The Ministry of Defence has responded to concerns regarding potential reductions in amphibious capability following the shift from Albion-class Landing Platform Docks to Bay-class ships.
David Reed, Conservative MP for Exmouth and Exeter East, raised the question, asking for clarification on the implications for capability.
Responding to the query, Luke Pollard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, confirmed that no reduction in capability has occurred:
“The previous administration had no plans for either HMS Albion or HMS Bulwark to return to sea ahead of their leaving service in the 2030s, therefore there has been no reduction in capability.”
The Albion-class ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, are set to be phased out in the 2030s. However, Pollard highlighted that alternative platforms remain operational and effective.
Pollard discussed the capabilities of the Bay-class Landing Ship Docks, stating: “The Bay Class are highly capable ships and, alongside RFA Argus, will continue to support Royal Marine operations until the introduction of Multi-Role Support Ships in the early 2030s.”
The Bay-class ships, designed for amphibious warfare, provide logistical and operational support, and their inclusion ensures continuity in amphibious capability during the transition period.
Looking forward, the Ministry of Defence reiterated its commitment to enhancing amphibious capabilities through the introduction of the Multi-Role Support Ships (MRSS) in the early 2030s. The MRSS programme is expected to modernise the UK’s amphibious fleet and further bolster the capabilities of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines.
So no one’s told the minister that one of the Bay class has already been laid up then
nonese do these clowns think we’re stupid? if a taxi firm loses two of its cars, it’s ability to provide a service IS AFFECTED. the MOD is not fit for purpose and should be replaced by a new organisation.
It is just incoherent ramblings TBH.
My main concern is that even if the money taps are turned on now things are so atrophied in terms of manpower and skills that nothing detectable will change for at least 5 years.
However, we could fix the recruitment and retention in all three services which would improve matters more than somewhat.
No, it is lying.
Blatant at that.
It is a lie. The truth is that there is only no reduction in the number of planned activities.
If we sold all our ammunition stocks except for what we were planning to use in training exercises, then by this measure that would also not be a reduction in capability which is nonsense.
If you emptied and sold off half the fuel in your car’s tank because you’re only planning to drive 200 miles then that’s a reduction in capability even though it’s not a reduction in the planned activity.
We have to call out the press, sorry George, for not shaming the politicians into telling the truth. The political spin on this could be that with the addition of the QEC’s we have much more LPH capability than before and that budgetary priorities are being put into maintaining them and the Merlins that give us that capability. We retain the Bay Class for small scale ship to shore operations. It’s not perfect, but at least it’s not a lie.
No reduction compared to one being laid that was due a refit and one still being in refit.
A facility that has been laid up can be re-activated a lot quicker than a new facility can be designed, built and tested from square one. Or am I missing something.
Even before the retirement of Albion and Bulwark Australia arguably had more amphibious capacity than the UK with the RANs two Canberra Class LHDs and one Bay class LPD.
The ADFs capacity to land troops and vehicles over the beach is set to increase significantly. The first of 8 Landing Craft Heavy based on Damen’s 3,900 tonne LST 100 for the Australian Army is commencing construction in Western Australia in 2026. Each of the 8 is equivalent in to the old HMAS Tobruk (RNs Roundtable class) Together they provide an additional 31,000 tonnes of amphibious capability.
This is in addition to the 18 Landing Craft Medium for the army also already contracted to be built in Western Australia. At 500 tonnes displacement they will deliver 90 tonnes of vehicles across the beach.
The RAN currently operates 12 LLCs (4 per LHD well dock) for ship to shore transfer (1 Abrams or 2 Boxers). All up the ADFs investment will deliver an amphibious fleet of over 111,000 tonnes displacement.
In effect the ADF (Army and RAN combined) will have an amphibious capability able to land a force the size of the entire Royal Marines (approx 5,000 troops) and their equipment over the beach or by helo in a single operation.
just when are we looking like a need for the royal marines 6 storm any beaches been needed? the need is for a HLP. modern warfare demands the need for insertion of forces by chopper, not by brave soldiers running through sand to attack pillboxes the MOD seems to be so out of touch and looks like it still thinks war at sea is carried out by two opponents sailing in a line past each other dreadful organisation close it.
Agree, it’s strange that no one ever seems to notice the two massive helicopter carriers the RN has designed to land hundreds of soldiers by Chinook and Merlin backed by F35B and Apache.
Unfortunately Albion and Bulwark were out of date because they had zero aviation capability.
It’s been stated the carriers will generally not be supporting the Royal Marines, and they rarely if ever practice with them.
Plus you seem to have missed the fact the entire FCF strategy is based around water borne raiding. Something the Albions would be fantastic for.
We’re not getting enough or any good choppers for the marines anytime soon
Apache can only operate from ships in very calm seas. The undercarriage is to fragile for deck landings.
Yet, just like the original Apaches were marinised, their AH64 replacements will also be modified for use on the carriers.
Andy, you seem very sure about how ‘the Royals’ will be used in future conflicts! There is a need to expect the unexpected.
No one is seriously suggesting opposed D Day style storming of the beaches. But the reality of large scale amphibious operations (as opposed to small commando style raiding parties) is that heavy equipment cannot be airlifted by helo.
ADF Chinooks regularly practice inserting 155mm M777 Howitzers from the Canberras and can airlift a Hawkei vehicle but anything heavier (Bushmaster, Boxer, Redback IFV, Abrams or heavy logistics vehicles) have to find alternate means of getting ashore.
In the Pacific in particular, there is a dearth of deep water ports (which might be held by an adversary in any case) so the only practical alternative is a landing over a (secured) beach.
That is only relevant for raiding. The ability to land heavy equipment and stores at a time and place of our choosing is hugely valuable. That requires shipping and Landing Craft and the logistical and amphibious planning capability.
Offcourse we have two 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers designed to operate as an LPH as well. Kind of evens things up a bit.
Upgrades that, if I recall correctly, were never made.
There has been a consistent quiet RN design investment in helicopter assault. Both T26 and T31 flight decks are Chinook sized. R2 can lily pad a Merlin. Both R2 and T31 can accommodate significant numbers of RM compared to T23. Argus has been modified into a 2/3 spot LPH.
That’s not how aviation assaults work in practice though. In battle procedure you need to be together, it’s far more effective to plan, prepare a load the force in one place.
That’s why commando carriers were used in the 50s-70s.
You also need to be able to quickly deliver waves of assault troops as you can rarely lift enough combat power in one go.
If your force is distributed over lots of small platforms like escorts, that becomes horribly complex.
I understand. Isn’t there ia spectrum though; special forces insertion, raid, extraction, large scale assault? We would deploy the QE as LPH for a large scale assault…like a sort of Wasp or America class with F-35s, except no well deck of course.
There will soon only be one in service as the other goes into refit – reserve as was the plan for them. LPH? never happen.
So assuming a normal RN crew level and a full airwing complement, each carrier would have capacity for around 250 Royal Marines.
(Unless of course it’s using overload capacity which is likely to take up valuable hangar space and comprise the airwing size or operations).
That’s a long way shy of a purpose built amphibious LHD Llike the Canberra class with 1,000 troops (and their heavy vehicles) or 1,600 troops in overload.
Even Spain with 2 lpd,s , 1 LPH and other planned will have more amphibious capability than Britain.
And the UK with SSBN, 2 Carriers, and SSNs has more capability than Spain.
Being selective is not always the full story.
Yeh but what of those doesn’t have issues or is underfunded
None. But they all exist for the RN, and not for Spain. Micki only ever sees a negative. Comparing countries size for size and not readiness, training, logistics, professionalism, ISTAR, and a whole lot besides is easy to ignore if only comparing size.
All true but SSNs and SSBNs aren’t particularly useful at putting boots on the ground and the article is about amphibious capacity or the RN’s current lack of it.
every time ANYTHING COMES OUT OF 5 MIS XIRCUS is further proof that it will an organisation that is not fit for purpose. if the U.k is serious about growing the nations forces then the hub that dictates it should be up to the task
No reduction in capability Sorry but that’s Bullshit and HMG know it 🙄
so do we.
Need new PAC V for to days army 🪖🪖🪖.
Does nobody ever challenge what these inept clowns say? We live in a nation of sheep who just accept every line of bull shit they are fed.
Utter lying rubbish. They have already stated clearly that the MRSS will not replace Albion and Bulwark. Only the Bays and Argus.
ill believe MRSS TYPE 83 AND TYPE 32 WHEN IT GETS ITS FEET WET or like other notable projects will like the type 82 destroyer and the upholder class boats simply faded it folklore
Oh I see! So lay up a vessel first before selling/scrapping and it’s not a reduction in capability.
How do ministers trot out this drivel with a straight face!
I wonder why the headline says that the MOD is asserting that. Had it come as an official announcement from the Ministry it would have had a certain amount of evidence backing it up, and would have been far bigger news. It came from a junior minister responding to a written question in the House of Commons addressed to his political boss, the Secretary of State for Defence. It should have read:
“No reduction in amphibious capability insists Defence Minister”
Maybe these idiots need to get out of their offices and look at the refit cycles for the Bay class and Argus ? Or look at the lack of RFA seafarers and the hard decisions having to be taken to keep only half the Flotilla at sea!!!!!!!
When they sell one of the two aircraft carriers in the future strategic defence cuts (review) they will say that they have improved the fleet air arm capacity, they laugh at people and think that we are idiots.
I don’t think they will sell one of the two carriers. A Possibility could be a downgrading of the readiness of the second carrier..
QE will be going into its planned refit cycle this year so we will as was planned from the beginnig only have one operational which at a push we could put to sea with an operational fitout of an air wing. Sorry having 2 hulls does not mean you have double capacity as its the air wings embarked that giv it its fighting capabilty which we simply do not have.
All coming to an end really….Would a big squadron sized RN be a better ,more affordable bet?Just T31/T26/Darings/Rivers/last of the 23s/Mine Warfare vessels..Sell off everything else including the F35b(Swap for F35 A?).Operate in North/South Atlantic,West of Suez…No CSG…RFA just fades away…Still enough hulls to keep tabs on Overseas Territories etc…Leave Indo Pacfic to the United States/Local Navies
I think we are at the low point. I think the SDR will confirm 13 new frigates + 6x T45 ( morphing to T83), 2 QE LPHs with a a dozen maybe 24 F-35s, 3 littoral/amphibious (Bays, Argus > morphing to MRSS hybrid LPD/LSD design ), 5 R2 OPVs, + motley collection of R1 and MCMV to be rationalised, + oilers and FSS, + the subs. If T32 happens it will probably be 3x MCMV motherships.
I think we are reaching the low point as the only talk is increasing spending and the question is how much, there are no more smoke and mirrors left to play, this article displays the desperation that they are at the end of the spin envelope to becoming lies that aren’t even feasible. I actually take the point from the minister that in reality they haven’t cut the amphibious ability this year, it was 2023 in reality.
I’m really sceptical about the MRSS replacing anything as I doubt it’s going to be a proper warship and therefore only replace the bay class but no one’s pointed out to mount a contested landing, 3 ships are pretty easy to destroy especially as they’re not going to be built to warship standards. In the end it’s that age old decision of what our politicians want our armed forces to do, if they want to grandstand on the international stage then resource the armed forces to do it ( the good thing is Trump will say so). Far too many European nations discussing Ukraine / middle east issues without putting their money where their mouth is.
Agree MRSS is something of a litmus test for the SDR. We have pulled out of the joint project with the Netherlands who want to replace their large LPDs and Holland class OPVs with a single hybrid design; I’m guessing something like a Damen cross over design; in sifficient numbers to delivering humanitarian assistance to their global ex colonies. I suspect the RN want a ‘proper’ large LPD cum LSD i.e. a design that can do assault and deliver follow up materials and vehicles. Hence some of the concept designs you can see on NLO…very big ships. Thing is the SDR has to identify a strategic reason for building such expensive ships; to retake the Falklands, to add to US / AUS in the Pacific, for Norway, just in case? ….all above my pay grade.
It could go lower for a time unless T26 and T31 build schedules can be improved. I doubt that the defence review will deliver anything radical. There isn’t much left to be cut and too little money to add much.
International commitments like Aukus andGCAP will take priority.
I’m so sorry I have to agree with you. The Hunt class will go before we even understand how to deploy the autonomous systems with their associated motherships and at least three more T23s before HMS Glasgow or Venturer reaches operational capability. There’s a possibility, perhaps a probability, that RFA Cardigan Bay will never return to service. We haven’t hit the bottom yet, and unless the Prime Minister takes a road trip to Damascus, there will be several more tough years to come. If the Chief of the General Staff is right and we go to war in 2027, it could well be at the lowest point of the Royal Navy since the sixteenth century.
The UKDJ is an outstanding military news outlet for the U.K. with great coverage of all the latest developments but a couple of things that I would like to see:
1. I appreciate you need to get hits but click bait articles like this one which are a rehash of an earlier article based on the same MOD statement need to stop.
2. An editorial challenge of the lies contained in this article and similar ones by HMG. UKDJ did a great job in debunking statements from the SNP on shipbuilding and the same now needs to be ruthlessly applied to he U.K. government.
Keep up the good work.
Exactly this.
These statements are spin, and easily shown to be so by anyone with half a braincell of knowledge about the military..
The fact that “technically” the LPDs were not currently at sea and so current capability has not changed ignores what went before and the respective capabilities of the assets:
1) LPDs superior carriage of Landing craft – 4 LCU and 4 LCVP vs 1 LCU and 1 LCVP, plus Mexefloats on a Bay. Capability Cut.
2) Ammunition stowage and C3 capability of LPD vs that of a Bay. Capability Cut.
3) That HMG have dismantled a Light Infantry Brigade and turned it into a raiding force. Capability Cut.
4) BARVs going, not carried by Bays ( I think? ) Capability Cut.
5) 4 LCACs already gone. Capability Cut.
6) 4,6,9 Assault Squadrons RM cut. Capability Cut.
7) Carrying capacity of 4 LCUs, 4 LCVP vs 1 LCU, 1 LCVP and assorted RRC, RIBS
Just a few thoughts.
I agree and if I was being critical I think UKDJ should strongly call out this type of statement for what it really is…….lies
I suspect the assertion relates to the fact that there are no agreed NATO standing tasks or scenarios that would require the ships in question. The issue is whether there are other contingencies for which they might nonetheless be required (The Falklands War being an obvious example of a situation where providing for NATO taskings did not result in the Navy being properly equipped for amphibious assault in the South Atlantic). The key question is ‘in what circumstance do the Albion’s provide a means to achieve a desired effect that can’t otherwise be achieved? In my judgement, attempting a contested landing against a near-peer adversary in the 21st century would be pretty suicidal.
NATO covers less than 20% of the Earth’s land surface. Does the government think that nothing that happens in the rest of the world affects the UK?
If they follow their “NATO test” through literally? God help us.
As a significant chunk of that is Canada and Greenland, it probably means planning to burn down the White House again. I’m told the Marines will be flying Ryan Air to Dullas and will breach customs by waving photocopies of the 2nd amendment whilst claiming to be a well-regulated militia.
Of course, it was an empty bottle of red that told me that and it’s not always to be trusted on military matters. Argentinian, you know.
Well yes, clearly we have interests that don’t fall within NATO’s remit, so simply funding capabilities that meet the ‘NATO test’ is totally inadequate if we intend to defend our interests properly. The level of spending that Trump is apparently demanding of allies is pretty much the same proportionate spend that the US already achieves, and is about what we should be spending in my judgement. But on the specific issue of the Albions, I’m not convinced that retaining them in mothballs was every going to be useful.
How about an LPD and a LDS (A) ( so the planned LRG(N) carrying out an uncontested landing? There is no reason why an LPD would have to assault a defended coast no more than any other amphibious asset of other NATO members.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Bullshit. Even if they weren’t destined to go to sea they were present which meant we could put them back to sea if, for a probable example, the argues decide to invade The Falklands for the oil. Scrapping or even selling ships is not what we need to do, we need to increase the number if ships, aircraft, tanks, missile systems, drones and number of people. If this means getting rid of the pointless diversity managers in our schools, offices, councils etc al then so be it, I would rather be defended by people who want to fight for the UK than have a manager to oversee making sure at least half the school doesn’t know what sex they are
I say, ‘Bull Ox!’
There seems to be a serious misunderstanding that amphibious capability cones just from ships.
The Minister might want to acknowledge that the reduction of the RM and 3 Cdo Bde from an amphibious infantry brigade to a raiding force is the real death knell of amphibious capability.
And to sacrifice that for a raiding capability that is so unlikely to be used is just criminal.
Totally agree
You are totally correct.
‘No decrease in capacity’ as the capacity we had was not being used….a Nobel prize in weasel words.
That’s a bit pathetic really going… We did not cut the ships because the last government had no plan to bring them back in service after refit… may be true, but the present government still chose to scrap or sell the ships.
Don’t understand. With Albion and Bulwark held in reserve there was always the possibility of recommissioning them if the need arose. With them sold off they won’t be available, Therefore capability has been lost. I know that, users of this forum know that, the military know that. Do politicians think we’re all stupid?
Well honestly yes they do. Half the population have an IQ of 100 or less, and have pretty much zero willingness or even the skill set to find and evaluate information. They believe what they are told over and over… the more you say it the more people believe it. Evidence base or observable facts aside.
Ok then. Such a statement then confirms what I have said previously…
The UK MoD is full of 💩
Britain has long ago been ruled by anti-British traitors.
Do these idiots at Main building really think we are expected to believe this rubbish?