The Royal Navy is entering a period of transformation, with plans to retire the amphibious assault ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark while, eventually, introducing a new generation of vessels designed to meet evolving operational needs.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has assured that this shift will not hinder the Royal Marines’ ability to deploy globally or fulfil their missions.
HMS Albion and Bulwark, which have played pivotal roles in the UK’s amphibious operations, will leave service in 2033 and 2034 respectively. Both ships have been held at lower readiness for years, with Albion last deployed in 2023 and Bulwark in 2017. According to Defence Minister Luke Pollard, their retirement aligns with the broader effort of modernising the Navy’s amphibious capabilities.
“The Royal Marines continue to deploy globally, supported by the three Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) vessels and RFA ARGUS, which also provides aviation and casualty-receiving support,” Pollard stated.
Transitioning to the Future
The forthcoming Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS) programme will replace both HMS Albion, HMS Bulwark, and other legacy vessels. Currently in its concept phase, MRSS is designed to recapitalise the Navy’s amphibious fleet with versatile, modern ships capable of supporting operations across a range of scenarios. The first MRSS vessel is expected to enter service by 2033.
Defence Minister Maria Eagle highlighted the programme’s importance, saying:
“The MRSS programme will recapitalise the Royal Navy’s amphibious fleet… These vessels, planned to leave service by 2034, are due to be replaced by MRSS. The first of class is expected by 2033, ensuring the UK retains its ability to project power and respond to crises effectively.”
This shift is part of a long-term strategy to enhance the Royal Navy’s readiness for contemporary challenges, focusing on cost-effective platforms and emerging technologies rather than maintaining older, manpower-intensive ships in a cash and people strained environment.
Maintaining Capability During the Transition
While the retirement of HMS Albion and Bulwark marks the end of an era, the MoD has emphasised that amphibious capability will remain intact. The three Bay-class Landing Ship Dock vessels and RFA Argus will continue to provide critical support, ensuring the Royal Marines can operate effectively in both peacetime and crisis scenarios.
Pollard reiterated this commitment, stating:
“The operational programme of the Royal Marines remains robust, with amphibious capability supported by existing vessels until they are succeeded by the planned Multi-Role Support Ships.”
Although the Bay-class ships and RFA Argus have more limited amphibious capacity compared to dedicated assault ships, they have proven effective in a range of roles, including humanitarian assistance, logistics support, and casualty evacuation.
Balancing Challenges with Opportunity
The decision to retire HMS Albion and Bulwark reflects a broader effort to modernise and future-proof the Royal Navy. By prioritising investments in more adaptable platforms, the Navy aims to ensure it is prepared for an increasingly complex and unpredictable global landscape.
This approach, while ambitious, is not without challenges. The timely delivery and operational success of the MRSS programme will be critical in ensuring the Navy retains its amphibious edge. However, the transition also creates opportunities to free up resources and personnel for emerging priorities.
One analyst described the move as a balancing act: “This transition positions the Navy to focus on cutting-edge capabilities, ensuring it remains relevant and ready for future threats while maintaining operational commitments during the interim period.”
Moving Forward
The planned transition offers both challenges and opportunities. The timely delivery and operational success of the MRSS programme will be crucial to maintaining the UK’s amphibious capabilities. Any significant delays could leave the Royal Navy reliant on auxiliary ships ill-suited for the full spectrum of amphibious operations, a concern that cannot be ignored given the current geopolitical climate.
The decision to retire the Albion class reflects a commitment to modernisation, but it also risks creating a capability gap that must be carefully managed. Critics have questioned whether the reliance on Bay-class ships and RFA Argus can adequately sustain the same operational flexibility and readiness levels during the transition period. These concerns place significant pressure on the MoD to deliver the MRSS on time and to ensure they meet the operational demands of both peacetime and crisis scenarios.
Ultimately, the Royal Navy is taking a calculated risk by prioritising future capabilities over retaining older platforms. While this strategy aims to deliver a fleet better equipped to face modern threats, its success will depend on the government’s ability to meet its own timelines and maintain critical amphibious capacity during the transition.
Would things have been better in terms of managing the risk if the platforms had stayed? Yes, obviously, but retaining ageing platforms like HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark would have come at a significant cost, both financially and operationally.
Maintaining vessels that are manpower-intensive and increasingly costly would have diverted resources from the modernisation efforts critical to preparing the Royal Navy for future threats. The challenge now is ensuring the transition is managed effectively without compromising the UK’s amphibious capability during this period of change.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has assured that this shift will not hinder the Royal Marines’ ability to deploy globally or fulfil their missions.”
Debatable. If the remaining assets are less capable that must have an impact on the ability of the RM to deploy.
“The Royal Marines continue to deploy globally, supported by the three Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) vessels and RFA ARGUS, which also provides aviation and casualty-receiving support,” Pollard stated.”
Two. A Bay has been tied up in the Gulf supporting some of the few MCMV we have left, which were salami sliced over decades just as the LPDs are now.
I believe it is still there? I believe a Logistic Support Vessel is meant to replace it. Where are they?
“The forthcoming Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS) programme will replace both HMS Albion, HMS Bulwark, and other legacy vessels.”
Disagree. The MRSS, if it ever appears, will replace the assets that remain.
Using that argument is a bit like saying Typhoon replaced Tornado GR4, Tornado F3, Phantom, Jaguar, Buccaneer, which it clearly did not.
Three of those types were discarded in other defence cuts.
“the MoD has emphasised that amphibious capability will remain intact.”
How can it when the remaining vessels can only deploy 1 LCU or 1 LCVP, plus Mexefloat, vis 4 and 4 previously? Capability inevitably reduces.
Where is the expansion in the CHF to compensate? There is none.
“Although the Bay-class ships and RFA Argus have more limited amphibious capacity compared to dedicated assault ships”
Well there you go!
I love how cuts imposed by this government are justified while lambasting cuts undertaken by previous governments continues. There is no justification whatsoever for getting rid of Bulwark.
With the greatest respect to GA, this article is an MoD civil servant justification for the bad decision to retire the two vessels which give the Royal Marines global reach and expeditionary fighting power. It’s yet another cut to British fighting capability imposed by politicians following another decade of £bn’s MoD waste, inefficiency and costly cock-ups
The new Argentina management, who are shortly to receive squadrons of F-15 authorised and paid for by the Biden administration – a so-called ally – and personally approved by POTUS Biden will be enjoying this
“The new Argentina management, who are shortly to receive squadrons of F-15 authorised and paid for by the Biden administration – a so-called ally – and personally approved by POTUS Biden will be enjoying this”
This is a thing that is not happening, Argentina is buying a small number of ex-Danish F-16MLU. They are not getting F-15 and certainly not paid for by America.
America is an ally to the UK and the Biden administration has sought to preserve that alliance. Trump on the other hand beyond posturing about the Churchill bust in the Oval Office has clearly shown by his actions and statements that he would happily throw the UK under the bus including imposing punitive import tariffs on our goods.
Your memeory is a bit Hazel I think Biden essentially completely abandoned the negotiations on trade with the UK as soon as he came to office. Just last year the Whitehouse had to.leap to Bidens defence claiming he wasn’t ‘anti British’. No Trump supporter but Biden on UK trade was no friend. of the UK.
He didn’t really, those talks like the ones the U.K. were having at the time with Canada lapsed as the two sides were too far apart. Moreover it’s the Congress that signs off of Trade Deals from memory.
Irish Joe moat definitely was anti British.
The guys a bafoon with dementia. Compared to Biden Trump is a genius.
That’s not saying much but it’s true.
I would also add, that it was a choice of 2nd hand F16s or brand new Chinese JF-17s. Plus all the baggage that would come with Chinese debt, military advisors etc. As a note of caution of fanning the F16 fanboys flames. The ex-Danish F16s don’t have the option of fitting conformal fuel tanks, its either drop tanks or mid-air refuelling using a boom equipped tanker aircraft. Argentina do not possess such a tanker aircraft. In the BVR arena, the relatively naff radar, will only allow the use of up to AMRAAM C.
This is a case of keeping your friends close, but a potential enemy closer! By “selling” Argentina the 2nd hand F16s. They have a credible aircraft for policing their skies. But more importantly it is a known quantity to the RAF. It would be a whole different ball game if the had gotten Chinese JF-17s. Also politically and perhaps militarily, it also keeps China out of South America.
The vessels were effectively retired anyway. Retiring them wasn’t really a bad decision as having vessels that couldnt practically deploy isnt good value and doesnt add any real capaiblity other than on paper.
What was a bad decision was not replacing them sooner.
Argentina is getting a few F16s, not F15s. Just enough to carry out airspace security/policing, not enough for any offensive action.
But I agree it’s an insane move cutting the biggest, most capable LPD/amphibious HQ ships. It reduces masively our ability to land & support the RMs & any other forces landed as well as transporting forces ashore to aid allies &, especially given the marginal force levels remaining, evacuate them.
given the stories of the low quality of aircraft maintenance. those F16’s won’t be around for long
Completely agree Mate. I try to maintain a “glass half full view” , as Healey pledged to maintain both carriers. I imagine one will be tasked as a “commando carrier: with both Albion and Bulwark gone.
I’ve been arguing for just that for years. With Ocean gone, a QE is the only platform capable of simultaneous launch of enough helicopters to insert a sizeable RM force quickly.
At the cost of limiting the availability of the carrier group. The whole point of having two carriers is to enable the constant availability of one; the second ship is maintained and worked up while the active carrier is deployed, then they switch. If the second ship is tasked differently, it needs to exercise differently, and will be in different operational role.
Stretching resources to give an illusion of capability isn’t a wonderful plan. The carrier group could still deploy small forces of commandos while doing its primary role, but if the government wants amphibious assault capability, it needs to pay for it, but for the love of God, they should stop trying to draft the RFA into naval roles to plug gaps in the fleet.
It really boils down to changing the components of the air group. Without further modification, both QEs can carry s sizeable RM contingent. You are right that with only one hull available, covering both roles would be a challenge. I see it as an interim option to bridge the period before we have sufficient F35s to equip both carriers and MRSS becomes operational.
For the next few years, crewing both ships really means we need to make use of them and there isn’t enough combat air to use them both as strike carriers.
I’m not sure how that is going to work, especially if only a single carrier is going to be used at any one time. For Amphibious Ops, you will require local air dominance which will try to maintain the safety of the ships operating close to shore. But the F35s tasked with the job, will have to provide both combat air patrols (CAP) as well as ground attack missions in support of the ground forces, along with any strategic strikes required. Therefore the carrier will need 24 F35s as a minimum, 12 F35s realistically would be too thinly stretched to do all of these roles. With 24 F35s along with a few Merlins (at least 3) with Crowsnest, along with a few more for ASW. Space becomes tight for support helicopters, especially if you have to include a number of Chinooks and some Apaches.
The obvious answer is to separate the two aircraft requirements, which would then necessitate the use of both carriers. One performing air ops, whilst the other does helicopter ground support. As much as I’d like to see the two carriers operating together, will it be too much of a risk? I do however believe that the RN should have a dedicated helicopter carrier, as the MRSS cannot provide that level of support. The Italian Trieste design is probably a good option!
Yes if MRSS ever appears..Really only Babcock and H&W can build these. Navantia are rumoured to want 300m more to buy out H&W and build FSS thus keeping H&W an option for MRSS. If the H&W deal doesn’t go through then Babcock can pretty much name their price for MRSS with no other yard in the picture. Easy to see why the government needs to make cuts, not giving a loan guarantee to H&W will not only cost them 300m more, if they don’t pay it then FSS goes to Spain and government will pay more for MRSS.
Let’s not mention the 200m reported to lease back Diego Garcia 😀 now coming out of the budget or the additional NI payment every serving personal and mod suppler needs to pay the treasury which is effectively a defence budget cut. They give with one hand then take back with the other and hope public doesn’t sus them, really!!!
A good post Daniele.
How can we take seriously any commentary from an MP such as Luke Pollard who as a local Plymouth MP was constantly bleating about the loss of any ships from Devonport and particularly vocal in opposition to the loss of these two ships and the impact it would have on the RM’s. However, when given the chance to be a minister it is suddenly ok because we might get replacement vessels in 10 years time. All this from the party of the grown ups.
Why listen to luke pollard, he’s a poof.
Yet he’s somewhat more important than a right trash cunt like you will ever be.
I understood that Albion and Bulwark were being retired immediately, not in 2033 and 2034 as mentioned in this article? I assume those were the dates originally outlined for their decommissioning, prior to the most recent government decision?!
There are very, very few MPs or ministers who I take seriously.
Their mastery of their brief is limited and they all sound the same.
This government do not give a toss for defence, just like the last lot.
Meanwhile, RFA Stirling Castle is now laid up for lack of crew. WHEN are HMG going to grip the crisis around the RFA?
Deafening silence.
I despise the lot of them.
I doubt they think much of the eyetie turd either, not that they care about your insane blabber 🤡💩🤣
Why are you allowed to post here? Foul mouthed little swine.
when are the royal marines going to storm any beaches? they aren’t so f it’ scrap em’
couldn’t see our bootnecks storming any beaches in the modern world losing the albions is sad yes but the ‘zky is falling response is over the top those crew sizes will always many of the manpower issues across the navy.
I don’t mind why there is so j much furore about the loss of the class the times when marines stormed beaches has gone 600 sailors will now be available for short time replenishment if gaps elsewhere in the navy.
Typo – F16 !!
I don’t agree retaining these platforms would be at huge costs. All the cuts made were to save 100m which is 0.0017% of the defence budget. That’s a rounding error in budget terms. And given the massive NI hit on businesses they can’t find 100m well that’s shocking, and even more shocking is that Healy didn’t fight for a paltry 0,0017% of the defence budget!!!
We were told it was costing £9m per annum to keep the Albions on the books. HMS Albion was in service 18 months ago, so I don’t buy that it was somehow useless. Bulwark had spent a lot of time in refit. They are not gone, they are still there, and we should find a use for them rather than selling them.
I would suspect that the MOD know full well, there is no chance of ever being able to crew one of them again. GB pointed out before there were a lot of job specific roles for the Albion’s
Why not an Ekranoplan for this duty? Given the environnement where Royal Navy will operate in for the next 20 years, this type of machine may have more survivability than a ship.
Ah! The Caspian Sea Monster!
Move on to what? Iran will shortly have a bigger navy than us!
Now whilst I speak out often about the creeping politicisation of this site and would usually refrain from comment I can’t let that one go – that is total and utter poppy cock – or BS if you prefer.
I’d fancy our chances.
I think they already have if you count theirs missile boats yes 5th or 6th in the world navy power list, behind India, Japan and turkey?who would ever have thought it ever. Italy’s navy isn’t much smaller than ours either.
so will the Italians
There’s still 8-9 years to go! I initially thought it was going to be an instant chop! If they’re busting to replace these wouldn’t they want to get more of a hurry on with the newer MRSS’s a bit? Have they even chosen the design yet?
No their going NOW early 2025 at latest – I hope to be corrected and wish I’d read this wrong but have checked again and their going NOW 🇬🇧👎🏴
Did the announcement say what was happening to the LCUs. Are we keeping them? They have the range to make some shorter journeys by them selves.
I have highlighted this before. The RM Assault Sqn allocated to the LPDs is affected by this but of course they will not mention that.
Once there were 3 Sqns- 4,6,9 Assault Sqns RM, one for Albion, Bulwark, Ocean, plus 539 Assault Sqn, plus 10 Training Sqn at Poole and 11 Trials Sqn at Instow.
Now, God knows.
What we need to remember about MRSS is that under Schapps, he committed to 3 ships and – wait for it – UP TO SIX. That was NO guarantee of six ships, even though six is what’s needed to replace 1 for 1.
I doubt severely if Healy and his crew will commit to six out of the goodness of their hearts. I am VERY skeptical about this government following through on any commitments they make!
I thought Sunak was bad (which he was) but this bunch make him look competent!
Only Trump’s team could be as incompetent as the Tory toerags … It’s a low bar though 😂
With labour limbo dancing comfortably under that bar.
Only in your right trash loony fantasies. Still bitter about losing so badly LMAO 🤣
the navy should review just what is needed for the nations fleet X number of frigate,X numb👍👌
I am genuinely confused. When I read that the Albions were to be taken out of service, I understood that it would be immediate, but from the above it says they will be retired in 2033 and 2034?? What does this mean? Will they just be left in port to just rot away for the next 8 or 9 years, or will they receive some kind of minimal maintenance to allow them to become available in an emergency?
Their previously expected OOS dates were in 2044 and 2034. Now it’s March 2025. Another reason for saying they aren’t actually gone yet.
Correction: 2033 and 2034
I hope we get edit back again.
I understand that they are being retired early next year, March 2025? I think that the author of the article has probably got his facts wrong?
Frankly, I wish people would just stop banging on about the MRSS program. At the moment, it’s pie in the sky. Four letters that get thrown out about at will when nothing has been committed (except a lot of hot air by politicians) – zero budget, zero design concepts, no industry discussions etc etc – simply that there needs to be 6. And where did this number come from? Six ships realistically means only 2 operational at any one time, although isn’t there a plan to have one forward deployed to Bahrain? Our ability to design, build and deliver ships quickly is also questionable but I don’t know necessarily whether that can be attributed to the manufacturer? Yes, I know the T26 program is currently on track but I read recently that HHI (South Korea) has just handed over to the ROK Navy their first locally-built AEGIS class destroyer (contract signed in 2019, construction started in 2021, launched in 2022 and delivered this year with the second vessel of the class due for delivery in 2025). Contrast this with HMS Venturer which also started construction in 2021 but is currently not scheduled to enter service until 2026/27 (source: UKDJ, October 21, 2024).
My apologies. Reading through the threads, I now understand where the 6 comes from although I believe this is based on a ‘like for like’ with current vessels being retired. Too quick on the trigger.
UKD = Labour and NHS propaganda.
What a load of BS
The UK is loosing two key amphibious units, of course this impacts the ability to deploy. Anyone thinking the opposite has no idea.
The folly of keeping one in service and the other laid up for years has been amply demonstrated with the pre-cut situation where both were out of service. Complete stupidity on all involved.
Having spent £150m upgrading Bulwalk why not use it as a drone carrier until a purpose built ship is commissioned it has the dock and the landing platform and storage space to launch and retrieve drones and would serve as a experimental ship with dual purpose.
No crew
There must have been some crews…
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-albion-and-bulwark-crews-reassigned/
Yes, it says “remaining crew members”…
If the government committed to 13 frigates and 6 destroyers and the numbers now at 8 frigates and 6 destroyers, it would seem there are crews available and at least 1 full crew could be generated (especially in the case of an emergency).
With upwards of 150 million pounds just spent, it makes sense to keep Bulwark. Not sure about Albion. Could she be refitted and sold to Brazil? Stripped of all usable gear to keep Bulwark in service? or???
Just a shame…
The recruitment and retention crisis in the RFA strikes me as a bigger threat to amphibious capability than the loss of some mothballed ships that were designed for the kind of contested landings we wouldn’t willingly attempt against a peer adversary anyway.
I said months ago these 2 ships would never sail under the White Ensign ever again 😢
Landing Ship Docks like LSD 50 operated by the USN are very “novel” type arrangements.They can transport an Marine battalion every 3 days from Maine to Nova Scotia .
A lot of interesting comments, most making obvious sensible points, rather than the nonsense in the article
MRSS is a future programme to replace the amphibs that are still in operation at that time, it was 6 (6 hulls, active or not), now its 4, despite the promises Argos is unlikely to be around when they actually make a decision on MRSS so that’s 3 which coincidently is the number committed to by the last government, not this government, so its irrelevant anyway
No one is going to build 6 ships to replace 3 – crewing is another matter altogether, crew the ships you have, don’t reduce hulls to match available crew which seems to be the latest thinking
The cost of keeping ships in reserve is peanuts in the general scheme of things
A hull in reserve is an insurance policy against who knows what, when its gone its gone, never coming back, in 1982 Intrepid hadn’t been to sea for years, she was reactivated in a few weeks, Fearless had actually also been decommissioned, both were much older and knackered than Albion or Bulwark, without both ships they would now be speaking Spanish in Stanley, its not irrelevant, don’t ignore history
Todays politicians just don’t get it, never will, until its too late
Yes let’s not question any capability cuts in the past , now or in the future.
Let’s just “move on”- I mean what could posiibly go wrong.
Timely delivery of the MRSS, that would be the replacement project that first started in 2000 then nobody in the Navy will have seen both ends of this replacement effort.
The argument “can deploy” is not the same as having the same capability, plus the MRSS will replace the RFAs not the LPDs.
I mentioned this earlier but I think there is potential in copying the qatar navy’s al fulk lpd. Same size a t31 armed with aster (could be changed to CAMM), has acres of space for drones, and importantly has a small crew.
It looks like we are going to have a three tier fleet tier 1 (t45/t83), tier 2 (t26), and tier 3 (t31/frigate LPD hybrid?). If we could have 8 with a stretch goal if 12 in each tier we will have a decent well balanced fleet.
I’d say T26 is Tier1 not 2, and that we have a 2 tiers not 3.
The marines are the only really capable and deployable force we have and the army is constantly trying to get it dissolved.
Enlarge it and equip it properly, removing their abilities before new ships are ready is a mistake.
Next cuts: to leave only one carrier , not now but in a few years to come with the excuse that there are no enough escorts.
British defence is a joke.
Labour doing what they are great at finding money from defence to fund other interest be it wars be them legal or not, or bank crisis to record £5.4 billion UK’s asylum seekers bill, and not being part of there 6 important plan. Reminds me of the 2002 SDR New Chapter and the two White Papers of 2003 and 2004 smoke and mirrors. but its fine we get the right tools in 2030s so please everyone don’t do anything till then.
Based on the usual Treasury modus operandi, the probably sensible decision to dispose of Albion and Bulwark will leave a capability gap for a number of years until MRSS is available. When MRSS is due to be ordered, the Treasury will point to the gap and say, ‘you’ve managed without them for this long, you can manage without them altogether.’ If the govt was serious about defending the nation it would bring forward MRSS as the benefits they’d bring to a range of roles makes them a more important purchase than a T32.
We seem to have a unique ability to scrap functional capability many years in advance of any replacements! New ships are being designed and perhaps built to reintroduce the capacity which once again leaves a gaping hole in our operational capacity. It seems that equipments are designed and funded on the basis of replacements being ready by the time they go out of service, yet the bean counters rule that such replacements get pushed into the future without regard to the consequences of much later than originally planned replacements. Having old equipment even if it costs to maintain them given the world situation is much better than leaving ourselves exposed. Current Treasury planning is based on the status quo and without regard to what is going on elsewhere in the world. Even if mainland UK is at very low risk of invasion we are expected to embark expeditionary forces in support of our allies, possibly at short notice in a contested environment. We can’t stand off Europe like we did with the Falklands, and with the all but complete lack of ground based air defence may not even be able to fly everything needed as an alternative.
The historical record suggests that the only thing the Royal Navy will be “moving on” to is more cuts.
At the end of the Cold War, the RN had 50 destroyers/frigates and around 27 attack submarines (17 SSNs and 10 SSKs).
In 1998, Labour committed to 32 destroyers/frigates and 10 SSNs.
In 2010 (after several Labour cuts and the Conservative defence review), the Govt committed to 19 destroyers/frigates and 7 SSNs.
Today the RN has 14 destroyers/frigates and 6 SSNs.
Now, the RN’s amphibious capability (retained through all these defence reviews) has been eliminated.
Britain is certainly finished as a serious naval power. Perhaps that was inevitable. But one really needs to stop pretending that this is anything other than terminal decline.
With the usual irony, world events have made it precisely the time when the LPD’s are desperately needed operationally. LRG(N) should be in the Eastern Med, headed by Bulwark. It’s already all very well to plan for the distant future (2030’s), but its foolish to do this by neglecting the immediate needs of today in the current very unstable international climate.
I can guarantee all the Boomers in this comments section wouldn’t give up their gold plated State UBI (sorry, *pension) to fund anything like this. It’s all virtue signalling nonsense about spending on everything, as long as working people have to pay.
Reminder to everyone: The State Pension budget is ~2.5x the Defence budget. 25% of pensioner households are millionaires. 61% own their houses outright and, therefore, have a much lower financial burden than everyone else. If we means-tested for just those millionaires, we’d have £37.5bn to spend on any defence kit we ever desired.
What a divisive statement. Most of those people who have done well were contributing to the wellbeing of everyone in the country. A minor example would be Doctors. Under your plan you would catch probably 100% of Doctors. The message you are sending is you can contribute towards it, you can pay into it but you can’t have the benefits. You add to the arguments the wealthy have for completely disbanding the NHS and the rest of the welfare state. Not a road to go down it won’t end well for anyone.
I’m in the hurt-locker with the disgraceful state of this country. Early 30’s, up against it in almost every way financially, and yet sadly I still agree. Still, by the time I reach pensionable age, it will no doubt be means tested to high heaven, and whatever my MOD pension/SIPP provide will be castrated straight from my state pension, bringing me all but financially in-line with the least productive people in the country.
Huge thumbs up.
Surely they have not gone yet. They will probably be lurking somewhere for a while yet and if push comes to shove they will be able to be reactivated quicker than replacements could be built.
This shouldn’t be a big thing if it was managed correctly
HMG and the MOD really need to get their act together and have a semblance of fleet management across all forces.
You wouldn’t see Eddie Stobarts running out of vehicles or people to meet its contractual obligations, or running costly inefficient vehicles past its sell by date as this costs money and will almost certainly be tax inefficient
funny how consecutive governments can’t seem to get the basics right – its not just the MOD – HMG / HMT have a lot to answer for here.
Its amazing how easy the solution to his problem is. Keep Bulwark as a disaster relief and hospital ship but pay for her out of the fool Lammy’s budget with some help from his friends in the NHS. He is a delusional fool and wont notice the small change down the back of the sofa.
Bulwark can also help with repatriating the hordes of illegal immigrants who can pay for their return trip to France.
Excluding nuclear deterrence, since WW2 the RN has focussed on three core capabilities – aircraft carriers, ASW, and littoral/amphibious warfare. The RN excelled in the first in the 1960’s, the second in the 1970’s to 90’s, and the last in the late 1960’s and early 2000’s. Sadly 2024 has been a low point for all three. I await with interest to learn the final composition of CSG25.
Seasons greetings. Seems likely CSG25 will contain significant allied contribution. Looks to me like both govts have protected frigate shipbuilding as a matter of industrial ( and electoral) strategy. FSS looks safe – both govts and the RN have sacrificed amphibious capability to keep the global carriers. By extending Argus and in future the Bays, (which could be freed up if T32 is a dedicated MCMV resource) we retain a token but credible littoral intervention capability. The interesting decision for the SDR is do we want / can we afford MRSS to go ahead as 3 or 4 30,000 + ton LPD style assault ships.
WTF is the point in any replacement type being developed? What… so the Gov can fund their existence for half of their projected lives and then scrap them again? Rinse and repeat?
Pathetic, absolutely shameful.
If the newspapers are to be believed, the first draft of SDR 2025 was distributed just before Xmas. To the shock of the RN it apparently recommends that the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth is put in to low readiness at 180 days notice (R8). The justification is that currently the RN just doesn’t have the sailors, aircraft/helos, escorts or support ships needed to usefully operate two carriers. It also avoids spending £200+ million on a major refit and upgrades that were due to begin in 2026. As we now know from the Albion class LPD saga, that will surely be the end of road for Big Lizzy under the White Ensign, and the Defence Equipment Sales Authority will soon be quietly seeking offers from potential purchasers whilst her material state is still good. There is a long list of countries who have expressed interest in either getting in to the ‘carrier game’, or increasing their existing fleet – India, Brazil, Egypt, Turkey, South Korea, EU, Australia, … Given that QE has over 40 years of service life left, an indicative price tag of $1+ billion price seems realistic in the current world environment.
to justofuy
Wouldn’t this just be implementing the original concept of building 2 carriers so that we could always guarantee that one was available while the other was in refit / extended readiness?
No, QE won’t be brought out to cover the PoW when it’s in refit.
It’s throwing in the white flag.
I can’t see how you can draw that conclusion. The decision and timetable taken by itself looks like a straightforward pragmatic move to free up crews for the new frigates in a way that conforms to the original one strike carrier available concept. That said, I accept that this move would open up a route for PoW to be formally re-rolled as an amphibious assault ship. Prompts the question of what replaces Argus as the second LPH – a 40k ton USS America design perhaps?
No, not at all. These are a serious loss to our capabilities without direct replacement of the type. We live on an island, these are vital to land or evacuate troops from anywhere. More short sighted cuts. A gift to ur enemies.