The Ministry of Defence has declined to provide an updated assessment on the operational future or readiness status of RFA Argus and RFA Fort Victoria, referring instead to previously published readiness submissions to Parliament.
In a written answer published on 5 February, Defence Minister Luke Pollard responded to Labour MP John McDonnell, who asked what recent assessment had been made of the operational future of the two Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels and what their current status was. Pollard replied that he referred the MP to an earlier response given on 26 January to Conservative MP Dame Caroline Dinenage.
In that earlier written answer, Pollard said that Royal Navy Surface Fleet readiness data is provided on a six-monthly basis, in agreement with the House of Commons Defence Committee, and that the latest information is published via the committee’s submissions.
He added: “To protect the operational security of the Fleet, I am unable to provide further granularity.”
Pollard also stated that the Royal Navy does not hold individual personnel at a readiness state but instead records readiness by force elements or units, and said further information was being withheld on the basis that disclosure could prejudice the effectiveness or security of the armed forces.
There is continued uncertainty surrounding the future of RFA Argus, which has been widely reported as facing safety concerns due to its age. The aviation training and primary casualty receiving ship had previously been expected to remain in service beyond 2030, but reporting in 2025 suggested the vessel had been deemed unsafe to sail without further work.
Neither ship has been operational for some time. Both ships require significant levels of maintenance before they can become operational. This is in the public domain. In what way does discussing the long-term intentions of the government compomise operational secrecy?
You know what actually compromises operations? Announcing that you don’t have the budget to maintain or operate ships and that you are therefore decommissioning them. Like the laundry list of 20 ships that have fallen by the wayside in the last five years. Although not HMS Bangor, for no readily apparent reason. The ship with a hole in the side that can be measured in bus lengths, the last of its class, previously scheduled for decommissioning was the ship that John Healey chose to extend in service last year.
I don’t know if there’s any method in the madness, but there’s madness all right. I’m positively fuming for a start.
I think you are confusing the public domain with the internet rumour mill. If it was in the public domain then the minister would simply point to the information.
It’s entirely reasonable that the minister does not comment on the readiness and availability of major warships. Readiness is also subjective, while these ships are not in good condition it doesn’t mean they can’t put to sea in a war time scenario and complete their mission.
Hermes was off to the breakers yard before being sent to the Falklands in 1982. Invincible was missing half her turbines.
Would you have had the minister produce statements on the material readiness of those vessels?
“Hermes was off to the breakers yard before being sent to the Falklands in 1982. Invincible was missing half her turbines”
Hermes was never stripped ready for the breakers yard but she did have a stated 1982 OSD when the second of the Invincible class, illustrious, was commissioned. That was a sensible phased change of carriers without ‘gapping’.
Invincible did have a major gearbox failure hearing down south that was rectified off Ascension Island.
Jim you are trying and failing to defend the incompetence of the MoD. The deletion of the LPDs was at least in part justified in numerous statements including Argus as one of 4 Amphibious ships to be retained by the fleet. Several of those statements within the last 12 months so what’s changed?
It is therefore entirely reasonable to ask the Minister what’s going on. That they hide behind statements regarding secrecy is entirely disingenuous when we can all see in plain sight what is going on in Portsmouth.
Let’s be honest even is she was refitted could the RFA even crew her ? I doubt it.
There is an element to which this is all just surreal.
The issue is that everyone knows that Argus was superannuated and that it is inevitable that corrosion is going be be a big issue with a hull that old. However well built and maintained she was. Nobody saw her being extended on to 2030+ so maintenance will have been predicated round her original OSD. You don’t bother replacing plating and other bits that will be fine as OSD + a reasonable margin.
The problem is that the goal posts have been moved a few times for Argus – each time the goal posts are moved it is a game of catch up to the new trajectory. In this case with the usual penny pinching mentality of doing the absolute bare minimum.
I’m not defending them, I’m defending the decision not to broadcast the readiness of major fleet units as pet of OPSEC.
The Russians likely know quite precisely what the operational readiness is of every ship in the Royal Navy; the Americans also know it. Apparently the only people who are not permitted to know it are parliamentarians and the British people.
That’s the part that frustrates me. Any major opponent be it Russia or China or even Iran will have intelligence assets in the UK, bribing people for info. There are thousands of dock workers, sailors, civil servants that would have enough info to be useful. There will be a leak somewhere. Russia clearly had trump in their pocket and had Boris, if they can get that level of access, a lowly paid person would be far easier.
If they just leave her tied up at Portsmouth until 2030, It would solve a lot of problems and embarrasing questions.
Why would you have them do anything other than sit along side until 2030.
Given the threat in the North Atlantic region and our release of any obligations in the pacific thanks to the Orange one, I would have the entire fleet sitting along side in readiness.
No need for us to be anywhere outside the Euro Atlantic at present.
I guess you missed my meaning completely Jim.
Because they are, pretty much always, making pointless political comments.
What utter BS, this was a question on future planning.. holding the government to account.. not immediate operational information. Using national security is a BS move to sidestep government accountability.
This Government is fond of using “National Security” as a blocker to any questions about our state…
Gosh how unusual is that, I bet no government has ever done that before eh?
They desperately want to keep them nominally on strength (albeit with minimal spend) as anything else will make recent decisions such as selling the Albion’s for peanuts look even more foolish and risky. Go back a few more years and selling Fort Grange and Fort Austin to Egypt in 2021 at scrap value was also crazy, leaving the RN/RFA gambling that Fort Victoria would manage another 10-12 years of trouble free service! Also in the late 2010’s RN was desperate to replace Argus with a low cost LHD type by 2024, but in early 2020 that idea was foolishly rejected by the Integrated Security Review, leaving us dependent on an already 40 year old ship lasting another 12+ years before finally being replaced by a MRSS.
The old forts weren’t capable replenishing the carriers. And increasing Cree shortages made them pretty useless
IIRC they each needed a £13 million upgrade to their RAS rig in order to support the QEC, not exactly extortionate. As for crew shortages, in a national emergency that can usually be over come – but you still need a ship for them to man. And the planning assumption in 2020 was that Fort Victoria could be crewed, if she was unavailable due to defects then it was reasonable to assume that most of her crew could be transferred to Fort Grange or Fort Austin. Retaining just one might have avoided the embarrassment of CSG25 depending upon Norway and the USA for most of its at sea solid stores replenishment.
You really think the old Forts would be in a sailable condition compared to Fort Victoria which is compared to them, much newer.
And again there isn’t a crew for Fort Vic even so nothing to transfer to a non existent 2nd ship
In 2019 the UK government was still assuring us that Fort Grange or Fort Austin were both available for operations if required, and both ships are currently in active service with the Egyptian Navy. Keeping one in a medium readiness state (operational in 2 months) with the other used for spares would have made a lot of sense, rather than betting the farm on Fort Victoria with no contingency.
This isn’t even an in hindsight situation, we literally cannot get 1 of these ships to sea, and it’s not because it’s broken it’s because there’s no one to sail it. So it would’ve been a wasted exercise to upgrade an ancient ship to sit around and rot
Grange and Austin were built up to a standard, not down to a price like Fort Vic which was already in rag order when Fort George – in good order – was scrapped.
Fort Vic had VERY serious mechanical and corrosion issues a decade ago.
Ok? But a 40 year old ship even built to a good standard isn’t going to function well. Doesn’t change the point we couldn’t have used them by CSG25
I’m not sure in a national emergency you could find the people to man the ships. The Falklands was 40 years ago, the numbers of UK merchant navy are very small, the RFA being the largest employer. P&O Ferries are not going to help you with their international labour. Are you going to borrow crew from the MSC or another NATO country navy. Doubt it!
Going to need to call people up to man tham as it been left so late. Then train them!
Cannot say they were not warned, both government and opposition clearly knew what was going on.
40 years ago, the RFA was a minor employer in the UK Merchant Navy, now it is effectively the only UK manned Merchant Fleet.
Labour came in vowing greater transparency.
That’s going well, isn’t it?
Well at least we can all “See through them now”.
Well this Government just don’t want anyone to know how bad things are in the MoD. There is no spare money and day to day spending is being cut anywhere it can without affect on current operations, but what that means is the Treasury just won’t give them enough to survive on. Just scrap Argus now, put the crew on a Bay class so we have a flexible crew with space for trainees. Oh and pay the 1400 crew before it really goes to pieces next month and you need to make them redundant, so Serco etc al can move in, or is that the plan anyway………
That is the plan anyway.
Transfer the LSDs and under wunder warfare hulls to the RN, ‘we are increasing the size of the RN’, SERCOize everything else moving it off books and big manpower cost savings – no CS pensions etc.
Has we all know on defence issues our ministers score 0 on defence . 😦
It is embarrassing! FTVR is required at sea ASAP so the RFA can maintain SQEP in solid Replenishment before FSS is introduced. The problem is lack of numbers in personnel which means something else has to go. Argus is a 1979 hull and should has gone some 10-15 years ago and replaced under the MARS project. Unfortunately both Labour and Conservative Governments decided not to continue the project. At the same crew voluntary redundancies in 2010 and subsequent lack of recruitment had led to the present situation. The Navy including the RFA is fundamentally broken and to recover requires significant funding and Government support to recover. There needs to be a pragmatic approach to recruitment including a proper pay increase and amendment to T&C’s. To do this HMG needs to make seafaring a positive career and expand the UK’s merchant marine with British seafarers . So in short although needed Argus is beyond economic sustainability and FTVR will follow suit. Funding is essential to recover the situation but the political will is not there. It will only be noted by the general public when it is too late and the Navy needs to deploy in a hot conflict.
Pay the going rate or better, improve living standard ashore and float. It’s not like they don’t know the problems, it’s all about Treasury. It’s all about if this government wants the RFA or if it want it to fail.
Good luck to the RN manning the support ships, if you think you need them, not impossible for RNto run, but going to put more stress on the people in RN and that won’t help retainment.
RFA is being set up to fail, staff have worked hard to stop the ships sinking under the pressure of poor government decisions and cost cuts.
All too difficult to do honestly, we don’t need store ships really, they aren’t leathality, like FFDD, we need to cut 1500 civil servants anyway, guess it’s time to bring on the redundancy and finish off the RFA.
Based upon numerous relevant articles and analyses, can reasonably predict RN will be restored to nearly full functionality by 2035-2040. In the interim, HMG probably presumes UK will undertake significant military action solely w/in the context of allied operations. CSG25 may have served as the prototype model of execution. Cooperation provided by multiple allies, even the currently despised ugly Americans. Predict a similar model of engagement for the RAF and especially the BA during the same timeframe. Perhaps not an entirely reassuring prospect re national independence of action, but not entirely w/out redeeming geopolitical aspects. The UK has engendered significant international good will and soft power through its post-war conduct, both w/in alliances and through the Commonwealth. The UK has allies that will assist her until the rearmament process yields tangible results. Fear nought.
I’m beginning to doubt the assumption that the RN will be ‘returned to full functionality’ in the 2030’s. We are sharing T26 delivery slots with Norway and the recent parliamentary statements about T31 service dates suggest slippage. Are we considering surrendering T31 delivery slots to Denmark?
Don’t misunderstand me; I do think these are positive for the UK shipbuilding and the economy, but not for RN hull numbers. Recently we saw batch 1 Rivers used to intercept a quite heavily armed Russian corvette. Should we be replacing these B1 Rivers urgently with half a dozen better armed versions of the B2?
We should be replacing the B1’s, probably with a clean sheet design rather than up gunned B2’s (lets retain the minimum viable armament but maybe a small collapsible hangar) but mostly because the B1’s are going out of service soon.
We should be replacing the batch 1 rivers with something suitable for long patrols and convoys escorts. Maybe a 3000t corvette, built in Appledore so not to interfere with T26 and T31.
Does it need to be heavily armed. Yes, incase it need to do it’s job of defending merchant shipping and chasing away subs. Think of it defending the UK and Eastern Atlantic and give it a good endurance.
I’d like to think if it was taken out by an enemy, we would consider that an act of war and in a very short time (minutes few) shoot back!
Not a ‘corvette’, but maybe the BAE Leander proposal for T31?
The pending defence investment plan could well be grim … Type 32 is certainly toast, Type 83 future is questionable, no guarantee 8 Type 26s will survive, no guarantee 7 Astutes will survive (given US hesitation in providing Virginia-class SSNs to Australia, UK could double down on AUKUS +, in order to cement that, “co-man” an Astute with Australia, meaning it becomes an RAN asset + simply never comes home) … probably lots of rhetoric about “unmanned systems” but very possibly with underwhelming delivery plans.
Reflecting on the Aster in Mk41 study, the absence of news on Argus and Fort Vic, the sharing of T26 with Norway and the hint that T31 might be later in service tells me they are still figuring out an affordable plan. I suspect the RN always thought we could end up boracic lint and that T31 ( + now drones) was meant to be the get out of jail card.
Paul.P,.
Actually could envision a new design, enhanced RN OPV or Corvette class, w/ any cost-effective AAW and ASW capabilities available, for deployment in the Baltic, Med, North Sea, Persian Gulf, etc., theaters. Same design philosophy as T-31, built as a fixed-price contract, utilizing a relatively rapid construction schedule, and featuring a minimized planned crew complement, achieved by utilizing AI and automation in the design. Capable, littoral warships would have virtually unlimited export potential.
Should you believe what you wrote, I have two conventional aircraft carriers I can sell you, each has toured once with one careful owner.
Ps, teething issues fixed.
DW,
Patience counseled and required. Every confidence RN QE class will mature into fully capable CVs during the 2030s. F-35Bs will eventually reach design capabilities; programme, quite simply, is too large to tolerate failure. RN hybrid airwing concept will succeed, eventually. Iterative trials, and especially a sufficiently long developmental timeline, virtually guarantee positive results.
I seem to recall the RFA had a ship almost permanently berthed in the harbour at Split in the 90’s to support the Army in FRY. Just because it is a ship, it doesn’t mean it is only used to support the Navy.
I suppose we will just have to wait until they roll out the same excuse they used for binning HMS Bulwark and Albion? They will only have to change the ships’ names; it’ll save a Whitehall MOD bod a few minutes’ work.
Its top secret, but the story is that no further RN ships will be stricken until after the next election. They will instead be part of the newly formed RNGF. (Royal Navy Ghost Fleet). Amongst their tasks will be defending the South Coast from The Intruder Invasion equipped with new low visibility paint.