The Strategic Defence Review came under scrutiny in the House of Lords on 5 June, where peers pressed ministers on the future of amphibious lift and the cross-party character of the review, according to Hansard.
Earl of Minto, Conservative, highlighted the document’s sparse references to amphibious warfare, saying “there are only three mentions of the word ‘amphibious’ in the document. Given that the Government have scrapped HMS Bulwark and Albion, thereby leaving the Royal Navy with no landing platform docks and relying solely on the Bay-class ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, ships that themselves are ageing rapidly, can the Minister provide further clarity on the future of the UK’s amphibious capabilities?”
Defence minister Lord Coaker replied that the Government “is committed to amphibious capabilities” and pointed to existing RFA assets. “The noble Earl will know that we have the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships which provide that at the moment. He will know that fleet support ships will be built in Belfast to help support that. He will also know that the new First Sea Lord, with his background, will ensure that there is no shortage of amphibious capability, which will be important as well.”
Outside the exchange, officials note that the forthcoming Multi-Role Strike Ship (MRSS) programme is intended to close the gap. Up to six MRSS vessels, announced in the 2021 Defence in a Competitive Age white paper and funded in May 2024, are expected to replace the retired Albion-class landing platform docks, the three Bay-class landing ship docks and the support ship RFA Argus.
Labour peer Lord Robertson of Port Ellen urged ministers to stress the review’s bipartisan genesis. “This was not a Labour defence review. It was designed specifically to be a strategic review that would incorporate other elements of the country… I asked Sir Jeremy Quin, a former Conservative Minister for defence procurement, to be part of our team… This report is not simply about warships and missiles. It is about reforming the whole way in which we deliver defence… Defence expenditure is the premium we spend for an insurance policy, not only for the current generation but for generations to come.”
Responding to further questions on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Lord Coaker said “the long-running dispute with respect to pay was resolved as part of our attempts to ensure that the RFA was properly supported and its personnel properly respected and given the pay that they deserve.”
On the possibility of supplementing the fleet with commercial vessels he added “you would do that in situations where it was safe to do so — but that would be augmenting the RFA, not replacing it… Those sorts of imaginative solutions… will give us the capacity and capability that we need.”
Amongst the sounds of raucous snoring, a Peer was heard to ask, “How would we cope with a Peer on Peer situation” ?
The answer is held pending several committee reviews.
Slightly worrying that Lord Coaker appears not to understand the difference between the Fleet Solid Support ships being built in Belfast, with no Amphibious capabilities, and the entirely separate MRSS project that has yet to agree a design let alone a builder!
Too many SSS I expect.
I see they are still pretending that the Bays provide the same level of Amphibious capability, from lift to C3, as the LPDs.
A Bay is as vulnerable as an Albion, maybe more, and with only part of it’s capabilities.
The loss of or gapping of capabilities hasn’t seemed to be seen as an issue for a while and simply gets ignored, as you already know with Warrior being replaced by wheeled boxer without a turret despite there being options for one, I’m sure you can think of many other areas capability has been lost or gapped like it’s no big deal.
Considering the loss of the Albions I’ve not seen anything on the JEF since the review, perhaps they are hoping people forget about that commitment until MRSS, just like the grand plans for troops in Ukraine which seem to have quietly disappeared now reality has set in.
Precisely.
You could send an Albion into places you wouldn’t dream of sending a Bay.
To these buffoons it is a big grey box that floats.
I don’t really buy the ‘we will never do a contested beach landing’…..what level is contested? A machine gun nest? A bloke with an RPG? You can’t give up in the face of dealable with issues. You find solutions like drones taking out the machine gun nest with NSM backup.
It is totally different if you have a dug in army with M270 type systems and 10s of shoulder launch.
But there are plenty of scenarios where you’d have marginal opposition that can be dealt with at an acceptable level of risk. It is all down to recon…
If the multi role strike ships don’t have embarked helicopters & only a flight deck then the QE class carriers will still need to operate with the amphibious ships for cross decking meaning that the carriers will be placed closer to the threat and aren’t operating in their primary role as fleet carriers. It would make far more sense to have a couple of large Mistral or Canberra type LHD than 6 little MRSS that have no embarked air wing.
Well, on the one hand we hear that the number of RN frigates and destroyers is going to increase from 19 to 25 and on the other hand we read that there won’t be any more type 31s and Atlantic Bastion will rely mostly on drones; so don’t hold your breath for more T26. There are to be 6 MRSS and Babcock will need orders to follow on from T31. Put all that together and what I come up with is MRSS = Absalon or similar; a multi-role ‘strike frigate’ based on the T31 Arrowhead hull. Absalon has a 5in gun, ESSM missiles, a hangar for 2 Merlins, an amphibious capability to land and support a company. Heavy vehicles e.g. MBT would need the Absalon to offload via its side loading opening at a port.
LHDs are more expensive, crew heavy and require an air wing
What amphibioius capability?
They are not even out option studies yet. No serious design work has been undertaken and there is no spare shipbuilding capacity in the country, nor will there be for the medium term. So the first MRSS is at best a decade away.