Lord Richards of Herstmonceux raised questions in the House of Lords about the future of the UK’s amphibious capability following the planned retirement of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark by March 2025.
In a recent response to the House of Lords, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) reconfirmed plans for the UK’s Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS) programme, which could include up to six new vessels. This assurance comes amidst concerns over the impending retirement of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, the Royal Navy’s dedicated amphibious assault ships, by March 2025.
Addressing a question from Lord Richards of Herstmonceux on 19th December, Lord Coaker, Minister of State for Defence, stated:
“The Royal Marines will continue to be supported by three Bay Class landing ships and RFA Argus until the introduction of up to six Multi-Role Support Ships. The first of these will enter service 2033.”
While the “up to six” figure was originally announced under the previous government, this recent reaffirmation is significant. The MOD’s decision to restate the potential scale of the fleet, rather than relying on vague or non-committal language, provides a small degree of reassurance about the scope of the programme.
The MRSS programme, currently in its concept phase, is designed to replace the Bay-class landing ships and RFA Argus, ensuring the continuation of the Royal Navy’s amphibious capabilities. The timeline remains unchanged, with the first ship expected to enter service by 2033. The MOD confirmed that funding for the programme is in place, enabling ongoing preparatory work.
The early retirement of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, both held at lower readiness for years, has prompted questions about the interim capability for the Royal Marines. The MOD has made clear that the Bay-class ships and RFA Argus will continue to fulfil operational requirements until the MRSS fleet is introduced.
The reaffirmation of “up to six” ships highlights a commitment to maintaining amphibious capabilities, while the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review is expected to offer further clarity. Although not a change in policy, the language in Lord Coaker’s response underscores the importance of preserving a credible amphibious force in the Royal Navy’s future.
Continue to be supported by 1 Bay class laid up till 2026, another in refit, only 1 available for now and then Argus which is off with CSG25
didn’t someone say that the were no plans to get rid of the albions? six new assault ships? won’t happen
Tbf that was the previous government but still
Appaling.
Also “up to” is vague and non commital language
Yes, it could mean just one ship.
Pardon my total lack of knowledge on this subject but how does it take them 8 years to start replacing ships they’ve just scrapped? How long do ships actually take to build?
Mind you, if you look at how backwards everything’s becoming these days, it isn’t really surprising. As technology becomes more bloated, more expensive and harder to use, it’s become less reliable and built to lower standards by people who don’t care, for people who wish they didn’t have to buy it.
Will have taken 11 years to build HMS Glasgow, these will easily be double the size, our shipbuilding capacity is improving but will still easily take more than 5 years, and we aren’t building them now, or next year
As has been mentioned, the type 26 had BAE systems 4 guys working flat out for a decade, and once in the water it then needs fitting out, then trials. Potentially all frigates could be approaching end of life before it’s ready.
If the ship builders had space on their production lines, if there was a finalised plan drawn up on a design.. it’s still going to be years AND years. Our war with Putin will be over and done before an Amphibious ship sees action.
Ready for the one after the next one then. Let’s hope we don’t need to support Norway.
We are not at war with Russia.
Lack of funds. If they wanted to build them faster I’m sure they can. China is knocking out several frigates a year. How all public budget work is yearly spending plans, so spreading across multiple years helps with availability cash.
To be honest, if Labour won’t increse the budget to 3%, there’s little hope of getting more than two.
I fully expect the army to be reduced further in the SDSR to around 65,000. They will try and force the structure into the available budget.
2.5% will barley touch the sides. Independent defence analysis has placed the required budget at 3.6 % to start repairing the damage.
Labour ( like the Tories before them) just don’t care.
Strategic Defence Review targets 2.75% GDP because it plans for 2030s and 2040s, however not even getting to 3% after 5%+ during cold War does look timid, at best, by the MoD.
No read the headline, its even worse than that. Its ‘potentially up to 6’. So it could be zero!
Potentially I could be a millionaire this weekend doubt it will happen though!
Take a twenty pound note. Exchange for Iranian Rials. Instant millionaire. Go on. You know you want to. 😉
Sounds good I’ll give it a try👍
I remember my first visit to Rome, on business, some 30 years ago. Pre-EU. My hotel bill was over 2million Lira…
Was that just from the mini fridge? …thats a lot of peanuts.
So, at least an 8 year capability gap.
And pigs might fly
More chance of pigs flying I think.
Might be a useful asset for the RAF tbh.
My problem is “up to 6” can just as quickly and easily become 1.
Well it’s already shrunk to 6 since we started reading this article.
Apologise I misread the prospective number there, eyesights going.
No read the text, its even worse than that. Its ‘potentially up to 6’. So it could be zero!
Well, 1 is “up to 6”. What more do you want?
2026: drones made amphibious operations untenable, we are advancing in another direction.
How so ? Do you not think that the USA and the British won’t have a counter to drones either through ECM or good old proximity fuses we are not Ukraine the USA has a almost bottomless pit of money and to defend its ships that cost hundreds of millions there not going to spare any expense plus I’ve not mentioned laser technology that’s going to be a game changer
Well if they have a bottomless pit one has to ask why they in the past decade or so halted development of hypersonic missiles (from being years ahead) at best paused railguns (and now asking the Japanese if and how they seem to be perfecting them) and put off high end attack drones for years (settling for tanker versions while pissing off Northrop Grumman) and tried hard to find a cheaper alternative to building a next Gen fighter (and failing) and failing to invest in shipbuilding for new warships and submarines, oh and didn’t invest in support facilities to service… Read more »
What do you think happens if you throw your all money into a bottomless pit?
There is no viable current solution to drones and it’s not like they are a new thing. Yes they are now massively cheaper and so can be used on mass but if you can counter one you can counter many or not as the case may be. The US has acknowledged it cant stop the drones buzzing its bases so the solution isn’t there today. Russia and Ukraine have learnt the solution is to attack in small dispersed numbers. North Korean troops recently didn’t not learn this and got wiped out on mass. All your equipment in a single slow… Read more »
I think you are right about aerial Assault it has to be in small precise attacks. I do think however helicopters aren’t necessarily the answer. I think their are better alternatives. One is winged aircraft that can be built much more stealthy and are a lot faster and better for Para assaults. Second is a localised assault like the notorious October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel. There was no need to drop 10000 men to take Arnhem in the first wave. A Brigade at most could have held the Northern bridgehead after 200 gliderborne troops initially seized and defended… Read more »
Nothing new here but it is interesting that this was not stated to be subject to the forthcoming SDR.
I remain puzzled by the continuing lack of detail on the design of MRSS. If it is going to have similar capabilities to the Albions, why not keep them ?
If it is to be very different, in what way? Better armed, larger aviation facilities? Before the exact design is finalized, there needs to be clarity about what they are expected to do. Beyond ” large non complex warships” nothing.
The only complaint about the Albions I’ve heard is that they are quite manpower intensive.
Also worth remembering they are replacing more than just the Albions, which is a sword that cuts (haha..) both ways.
True but given how many ships are in long term refit and inactive, shouldn’t the RN have enough people to crew one Albion on rotation?
There’s a lot of specialists required for LPDs that cannot be rotated around the fleet
No hangers for the choppers either.
I would assume ships of this nature no matter how conceptually I proved they are are going to remain quite manpower intensive, at least if they are ever to carry out their prime function. Hopefully they can be more flexible in nature so they can carry out other functions generally but no idea how practical that might be but if there are going to be even 6 (let alone 8) of them with the small size of our fleet there will have to be a strong argument for them being strong allrounders surely.
Mistral class of France is sub 200 crew, so there’s certainly room to do better. They can be somewhat multirole but end of the day you can only cover so many bases
Size of fleet….allrounders. Good spot. Be interested to see how the SDR sees things. If the best deterrence is presence this might argue for ‘up to 6’ i.e. 4 deployed forward based all rounders which have good self defence, are lean manned most of the time but capable of being quickly transformed into credible LPDs when required.
One should be converted into a Hospital Ship.
I suspect they are holding off agreeing the fit out/ capability to after the sdsr, so they know how much cash they have to spend on them.
“Up to” is a journalistic euphemism used when somebody wishes to exagerate a likely outcome. The MoD and it’s grade-inflated apparatchiks use this sort of term all the time. Translated, it means that “we would like 6 but unless we cut 15,000 MoD civil servants its only going to be 2. Or even none at all The sheer size of the national debt – now £2.8trillion, means that the government has to borrow more to pay the interest on our debt The most recent monthly figures show the government borrowed £17.4bn in October 2024, which was the second highest October… Read more »
The debt and its continued growth is an issue. It shouldn’t be so hard to try and stay in budget. A bit of tax rises and a bit of savings.
I would give pensioners and all benefits 2% under inflation. Tax rise for 3 years on businesses making over £1m profit. No more tax breaks, international companies etc. highest tax rate up 1%.
All government spending has to be cut 2%.
At least that would be an attempt and it’s for a few years then will be reviewed.
Current 2025 spending is £1200b
Pensions £220.6 billion
Health Care £230.7 billion
Education £115.6 billion
Defence £66.2 billion
Welfare 157 billion
The government spend on healthcare is a bit lower than you mentioned, the department of health and social care budget was 181 billion in 2022/23 it will move to around 203billion in 2024/25. But we do have copayments ( private individuals paying for care) and that takes it up..but that’s not government spend. Also pensioner benfits cost is lower estimates are 137 billion for 2024/25 Costs for working age benfits are estimated to be 137 billion for 2024/25 Cost for disability benefits will be estimated to be 90 billion for 2024/25 Cost for housing benefits will be estimated to be… Read more »
On the list above it is 788M£
Quite still a bit to 1200B£
The £1200 billion also includes spends by local government raised from council tax.
Crazy, crazy and more crazy.
The UK is a welfare state, lacking sufficient resources for defense. Give up the farce, admit to what the world and particularly the US knows that the UK has no military capability. Sell the Carriers to India. With virtually no escort vessels (six destroyers 2 in service and only 7 frigates) only a handful of F-35’s and only 1 supply ship the carriers are useless. No doubt a future Strategic Defense Revue (more honestly phrased as the latest round of defense cuts) will sell one Carrier. Sell them now as they are useless given the current state of the Royal… Read more »
The last goverment have so many contracts out to their mates at non economical rates because they believed in privatisation was the solution to everything. The issue is they didnt stop to think whether that was always true and gave a lot of bad value contracts out. The move to bring military housing back into public hands is a good start reversing this. Same with the rail companies. Using public money more efficiently will hopefully mean that more money can be freed up to spend on the military. My concern is however it could go the other way, as there… Read more »
I keep looking at the likes of france/poland/etc and see what they are doing with a smaller budget.
Look at the USA and see how little they appear to get from spending so much. High end forces cost a lot of money especially in things like training and readiness. Can’t just count numbers of tanks.
Also France spends more money than it appears as they have central government defence funds outside of military budget as well as paramilitary.
It seems to me we’ve had a succession of governments who have gone all-in on solving (read: paying for) the world’s problems, while showing absolutely zero desire to support our own country. The very fact that Labour are creating brand new capability gaps – in the face of rising tyranny and the possibility of wars – that will take nearly a decade to even start replacing says it all.
UK governments have been net borrowers every year since 2001 when Brown’s commitment to stick with Tory spending plans ran out. The banking crisis hit the UK harder than most other countries because of the size of the financial sector relative to the economy as a whole. The coalitions attempts to rein in spending( bonfire of the quangos) were only partially successful with damaging cuts to defence offset by an increase, made legally binding, in foreign aid. Though not reducing, debt remained manageable until the double whammy of COVID and the energy crisis. The responses to these added @£500b to… Read more »
Look on the bright side at least we are not Japan..a nation dedicated to doing national dept better than any other nation on earth..while spending $400 dollars on each and every manhole cover in the county.
Most coherent and accurate post on the UK’s financial situation that I’ve read on here – and as a regular topic, there’s been a lot!
That’s not true, we had a surplus until 2005 the only one in a century. Tory spending plans ended in 1999.
It would be nice to have a through deck LHD desig if that would long the lines for the replacement. I think bae systems has a design that also allows deployment of landing craft from the side as well.
Unfortunately that seems very unlikely
This must be correct that two LHA/LHDs would be the better solution if the RN/RM wish to remain committed to Amphibious Warfare; any other alternative(s) means the UK isn’t serious about having an Expeditionary capability in particular or defence in general (which might, of course, be stating-the-obvious).
The Govt can “up to” until the cows come home, but history has shown that anything that is cut is never replaced. With the exception of the Carriers which we cannot afford to planes on. So the likelihood of “up to 6” is little to none.
Not even worth reading all of the Lords words. They’re cobblers.
We will be lucky to get 4, and 3 is the most likely.
Cancellations down the line won’t be linked to the cuts now.
3 is almost guaranteed, big question is how big will they be, BAE has a near 40,000t design which means the amphibious fleet may grow in tonnage and capacity while being reduced in number.
3 are guaranteed … until they aren’t.
The only reason why some might be built is because it means jobs in the U.K. After that, they could be scraped at a moments notice. As case in point, the Albion-class are being retired after only 20 years partial service and even after Bulwark underwent a 72M pound refit for absolutely no operational purpose.
Such is the reality of UK defence policy.
Have you watched the Naval News video on the BAE offering?
They seem to be properly going through how to make the whole amphibious business more efficient, with a sort of well dock flyco and full elevator access between vehicle and hangar decks.
It seems wildly ambitious but the other offerings seem to be a warmed up bay and the now defunct Steller offering, which although fabulous, isn’t what the Navy need.
I agree, 6 was always ambitious, with the cut of the 2 Albions it’s going to be hard to justify more than 4. I would say it will be three. Personally I think they need 2 commissioned ( RN) full fat amphibious vessels that are capable of taking belligerent actions, with a full command and control set up as well a decent weapons set for playing in the littoral, including a set of medium guns and CAMM and offensive drones. 2 logistics landing docks as auxiliaries, with a defensive weapon set ( 40mm guns and CIWS) including Role three medical… Read more »
Would the Canberra LHD type be more to your “full fat” thinking? Or a Trieste/Favourite/Wasp type, something that could potentially handle F35Bs if needed? And the auxiliaries more an Elliade/Enforcer type?
Do you reckon they’d go for 6 of the same type or a 3-3, 2-4/2-2 mix? With Navantia buying out H&W there’s some potential UK build options.
*Cavour
They want a common class so they can be aggregated to increase capability, though not much capability to be gained with only 3 or so ships.
They won’t be flat tops though, can forget that.
Maybe a one type for all six may not be appropriate. 1-2 out 6 with a greater helicopter capacity like an Ocean/Mistral may be very useful. Anyway we’re still waiting on the first 3 to show themselves and who/where gets the build.
The plans, made before Ukraine, are being rethought. I have no doubt that until they’ve gone up the chain and down a few dozen times and some new agreement arrived at, ministers will still brief that the plans are “up to six ships”. The Navy will be wanting to go for something more fighty than the Bays, but there will be no budget to speak of. So it’s anyone’s guess where the balance will lie when the ships are ordered, because as always MOD will wait until at least two years after the last possible minute to do so.
Personally I don’t think 6 ships of the same class will really work properly, the RN cannot afforded to build and crew 6 proper Amphibious assault ships and the logistics landing dock type role is different as is the role 3 medical…in the end they are trying to push three competing needs into one hull. Your never going to get the following three things all together 1) the command control, weapons fit and capabilities of an amphibious assault vessel. 2) the role three medical requirements 3) really efficient logistic movement of loads of stuff. Three needs..are probably more efficiently served… Read more »
Very concerning that every statement Labour have made on defence can be summarised as “we’ll do up to the bare minimum”
Is normal to carry on with inherited policy until there’s a formal change re. SDSR.
I’m guessing 2 at most and we’ll need them before 2033!!!
Believe it when I see it – if I live that long…
Heh heh, I do like Starmers new Christmas 🤶 carol. Heh heh
🎅🕳️Btth.
6. Never going to happen. Every time it’s all just fantasy cloud cukoo land. How about some honesty for once from our politicians and Civil servants.
Cuts today with the promise of lots and lots of jam tomorrow.
Frankly I’d rather see a clear requirement, plan, budget and manpower pipeline for 4 than hear the same old waffle about ‘up to 6’ which I think we all know is very unlikely to happen.
Set requirement at 4 and you’ll get even less
I need up to 6 Jaffa cakes to have with my cup of tea to enjoy it, but there are only 2 in the packet.
As vague as it was before.
“Up to” hmmm. A classic and unmistakable way of saying we’re gonna promise the world and end up giving you far less. I’ll be surprised if the final number is three but don’t be completely dumbstruck if it’s, in the end just two.
The statement is meaningless, they may as well have said “up to 12”. No one (zilch) now seriously believes that more than the first 3 will ever be built – these are (apparently) at least in the MOD’s Equipment Plan, even if currently unfunded. Any more is just residual wishful thinking by a few RN/RM officers who’ve imbued a tad too much Xmas “spirit” at lunch. The MRSS project is in the Concept Phase, which means a tiny Integrated Project Team (c.6 people?) with a tiny budget (£1 million a year?). But this allows the government and the MoD to… Read more »
‘Potentially up to ‘ what a meaningless statement .
How much funding is in place? Surely if you know what the funding is you know how many ships your getting.
Seeing as they don’t even have a ship design yet, they can’t know how many they can afford
Yeah never thought about that, cheap and cheerful would be great.
Let me see? Type 45s? Proposed 12, got 6. Type 26? Proposed 13, got 8 (and 5 cheaper, less capable Type 31s).
We would be naive if we expected more than a 1 for 1 replacement at best. My bet is 3-4 ships, but certainly not 6.
6 amphibs RFA or RN crewed ?
That is the fundamental question that people keep forgetting, RFA vessels are not commissioned warships and that is profoundly important as an auxiliary is not under the laws of war allowed to undertake any belligerent action…so our present amphibious forces are unable to undertake offensive amphibious operations. Auxiliaries are allowed to move stuff from point A to Point B and defend themselves if attacked..that is why the Bay class were build as logistic ships not amphibious assault ships.
And as Auxiliary crewed ships , entering a war zone crews are able too claim ‘ Danger money ‘ whereas RN personnel just get on with it .
That’s very interesting. I wondered why certain ships taken up by the Admiralty were commissioned. All minesweepers for instance. When did we start separating some ships as RFA’s?
Everybody knows that ‘Up to Six’ means One or Two, fitted For but Not With…
..marines
I’m betting on 3, hopefully 4, but I think 6 is now unlikely with the RN getting rid of the Albions 8 years before any replacement. For me it’s actually a question of will the RN actually take 2 of the MRSS as commissioned warships and keep some form of offensive belligerent amphibious capabilities or will all of them go over to the RFA for a form of defensive, logistic type amphibious capability as we now only have. Fingers crossed we get 2 MRSS that are commissioned and have a full set of command and control capabilities for offensive amphibious… Read more »
Potentially up to a thousand ships, but in reality maybe 2 if we’re lucky and pay more tax.
‘The first of these will enter service 2033.”’
Read and weep.
“Confirming up to six” in reality means confirming absolutely nothing. Why do people keep falling for this doublespeak?
“Potentially”. A grand sounding word!
It would be great and probably less costly if someone from the MOD simply said “Yes we’re building 6, we’re building them by this date so everyone (hello treasury Gimps) get out of the way”.
Kind of confused by these. If the current thinking behind the disposal of the Albions is that contested beachhead landings by the RM are a thing of the past, not to mention that the ships themselves are manpower heavy, then why are they planning ‘up to 6 ‘ as replacements? Why not keep at least one operational? They can’t be in that bad condition that Brazil are looking to purchase already. And what’s to say that the same situation won’t happen in 10 years when the MOD will decide that MRSS is too costly to operate and they’ll sell them… Read more »
But we already had two perfectly good assault ships, built to warship standards and underused because of the rotation in and out of mothballs.
How is it cheaper to build new ships then to keep assets we have in use?
Why is it sensible to replace proper fighting ships with auxiliaries?
How are we going to build these ships when all of our yards are full?
Good points and good questions above. The timing and capabilities gap is not great. A real missed opportunity in not buying the two Mistrals years ago. We can only imagine what a capability that would have given the RN/RM instantly! H&W shipyards may now become available if there’s room alongside the FSS builds. I think the word for it is it’s all bit of a “schmozzle”!? 😆
Upto 6 so 2 then…
Plus MRSS’s aren’t assault ships if built as conceived (and if not then they’ll be even more late.
Low readyness…bulwarks refit was stopped midway and albion was a busy girl until recsent times.so wasnt at low readyness for years