The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that assessments are under way on whether to repair or decommission RFA Argus, while stressing that amphibious support remains available through the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s Bay-class vessels.

Baroness Goldie asked what cost-benefit work had been done on Argus and what plans were in place for her replacement, as well as the risks of having no amphibious support ship available for service.

Defence Minister Lord Coaker responded on 16 September: “The Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) retains three Bay Class Landing Ships Dock (Auxiliary) to support UK amphibious capability. The RFA has committed to at least one of these vessels maintaining appropriate readiness, while the others undergo deeper maintenance and upkeep.”

He added on Argus: “The RFA continue to work alongside Defence Equipment and Support surveyors and commercial partners to assess the cost and value of effecting the required repairs.”

RFA Argus arrived in Portsmouth on 8 June but has been unable to sail for repair in Falmouth after her safety certification was withdrawn. Both the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and Lloyd’s Register deemed her unfit even for the short voyage, meaning the Naval Service currently has no amphibious support vessel available. The RFA is working to resolve the issue, but the situation highlights the fragility of the support fleet and the increasing strain on ageing platforms.

Commissioned in 1988, Argus has alternated roles between aviation training, casualty receiving, and amphibious support. Decades of service have left her requiring extensive work to remain seaworthy, with the decision now resting on whether the costs of repair outweigh the benefits of retiring her.

Although officials point to the Bay-class ships as the backbone of amphibious capability, the loss of Argus leaves the Royal Navy without an active vessel in this role at present. No replacement programme has yet been announced, but the Defence Investment Plan due later this year is expected to provide more clarity on the future of the amphibious support fleet.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

93 COMMENTS

    • You have to ask the question, who’s side are the MOD on, certainly not ours that’s for sure. How do all our ships and submarines get in such a state that they are not seaworthy and yet they spend millions on lavish banquets for people like Macron, and Trump, billions on illegal immigrants and their law firms, that are also working against us and coining it in at the same time.
      It seems to me we need some serious no nonsense ex military parachuted into the MOD to kick some arses.

    • You’d think it would be a prudent spend to fix the Argus to complement the Bays while waiting on the MRSS’s and selling of the Albion. And why don’t they fix the Bulwark too if not too far gone. Or, just buy a few more T31s if money is available?

      • I thought BOTH Albion and Bulwark (as a capability worth £3 billion combined) were sold to Brazil for £15 million only.
        I’d have thought retain Argus was a minimum requirement until MRSS enters service. I can see the penny pinchers in the treasure only buying 3 MRSS Vs the requirement for 6.
        Money doesn’t seem to be available for anything except asylum seekers, vanity massive capital infrastructure projects and of course pensioners and the doctors (both getting big pay rises)

  2. I think it’s safe to say we won’t see her in RFA service again, I would guess the treasury pen pushers would never sign off on the kind of work she’ll need to be operational again. They might as well strike her off now and save everyone some time.

  8. Closest we’ve been to a World War in decades and they’re going to cut a key ship. IF there was a replacement lined up then sure but its the same thing time and time again.

    We are an island nation. Vast majority of our economy is through sea trade routes. The Navy should be expanded.

  10. So in April 2025 just 5 months ago we had the following “The MOD has confirmed that RFA Argus will be joining the UK Carrier Strike Group for the latter part of its deployment to the Indio-Pacific region this year. The ship was assigned to Falmouth for a Future In-Service Support MOD contract in 2018. Argus has completed a comprehensive overhaul at APCL Falmouth, which included significant upgrades and alterations to her aircraft lift, as well as the upgrade, overhaul and the replacement of several onboard systems. This period marks a crucial phase in ensuring the continued service of RFA Argus ahead of her programmed Ship Life Extension, due to commence later this year”.
    Now either the people in the know and manage this ship are either blind or incompetent, or we are just being told blatant lies. Is there any other explanation because I am at a loss to think of any.

    • Not necessarily either. It seems that for some reason Argus was deemed unsafe in June, which reason no one was aware of in April. A big reason by the sounds of it.
      Unless you believe the Treasury have infiltrated the safety certification process and are deliberately deeming everything unsafe simply to save money, which sadly isn’t as unlikely as it sounds.

      • The ship had just come out of a ‘comprehensive’ overhaul from Falmouth in April and was earmarked for a Service Life Extension when it returned from the Pacific. Was Steve Wonder Services overseeing the work because I would expect a comprehensive overhaul would have naturally been preceded by a comprehensive survey to scope the works.
        How can the MCA and LR suddenly withdraw the relevant safety certificate etc and the ship be deemed unsafe to make a trip that a weekend pleasure craft could undertake.
        I hate conspiracy theories but it is either incompetence or a contrived excuse to scrap her.

      • The point is that the ship was clearly in nothing like the vonditionnit was supposed to be in and also that it clearly was regarded as having valuable unique capabilities which is well known.

    • Yup, just like many other areas of our armed forces when it comes to equipment. Labour and Tories have a lot to answer for.. Plus of course mistakes that have been made at times within the MOD. But a lot of that was because of ‘cuts’ and the pressures that brings on decision making plus political interference at times from Politicians from different political parties over the years. Too much of what suited the governments and not what really suited the military. On a brighter side I do have hopes things will start to improve for the British military during the 2030’s but that is a hell of a long time to wait.. for some of the kit anyway.

    • Agree. The MRSS programme is massively delayed. They could just purchase a replacement from the civilian sector there are plentiful large offshore oil and gas industry support vessels in the 10,000-15,000 ton category that would serve well as a cheap interim solution.

  13. Sadly she wont return to service, she will go to Turkey. as for the silly comment about Choules.. do you realise how much the Australian refit cost due to the entire electric ship failure cost and the huge replacement of parts cost? She was stripped before entering service to keep the others on budget, time and in service.

    It was made aware by the MoD (and to the public domain) how much it would cost to repair RFA Largs Bay – (around 3/4 of the ship build) hence why she was given to Australia (at a very good bargain price), I dont think they realised the extent of the repair work needed …

    In June 2012, one of the two main electrical transformers involved in the ship’s propulsion system failed, after an earlier engineers report highlighted “overheating of the propulsion motors and transformers”.

    Inspection found that insulation failure had short-circuited the transformer, while other transformers aboard showed premature wear. Unable to find an available spare, a new unit had to be ordered from the manufacturer. In June, it was predicted that Choules would be out of service for four to five months, but by October, claims were made that the ship would be inoperable until at least January 2013, and if all of the wear-showing transformers were replaced, she would not return to service until April 2013. By December, the faulty transformer had been replaced, and the RAN had decided that although the other transformers (propulsion and others) had been shown to have acceptable levels of wear, all would be replaced before Choules was reactivated.

    These repairs were completed in early 2013, and the ship was assessed as ready to re-enter service on 12 April.

    In the end Australia spent a further 70% on bringing the ship back into service – would the UK have spent this ?

    • Would the UK have spent this? Well we don’t know, but it looks like it would have been a better investment than what was spent on Argus.

        • Sadly no. Even if the Choules spend were larger than Argus spend you could still argue that a modest additional cost was worth it if it gave you an extra Bay. The counter argument ( which I am receptive to) is that the real value of Argus is that it has been a testing ground for MRSS. No co-incidence I think that the MRSS models that are appearing look like an Argus with a well deck and frigate armament.

            • Not literally, no; but I believe Argus size was a significant influence on MRSS. If you do a kind of Venn diagram of the capabilities and what’s ‘wrong’ with what we have/ had; the Bays are just medium sized LSDs without an hangar, the LPDs are are closer to what is required, have a bigger flight deck but no hangar and are too expensive to run. Only Argus has the size of helicopter flight deck ( 3-4 Merlin) and hangar capacity ( 9 ) to land and/or insert the size of expeditionary force that I believe the RN has in mind, but it lacks the well deck. All 3 would require an escort in a contested scenario. If you make MRSS 28,000 tons you have more space for strike weapons, better AAW self defence, casualty receiving, logistics to sustain the insertion, command and control systems, drones etc…and its a much tougher ship to sink. So what I am saying is that MRSS is a natural progression of the plan to modify Argus as a littoral strike ship; they were prototyping MRSS.

    • How did the three other Bays compare in wear and tear prior to the time of sale to Aus? Had the Largs Bay been used more than the others?

  14. Fantasy fleets moment: Has ENATO ever considered a joint development programe for a joint amphibious support (& potentially amphibious warfare) capability? Resources provided by the willing. Efficiencies in funding, personnel requirements, virtually guaranteed. Precedent established w/ E-3 programme, possibly others. Anyone interferes in mission deployments, immediate Article 5 event sponsored by multiple states.

    • No. I think only the UK and Netherlands have worked on amphibious ships together. Amphibious isn’t a huge emphasis for ENATO because the main threat is on a land border. Colonial adventures like the UK and France might have are out of NATOs areas, so not a huge emphasis that might be faced. I think the only overlap might be France/Italy/Spain vis North Africa.

  15. “Although officials point to the Bay-class ships as the backbone of amphibious capability”

    The usual spin and cobblers.
    The LSD(A) might be the “backbone” as they are all we have left. But they have minimal capability compared to the LPDs.
    Again HMG, you fool NOBODY.

    • As we both know they are not front line amphibious ships but hey they look something like an LPD and that’s good enough for your average Uniparty politician.

      • It’s always a sign that someone is detached from reality and fallen down the conspiracy rabbit-hole when they talk about “uniparty” 😂

        • I agree I thought it was a conspiracy but similar policies and outcomes whilst professing to be very different. You can see why the vote share of the two main parties is ebbing away.
          All very disappointing

          • Well yes, they both believe in democracy, rule of law, free capital, private property, free speech, social welfare, free healthcare at point of use… obviously all bad things.

            • I certainly don’t disagree with any of those core beliefs but it is a bit more complicated than that as you well know. Our now PM was pretty adamant along with many of the main two parties MPs that the Brexit referendum should be rerun because the great unwashed had voted the wrong way. It will also be interesting to see if Labour in particular suddenly become more interested again in electoral change if the Polls stay as they are.
              Greens, Nationalist parties, Reform and other parties need to be represented based on the % backing of the population they represent. FPTP is no longer fit for purpose.
              Sorry but both parties have overseen a notable decline in upholding free speech in the last 20 years.
              Welfare is vitally important but is out of control and healthcare is not free in England. A chronic lack of NHS dentist, hospital parking, prescription charges and eye test charges tell a difference story.

              • Well some of the alternative parties making a lot of noise currently certainly don’t believe in all those core beliefs…

                Never said I was a Starmer supporter, and as a Brexiteer I disliked his attitude to the referendum result. But alas he’s the best of a generally bad lot of options at the moment – WTF he was taking appointing Mandelson though 🤦🏻‍♂️

                TBH I long thought a switch to PR would be a move forward. But now I realise FPTP is the best way of ensuring that small extremist parties of both the left/right don’t end up being king-makers.

                Well free-speech is obviously still alive and well. If it weren’t, you wouldn’t be able to complain about the lack of it.

                Parking is not healthcare.

                Prescriptions are free for those that can’t afford them.

                Eye tests are free for under 16, over 60, on benefits, etc.

                Dentistry is an issue, but most of the work undertaken these days is cosmetic – crowns, veneers, implants, – because people don’t want dentures. I’d only offer checkups and fillings on the NHS.

                • I have gone in the opposite direction 😂 I always thought FPTP was the best option but I have come to the conclusion that the two main parties in the last 25 years have lost so much credibility that PR or a derivative should be adopted.
                  Let’s agree to disagree on FoS because I believe we have brought up several generations of people who struggle with the concept unless I agree with them.
                  As for Healthcare I think you have made my point quite well because it certainly isn’t free at the point of use for your average English working person who pays whereas others in the UK don’t.
                  Always good to debate.

                  • I think PR for the upper house, replacing the Lords, but FPTP for stability of government in the Commons.

                    Ah I see, you only thinking “working” people count, not the rest of the population. Interesting.
                    Tell me
                    • how much the NHS charges you on admission to ER after an accident?
                    • how much it costs to book an appointment with your GP?
                    • how much of a deposit you have to pay before elective surgery?

                    Pretty sure that’s zero on all counts.

                    • Lords to be totally elected on fixed terms via PR agreed.
                      Well for working people the NHS is not totally free at the point of use and they are the ones paying for it through taxation. As for paying to see your GP be careful what you say 😂.
                      Access to GPs is also in effect limited because of demand in some parts of the country and our politicians exacerbate the situation because instead of managing expectations they try to outdo each other by offering more. Hopefully new technology can improve efficiency but the NHS is conservative and is slow to change. Sadly for Argus I think she is finished.

                  • So you don’t think…
                    • children who’s parent are in work
                    • pensioners who’ve worked all their lives and are now retired
                    • those whose working career is interrupted by unemployment due to redundancy
                    • those who’s career has been cut short by illness/ accident
                    don’t count with regards to access to the NHS because they aren’t “working”…

                    They’ll either in future, or have in the past, all paid their taxes for the NHS.

                    I think more than technology is needed to reform the NHS. What it caters for now is a huge step away from what it was originally founded for. Like all organisms/ bureaucracies it’s in its nature to grow and grow.

                    I think Argus has been an absolute bargain, the service she’s given over the years. I think only her and Sir Tristram are the only Falkland veterans still in use of some kind. But yes, I think she’s now past it – though I’m sure someone will put forward the case to spend hundreds of millions on her for another couple of years service 🤦🏻‍♂️

        • You reckon? They might use different words, but ultimately Tory and Labour have acted extraordinarily similarly when in government

            • No Spock he has a point.
              *Whilst the Conservative Party delivered Brexit it leadership campaigned against it.
              *Both Labour and Conservative Parties (even till today but may change next month) have refused to leave the ECHR in order to control immigration.
              *Both expanded the welfare state.
              *Both pursued Net Zero policies against the interests of the British economy.
              *Both treat the NHS like a state religion instead of as a badly performing state service.
              *Both prioritised Foreign aid over defence.
              *Both took no interest at all in Defence except as a budget they could raid.
              *Both participated in outsourcing of power to democratically unaccountable quangos or international 3rd party organisations.
              *Both have introduced authoritarian laws which curtail free speech.
              *Both have a large number of MP’s who could swap parties and no one would ideologically be able tell the difference.
              The difference between a posh girl socialist and a one nation Tory is the colour of a rosette.
              The “uniparty” idea isn’t a conspiracy theory but a description of the UK political landscape. It is this way because we have a Westminster bubble made up of people who serve party and career and the powerful. Loyalty to the demos or even a loose concept of nation never features on their list of priorities.

              • Let me correct your errors for you…
                • Both followed the science and backed Net Zero to try and ensure the survival of human civilisation. (Which coincidentally is good for British interests.)
                • Both know that voters treat the NHS as a state religion and are sensible enough not to suggest destroying it: unlike Farage. Unfortunately it also paralyses them from undertaking necessary reforms.
                • Both recognise foreign aid as both soft-power projection and humanitarian. But both funded it as a fraction, 0.5% of GDP, compared to defence at over 2% of GDP.
                • Since Blair both parties farmed responsibility out to quangos so as to avoid the blame when things go wrong. Starmer is currently scrapping quangos and taking things under ministerial responsibility again; NHS England, U.K. Space Agency, etc.

                There fixed it for you, with facts.

                • Facts might be too strong a description but let me help you in return.
                  * After our collective experience of Covid the expression “follow the science” is not going going to get your argument very far. Science may or may not prove something. What science doesn’t do is provide a solution. Government’s are responsible for solutions. Government’s determine policy.
                  If the UK government chooses to decarbonise fine.
                  If the UK government chooses to behave hysterically and make bad choices to to achieve that aim then less so.
                  Not sure a climate emergency is a proven thing and even if it was would the UK bankrupting itself to achieve an arbitary target whilst other dont achieve anything more than the destruciton of our country?
                  What if there’s a better path to decarbonise based on British nuclear and not Chinese windmills? It would be an evolutionary journey taken over a longer period of time which could be done without pushing energy prices so high that you deindustrialise the country and destroy the economy.
                  * The NHS is a dysfunctional and extremely expensive. It despises the public whilst demanding to be venerated. We don’t need a holy NHS we need healthcare free at the point of demand. Other European countries have better models with better levels of service. Shall we try that?
                  * Foreign aid is mostly a slush fund for politicans and NGOs. Charlotte Gill suggests that their primary purpose is to provide jobs for the dim-witted children of the metropolitan establishment. Also Defence at 2.3% of GDP gives you an awful lot more than Defence at 2%. We’d be in less sh*t than we currently are if we’d kept that extra 0.3% over 10 years. Whilst foreign aid at 5% makes no noticable difference to the world apart from somebody’s daughter Jacinda doesn’t get to go to Nigeria to teach Trade Union Studies.
                  * Blair started Quangoisation. Successive Conservative govenments went with it and did nothing to reform them or clawback power. Probably because we had a generation of careerist politicans who liked being in power but didnt want the responsibility of being power. The Sunak government especially was releuctant to do any sort of governing. Only recently have the politcal and economic crises become so severe and public disquiet so intense that the Labour Party has realised that the music has stopped and their the party is left holding the can. They have to fix things so they have to govern and to do that they need to draw some power back to parliament. Or should I say some departments have (Wes Streeting is an example) but most haven’t.

                  “Let me correct your errors for you…””There fixed it for you, with facts.”

                  Also arguing politics can be fun but it doesn’t have to be done rudely or impolitely. Maybe tone it down a bit in the future it doesn’t help your argument it just makes you appear slightly insecure.

                  • “… experience of Covid the expression “follow the science” is not going going to get your argument very far.”

                    Ah now I understand. You’re one of those flat-earther conspiracy fantasists. That explains your lack of concern for facts.

                • Whilst they follow science if you actually follow the science you know that even the scientists admit there climate models arent accurate. They agree climate change is happening. As an example In october 2024 the scientific community acknowledged a study that revealed the role of the oceans and how it absorbed carbon was misunderstood and the ocean can absorb 7% more carbon than previously thought give the vastnees of the oceans 7% is a significant amount . That means essentially every single climate model which politicians are basing policies on was incorrect!!!!! And that’s just one study, there’s new information from research coming to light all the time. Effectively the science is still a work in progress.

                  • It’s impossible to create a completely accurate climate model. To construct any kind of model you need to know all the variables and how they interact with each other. Only God could manage that.
                    But despite that, they are sufficiently accurate to predict and then confirm general trends. The desalination of the North Atlantic due to Greenland ice melting, resulting in a slowing of the AMOC being one example. They can’t say when it will stop, but we’ll certainly know when it does because winters in the U.K. will become as cold as Canada.

                    Yes the oceans can absorb more carbon dioxide… but you conveniently forgot to mention what happens when it does… The more carbon dioxide dissolved into the oceans, the more acidic the oceans become, with the result plankton dies off. Plankton is at the bottom of the oceanic food chain, so net result, a massive die-off of all marine life. Suddenly mankind’s supply of food is massively reduced. 👏🏻

                    You’ve not heard of the ‘precautionary principle’ it seems.

    • Loopy to say that three increasingly knackered Bays can do the work of the seven or eight ships we had not so long ago.

      4 x Bay
      2 x Albion
      1 x Ocean – should have been two
      1 x Argus

      Argus should have been replaced decades ago.

    • No not at all but when she is gone then in a couple of years when the MRSS programme finally gets beyond concept stage there will be a subtle change of wording. The MOD will announce plans to replace our 3 amphibious ships with two larger, more lethal, blah blah MRSS in 2038. This programme will then eventually deliver the first ship only 5 years after the last Bay class was withdrawn from service.

  17. “the loss of Argus leaves the Royal Navy without an active vessel in this role at present”

    WTF all three Bays are currently unavailable?!?!?

    • The Bay class do not provide the capability that Argus does. Argus was built after the Falklands specifically because of the inadequacies of the Bays and that was when LPDs were also available which the Bays are supposed to cover too.

      • She was actually in the Falklands and converted post into her current configeration as her main role was to be as an aviation training role but ended up doing so much more. A Warship in all but name. A proud vessel that has served the UK people extremely well. If she is actually in such bad condition then her replacement should be as she was, taken up from trade ASAP and converted to fill what we no longer have. The RN/RFA are not in a good place and I am ashamed our once proud and respected fleet is in such a state. Nelson will be spinning in his grave at what he would see today.

    • Argus can host several Merlins at once, and has the naval hospital on board.
      Bays neither have permanent hangar facilities (1 tent for 1 Merlin) nor the Role 3 hospital. Not all amphibious vessels are created equal.

      • Cardigan Bay was stuck in Portland last year unable to get to Falmouth for maintenance. Sound familiar? The excuse that time was lack of crew, and it was reportedly moved to a dry dock in A&P Falmouth in February this year. It turned out though that the “solution” would be to postpone the maintenance until “at least” 2026 because it had no crew. I believe the reasoning is why maintain it if you can’t crew it. Unfortunately ships left alongside for years, unmaintained, degrade. So it’s probably taking up a dry dock slot when we have a maintenance backlog.

        • It is the ever familiar push to the right argument.

          As you say leaving ships unscrewed or unmaintained is a terrible idea as they deteriorate so fast.

          The issue is the Bays are old so may not stand a lot of that kind of treatment.

  18. Gets bowl of popcorn to watch the comedy title ‘UK defence’
    .
    .
    [Begins with text roll in the Star Wars theme]
    .
    .
    The UK RAF has [!] American tactical nuclear free-fall bombs…
    .
    .
    🙃

  21. Being a “Questioning Observer” (I also Identify as a bloke, complete with bloke bits), I was just looking at the main Picture and thought just how large that Merlin is, compared to the Lynx sat behind the tall Organ Pipes.

    Perspective can be rather deceiving at times.

    Now then, about that Organ !

      • Ha, reckon ?

        lol, anyway I just thought in that pic it looked wayyyy smaller (than you would normally expect) due to the angle and perspective of the photo.
        Any luck with my Organ question ?

    • Talking about Identification, maybe that’s the answer. If we each self-identified as T26, or a CH3, or whatever is needed, our armed forces would be so powerful Putin wouldn’t dare risk anything. I’m going to be a squadron of 12 Typhoons.

  23. Question: If these vessels are fine and viable for Brazil, why aren’t they for us? Frankly, getting rid of a valuable asset, either by scrapping it or selling it, is just wrong. As far as defence goes, we shouldn’t scrap anything until it’s replacement is in place – an enemy won’t wait until we’re ready.

    • Not even – but we will have nice shiny rendering of sticks and stones on powerpoint slides at the very least. The mind boggles

  26. With the government’s tilt to Europe amphibious capability isn’t really high on the list. Its quite logical if we need land Marines in Europe the reality is large parts of Europe have been lost in which case UK has much bigger problems tbh.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

By submitting this comment, you agree to the storage and handling of your data by this website in accordance with our Privacy Policy.