.The USN should of “mothballed” alot of ships they scrapped in the last 20 years.After your RN are through with your “ships o the line” “mothball them or use them as static defences in ports.Halifax is a perfect place to “mothball” ships or just create a “static reserve”.

  38. She’ll need to go on post refit sea trials then through FOST before she could be declared operational, so what’s the point in just tying her up after a multi-million pound refit?

    • Post refit trials and Sea Safety train by FOST yes. FOST Op training you can do it whilst in transit. It’s far from ideal but it can and has been done. Been there done that BDX!

  40. I guess if the Conservative Party leadership (despite overwhelming evidence that the external threat is increasing) continues to allow British defence capability to continue decline then it has proved itself to be unfit to hold office. Strategic Defence reviews determined by Treasury which weaken defence capability at a time when risk increases is maladministration. It’s like removing lifeboats whilst your ship is sailing into a sea full of icebergs. It’s not rational and you just shouldn’t be doing it.

    It’s their stubborn reluctance to change course I find most infuriating. Defence is outside the life experience and understanding of the Conservative politicos running Downing Street. They don’t appreciate it, understand it and are simply indifferent to learning about it. Being foolish is forgivable but being ardently foolish needs to be punished. Bad actions deserve bad outcomes. This current government is the first problem we have to fix. If it wont change then it has to go. Things will not improve when the country is run by people who are so blatantly defence blind. It may be that we replace them in the short term with an even worse bunch of monkeys but we have to try to train at least one of the major parties to stop being so persistently useless.

  41. Shame on the politicians for doing this. LDS North and South need Albion and Bulwark. Yet again, they make decisions that will cost lives.

    The Integrated Review promised Royal Navy’s future amphibious capability would be built around two Littoral Response Groups both with a LDS (45 up North and 40 in the South). The truth be known, without both LDS, the two groups will struggle on long tasking. Without both Bulwark and Albion, the amount of kit we can take is limited and affects our ability to do the job.

    They won’t be happy until a tragedy occurs. Then, it will all be committed and enquiries and people covering their rear ends.

  42. Andy . My magic box is noe letting me link with you for some AI of it’s own , but I do agree with your comment. A barmy situation.

  43. Very Simple offer to clear any Student that clocked up a student debt yet failed to finish there course. due to dropping out as you got bored and work off your debt in the armed forces. solve the recruitment shortage. no work no job interviews then national service fill the armed forces with Rainbow warriors who have spent the last 2 years doing nothing

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here