Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I totally agree, if there must be a cut in naval expenditure and they are thinking about HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark then why not do it a different way. Hand both ships over to a newly created ‘relief fleet’ paid for with monies from the international aid budget. It would mean that we keep this capability until the nations finances are either in a condition to bring them back into the fleet or build new.
This option would also mean that front line warships would not need to be deployed for rescue missions.

Malcolm morgan

What a joke I would have thought the politicians would have learnt there lessons by now explain Boris johnson
How can you keep moral up please don’t do the poor managementof Cameroon and Blair if you want to know look at history

KeithSware Prevent the cuts, please re-post this link, prevent MP group think that cutting assets is sensible or sustainable – keep HMS Ocean / HMS Bulwark / HMS Albion / all the mine hunters / The 1000 marines / The type 23s / Sustain the R & D and replacement ship building projects –


Did we not learn from the loss of Atlantic conveyer what results from putting all your eggs onto one ship? –
Was nothing learnt from the Falkland’s?
1) Ships get hit, put out of action and sometimes get sunk – The ability to survive attrition is what wins a war
2) Using HMS Queen Elizabeth as a poor man’s assault ship does not make sense for several reasons – Can she maneuver on her own against a lee shore ANS: No she needs a tug
3) What bureaucrat thinks that an aircraft carrier can serve as an assault ship? Can an aircraft carrier get in close to shore to disembark marines, tanks, and troop vehicles – Under fire – under fire ANS: NO how much money was just spent dredging the channel into Portsmouth? What does this tell the Bureaucrat spreadsheet analyst who is trying to reduce the defence budget?
Incidentally – Is the Aircraft carrier equipped to go into a contested environment? NO – a couple or motorised Gatling guns and machine gunners hanging over the side is as laughable as it represents a tragic inability to put peoples life’s in front of a financial spreadsheet

Edward Andrews

Even this Unionist Propaganda Platform admit what we have long known, the the British Armed Forces under the Tories are no longer fit for purpose. What is the point of the Union if they can’t even protect us. What is the point of Trident if it is bleeding funds which should go into conventional defence. What is the point of the whole sorry mess?
The fact is that years after it was recognised that Britain has lost an empire and doesn’t know what to do, the mess of the Royal Navy, its lack of ships and its manning problems merely encapsulates the total failure of the United Kingdom


Irish Republican sympathiser by chance?

Edward Andrews

No actually, I certainly don’t sympathise with any form of Irish Republicanism or any physical force movement, though I would say that the configuration of the naval branch of the Irish Defence Forces is better for carrying out its task than the Royal Navy which really needs a new Fisher.


Thank you again, STRN, for articulating a view I share… is there anyway of sending this to every MP?


Once again I agree with all the logic of this article, you have missed however the ability for these to act as mother ships for unmanned assets and also as light helicopter carriers alongside a carrier.
Their utility is far greater than even this article discusses.

Edwin Burley

Wears an island and we have always had a first class Royal Navy we still need one.

Iqbal Ahmed

I think no 4 is the best argument. So much money already recently spent on these ships.

Tony Rosier

Pure madness lets uild it up not cut the navy and even if you do cut don’t cut the spearhead !


Would HMS Albion ( name for Britain! ) and sistership HMS Bulwark be placed in reserve or Flogged off cheap for a few more plastic coffee cups for Treasury/MOD?
End the madness and put defence beyond the Treasury’s ridiculousness.


It either the amphibs or a carrier. You can’t man or afford both. Defence has a £15 billion hole in the budget and we need to be realistic.


We can afford to keep giving £billions of Britain’s hard earned money away every year to foreign countries though (“foreign aid”), right?

David Stephen

Yes we can, The LPDs and the carriers are bought and paid for, we already have crews for the active LPD and QE (that’s why Ocean went – to free 600 crew). If we axe the ships we will still have sailors to pay so all we will save is the annual running costs of the LPDs, which are small about £30 million a year for the active ship and even less for the one laid up. The £10-£15 billion black hole in the budget is caused by upcoming procurement mostly and not day to day running costs.


That’s the foreign aid. It has black hole because it is being underfunded. How come frontline is being affected.


So HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark each cost around 130 million pounds back when ordered, which today is still only around 255 million pounds.


The 154 or 139 million pound price by Vickers (Latter lower due to a Vickers subsidy), for a shorter life ship does look to of been a worse deal compared to Swan Hunter’s longer life standard which put the price at 210 million, for an estimated 10 plus years of service (or certainly without very expensive refits), which could have meant less maintenance etc. The 210 million pound price back then is still only about 390 million pounds in 2016.


Why is the frontline being affected?

Bloke down the pub

I’ve been re-reading this article to help me compile my response on the link that you note. I suspect that most people who signed the original online petition have been invited to give their views.


This is exactly what I am doing, I was surprised I got a follow up e-mail asking for my views. perhaps the politicians are starting to listen or is that just being too optimistic?
I would encourage all who view this site to sign the petition and give there views, mine will be going in shortly

Ian Dunkley

Unfortunately the Navy top brass were allowed to go on an unnecessary ego trip and order the construction of two fleet carriers. We will never be able to “man” both of these at the same time and given the problems of our destroyer fleet we will be hard pressed to deploy a single carrier task group. Given the state of defence spending this was utter madness. The only way we will ever be able to do anything with them will be to tag along as a political gesture to a US carrier Task group. Given current POTUS is that what we really want.?
Badly let down by senior defence staff in my view and if the proposed cuts go ahead our once proud navy will be a laughing stock.