Albion & Bulwark in the news

#2
Not good for Devonport, regardless. This is set against a backdrop of Portsmouth "demanding" all future frigates, and the Commodore of the base going on record with saying that Pompey would 'get frigates'. It's part of a wider struggle between Babcock and BAE, and the Navy is unfortunately caught in the middle of it.
 
#3
"The government announced "additional work to review national security capabilities" in July - a review by stealth - under the leadership of its national security adviser Mark Sedwill." How reassuring that advice is being taken from a Civil Service pencil neck whose previous relevant experience seems to be the Home Office. So yet another 1SL has been left to paint himself into a corner.
 
#4
Politics aside.
Ditch the amphibious vessels and you open the door to get rid of Royal.
But hasn't 'goodbye Royal' already been discussed in the corridors of power!!!!!
Doesn't look good either way!
 
#5
Politics aside.
Ditch the amphibious vessels and you open the door to get rid of Royal.
But hasn't 'goodbye Royal' already been discussed in the corridors of power!!!!!
Doesn't look good either way!
The cynic in me sees the MOD thinking that this is a perfect solution to their current woes. A £5.2bn shortfall to 2020, and there isn't any more money coming after that.

If you get rid of Albion and Bulwark, you can get rid of the Marines. If you get rid of the Marines, then Portsmouth becomes the predominant naval base and a real conversation is had about Devonport's future. Why keep Devonport if it has no submarines, no frigates, no destroyers and no bootnecks? It's valuable land... probably a couple of billion given the Marine Enterprise Zone that's just sprung up in South Yard beside the dockyard. Would save the MOD a huge financial headache...

Maybe if certain ministers and Sea Lords dropped the "I'm alright Jack" approach, the MOD might realise that there are easier targets for cost-savings.
 

photface

Lantern Swinger
#8
If we get rid of amphibious ships and eventually the Royals we may as well be opening the doors to the country and hanging a neon sign saying 'please invade!'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#9
So if we wanted to save amphibious but had to balance the books where should we cut? (Not being sarcastic, curious as to what people think). Survey? FAA? MCMV? 1 carrier? Less Dreadnaught class?
 
#13
It could be argued that an amphibious capability isn't just about protecting our green and pleasant land but is also an important offensive capability (Falklands?), power projection tool and large ships like this class have great potential for humanitarian missions...but I guess (keyword here) that can all be done off a QE class too, we shall see
 

photface

Lantern Swinger
#15
It could be argued that an amphibious capability isn't just about protecting our green and pleasant land but is also an important offensive capability (Falklands?), power projection tool and large ships like this class have great potential for humanitarian missions...but I guess (keyword here) that can all be done off a QE class too, we shall see
I would certainly agree that it would be good for offensive ops etc, however, HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH doesn't have the capability to launch an amphibious attack.
From what I have been reading they may be making some significant adjustments to HMS PRINCE OF WALES to enable her for these types of op but will still be relying on external temporary pontoons etc to launch boats from and there will not be any way to launch vehicles.

Does this mean that we will simply be without amphibious capability for a time? Or that there will be an overlap?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#17
Who on earth would want to invade us?
Do you walk around our fair country?
You have to multi lingual to earwig these days. Even quiet Fraggle has its fair share of Jonny Foreigner living here. We are a cosmopolitan society in Britain. We have been invaded over the past 5 decades, a trickle here a trickle there!
 

wave_dodger

MIA
Book Reviewer
#19
Wow, so much doom and gloom.

My take is that this is a good posture for 1SL to adopt. We know and report we're structurally underfunded to meet the Navy Plan which was agreed at SDSR at the same time as we know and report we're undermanned. These two massive factors are hugely exacerbated by a number of other challenges (that we all know), so 1SL has to present options over how he is going to operate the Navy, against the agreed plan, inside the agreed cost envelope.

He is simply saying he has run out of sensible options and now needs to cease tasking, and his professional opinion (staffed, of course) is that the least worst pain, is to take the LPDs.

This then triggers a huge debate in the centre and in wider London about the need/requirement and benefit of the LPD and of course RM.

Where are the RM now? Highly visible, operating off an 'amphibious' platform in a HADR operation. Useful timing methinks and supports 1SL inferred point.

I think this is a good play, it makes the point about stretch, underfunding and under resourcing - over to the Centre to make the decision.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G The Quarterdeck 14
jambosun History 2
C The Fleet 6

Similar threads

New Posts

Top