RFA Argus will depart HMNB Portsmouth on 23 February for the final time, bringing more than four decades of service with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary to a close, the Royal Navy has confirmed.
The Italian-built vessel, originally launched as the container ship MV Contender Bezant, was requisitioned during the 1982 Falklands War and purchased outright in 1984. Following conversion, she entered service as an Aviation Training Ship before later assuming the role of Primary Casualty Receiving Ship (PCRS).
During the 1991 Gulf War, Argus was fitted with a fully functional hospital facility. In 2009, the PCRS role became her primary function. In this capacity, the ship has provided Role 3 medical support, alongside aviation training and operational support functions.
The Royal Navy has also deployed Argus in humanitarian assistance missions, where her medical and aviation capabilities proved suited to disaster relief operations. Although often described as a support ship or helicopter carrier, she is not formally classified as a hospital ship under the Geneva Convention, as she is armed and does not carry protected markings.
With a displacement of over 28,000 tonnes and a flight deck capable of operating multiple Merlin, Chinook, Apache or Wildcat helicopters, Argus has supported maritime aviation training and Littoral Response Group operations in recent years.
However, by 2025 the vessel had been deemed unsafe to sail and effectively laid up. Her departure marks the end of service for the last active ship to have served in the Falklands conflict. Throughout her career, Argus has sailed globally in support of Royal Navy operations, combining aviation training, medical capability and operational support within a single adaptable platform.
So much for LRG(S)
I’m still waiting for the latest bollox to be uttered by an MoD spokesperson or minister, last time we lost the LPDs, we had.
“No reduction in amphibious capability.”
And never mind amphibious, what of the PCRS role?
Very true. I wonder if there is any faint hope of retaining one of the Albions as a replacement. Different ship and capability, but still…….
I doubt it. The crew disparity between the two is large. Additionally, Albion has been cannibalised to get Oiapoque (formerly Bulwark) ready for sale to Brazil.
That is saying something as there was, in recent years, only one full set of parts between the two ships necessitating more a lot to the hull rotating into service.
Why not carry out a similar version Argus today. After all it lasted over 40 years and was cheap. Even two.
Haddon Cave
Argus was a rushed bodge job for Corporate – a good bodge but a bodge non the less.
Now you couldn’t approach it like that for class rules as much as anything else.
Yes, you can convert but it is a lot harder than it once was.
Another one bites the dust. It’s embarrassing how far the armed forces have fallen thanks to decades of erosion by all parties.
So for deployment of forces in support of JIF our options are looking non existent – well done. I thought defence reviews were meant to be strategic! clearly those writing them have no idea what the word ‘capability’ means
What exactly is the problem – the defence review determined that a ship which isn’t repairable and can’t go to sea is better off being scrapped then having money spent on it’s upkeep as… I don’t even know what, a floating accommodation block?
It should have been scrapped several years ago and replaced, no reduction in actual capability because it wasn’t used anyway, but once again we’re behind in replacing equipment.
Argus was slated to join PoW last year as part of her CSG deployment. She was due to be reintegrated into the fleet after a period of refit in Falmouth.
The problem is how do we send 45 Commando to the High North or even Estonia if needed. Retaining Argus, whilst binning Albion and Bulwark was nonsensical.
I agree with you, once again we’re binning without replacement.
Unfortunately if you try to use logic to interpret U.K. defence policy you end up as mad those making it.
The arguments for disposing of the LPDs never did make any sense in so far as the RMs don’t go in for over beach opposed landings but that was the main argument used to dispose of these vessels along with their high vulnerability to drones and missiles ignoring that they would be escorted at all times or could dare I say it be suitably rearmed with additional defensive armament or longer legged landing craft so allowing them to sit further offshore (this of course all costs money). The recent shock news seems to be that the U.K. has a strategic interest in the Nordic nations and high north (our close neighbours), who can of course be quickly reinforced by air with troops but heavy equipment and stores must come by sea. You can argue that with Sweden and Finland joining NATO perhaps Norway with our fixed base is less reliant on amphibious shipping but you can now add Greenland to the area of operations we need and should be able to reinforce with our allies (U.K./NL Force anyone?)
We now enter La La land as we witness our senior politicians telling the MSM we are increasing our commitment in Norway and the High North whilst continuing to cut the support shipping without any sign of the replacements that are required to sustain them and if necessary quickly manoeuvre them to a point of crisis.
Of course some would say that the Point class can do this task but they are not front line vessels, have no aviation capability and will be required in times crisis to support the Army. They are also critically only able to use fixed ports that would become a prime target.
The unpalatable truth is the reduction in the size of the RMs, their shipping and organic helicopter lift is now seen to be what it is, sheer folly. I have no argument with the logic behind the FCF but it’s genesis was born of necessity because the Navy required more manpower for the carriers and the bootnecks were reduced to provide the numbers.
In the past this lack of RMs could have been alleviated by the army but it to is now far too small for its current tasks let alone adding more (where are those 7.5k troops coming from for Ukraine?).
This is all down to money or a lack of it, which I finally think is even entering the minds of senior members of the Government but it is going take at least a decade to suitably address the gaps that are so obviously apparent.
A good summary. It’s down to money and a decent strategic review.
Our ability to safely deploy troops and capabilities is very limited to a few C17s and A400s. Which means Brize now becomes a centre of gravity.
Ben she spent 5 months last year in refit and was supposed to be extended in service until at least 2030. Her extension of service was the reason/excuse to cut the proposed conversion of a Bay to littoral support ship and was used in part to justify the scrapping of the LPDs. What has changed?
Was it just incompetence because someone inspected her during the refit in Falmouth or was it deliberate deceit because it was politically useful to pretend she was being retained for a short period whilst the LPDs were cut. It’s one or the other but I am sure those responsible will be suitably rewarded with promotion, indexed linked pension and an honour for public service.
As for Argus she was a fine ship, which along with HMS Ocean and the Bays have provided excellent value for money to the British taxpayer proving that you don’t need to gold plate equipment to have a useful asset. Where indeed are the replacements for these important vessels.
She may have spent it in refit, but evidently it was not going to sea again because it was going to be too costly to repair, it’s just that the Conservatives didn’t want to commit to scrapping the ship because then they’d be accountable, it was scheduled to be scrapped in 2024 but then that got reversed because they couldn’t find the money to refit a Bay-class, now you’ve got the issue where once again we have no replacement.
The only hope I have is that by getting rid of this and the others which arguably weren’t going to sea or we didn’t have the crew for that we can take those savings and invest heavily in MRSS, it’s 3-6 ships but I am hoping savings mean we fully commit to 6 vessels because that’d be quite a turn around for the RFA, they’d come out of it with more capable and modern vessels.
MRSS isn’t coming until the mid 2030’s at best, what does the UK do to fill the gaps till then? Will the RFA even exist by then?
Fill what gaps? Argus was getting scrapped by 2024 anyway, the Conservatives just didn’t want to make the decision and so pretended they could get it back in service when they couldn’t.
The Bay-class ships will take the capability in the meantime which was what was going to happen after 2024 anyway, until the Conservatives as I said reversed their decisions and wasted incredible amounts of money on a ship which needed scrapping.
Ben she spent much of 2024 in the Indo-Pacific and was scheduled under the current Government to met the CSG as it returned to the U.K late last year.
I agree with you that the Tories were largely a cynical bunch of incompetents but the current mob have continued with the same lies when they could have told the truth with no loss of credibility to them.
The Bays have little or no aviation capability so there is a significant gap created that this Government denied existed up until today. They have been in power for going on 20 months, held an SDR in that time and didn’t know about this? We are really expected to believe all this.
She may have done that and yes she was eventually meant to return to the CSG – but in between that it was announced it was scrapped, only to be put back into service.
Labour not finding 6 MRSS ships to replace it in a year doesn’t really change that – Argus wasn’t going back to sea, the Conservatives can say it all they want – but they scrapped it, brought it out and knew they weren’t going to have to deal with the fact it wasn’t seaworthy as the election would see they weren’t in power.
Whether the bays have the capability or not – they where intended to replace Argus in 2024 in that capacity, that was the decision – the Conservatives bringing it out of scrapping when it’s not seaworthy means nothing, it’s just them forcing an illusion with what we have on paper and it appears people have fallen for it.
The problem is that for all practical purposes the government has now abandoned the Royal Marines to what exactly? The next round of cuts so that the train drivers can get another pay rise (note RFA action)? As for MRSS I think we can now regard it as a dream. I doubt It’ll ever happen.
Abandoned them how? The ship wasn’t seaworthy, it wasn’t going to sea, it certainly wasn’t going to sea before MRSS is meant to come online, you’d be keeping a ship around which doesn’t do what you want for the express purpose of saying we have it, we can do x,y,z with it when it can’t do any of that.
As for the Royal Marines the MoD for quite a while have had RFA Argus and the Bay Class vessels marked for the same capacity littoral combat, so they’ll just continue doing it, we’ll just be down one ship but only on paper because that ship had no chance of going to sea anyway.
It’s not just this ship. So you’re fine with Albion, Argus, Bulwark all being disposed of with noe sign of MRSS in even the medium term. O.K.
Yes I am fine with it. We need to get rid of this mentality which has absolutely captured the MoD which is we shouldn’t plan for the future and just keep wasting money on ships we don’t intend to use and even if we manage it, it’s for short term operations to give the illusion of a larger fleet.
I can’t imagine how many billions the MoD have wasted on trying to build this illusion of having more than we really have all because they can’t seem to competently handle project acquisition – Ajax alone is a perfect example, billions on extending Warrior which was then dropped to go all in on Ajax which they can’t even competently manage the delivery of and by the end of the year we might not even have Ajax which itself has had billions spent on it.
The MoD need to actually start delivering, show a little talent and stop hoping that decade old platforms which cost more than they’re worth are available to bail them out – how we get less output in many areas than countries like France with tens of billions less in defence spending is outrageous.
Though I do know, because people like you come along and paper over those problems by trying to continue the same illusion of output that doesn’t exist.
It really shows what a complete shit show getting rid of bulwark was.. do 20 million quid bag a few million saved each year we have lost a major strategic capability that would cost half a billion + to replace.. now if they had any form of brain they would have
Scrapped Albion and Argus then put every effort into keeping Bulwark at 1 months readiness for the next 6-7 years.. then scrap her.. as it is we have given a none allied South American nation a strategic asset.. let’s hope Brazil and Argentina don’t form an alliance to control and dominate the south Atlantic or we will have provided the very strategic capability required to counter our forces in the region….
Why keep a ship for another decade just sitting by around? If they know for certain they cannot continue to operate it, might as well get rid of it.
Because it does not cost very much and it’s a strategic asset.. a part of the conventional deterrence.. the US carriers spend most of their lives sitting around not deployed so they are able to be deployed… because if we ever need to dump a battalion of marines in the high north we will need an Albion or Bulwark.. as long as you maintain an asset at 1 months notice it is a deterrent.
Those ships are seaworthy though, this isn’t seaworthy – it’s a ship which only exists on paper, it’s not going to sea again and it doesn’t look like there is an intention of that happening, it was meant to be scrapped in 2024 but they decided to reverse that for some reason and refit it when it wasn’t in the condition to refit it.
Could have worked it jointly with other countries in the JEF, giving the JEF a permanent command capability.
So is this another capability that has been “gapped” or “paused”? The UK’s good at that. Embarrassing. End of moan.
“Sooty, what are you doing here” ?
I’m a little surprised Ft Vic hasn’t gone too.
She will, give them time….timing…
Fort Vic’s next trip is to Aliagia.
She’ll never sail again and everyone knows it.
It’s no shock though, is it ?
The real issue is the faffing about and lack of continuity so typical of all governments for decades.
40+ years of service yet nothing In the imediate pipeline.
Nothing in the pipeline? It takes planning you know. Forty years isn’t that long really. 🤔🧐
You do begin to worry now if the amphibious forces will ever recover or are they for the chop in terms of new ships to replace the 3 bays with even just 3 MRSS if the RMs role is Norway and the Arctic and what they will even be in terms of light raiding but not looking too good.
I can’t help but think that the days of amphibiious warfare for the UK are over. Any thought of a Falklands or Sierra Leone type deployment are at an end. It’ss be the Royals next…
I am beginning to think the same now in terms of shipping I can’t see them cutting the RMs they are too specialist in Arctic warfare and so important for feeding the special forces.
The Navy I think does seem set now at the 2 carriers 19 destroyers/frigates 7 astutes the 4 new dreadnoughts 5 Batch 2 rivers and i think we will get through Norway 3 drone mother ship/patrol ship to replace the batch 1 rivers as a token gesture to say theve ordered something!
Hope I’m wrong then Aukus subs in the late 2030s
First they didn’t want the Hercules transports and now there’s massive questions over the Para’s, now they scrapping our heavy sea lift capability and associated vessels the very future of the Marines is now under threat with this MOD incompetence. It’s crazy to think countries like Germany have vastly more deployable assets than we have now but remember the military is a priority now…..