Skip to main content

Web forum archive

The Royal Marines and the UK amphibious capability web forum

Defence Committee

Recent reports suggested that the Government is considering changes to the amphibious capability of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines as part of the ongoing National Security Capability Review. The House of Commons Defence Committee invited members of the public to share their views on the potential impact of these changes.

The Defence Committee asked for public views on the following questions:

  • How important is the amphibious capability provided by the Royal Marines and Albion class ships to the UK?
  • What is the likely impact on unit morale and satisfaction with Service life if the reported changes and reductions are implemented?
  • What is the likely impact on the communities where these capabilities are based if the reported changes and reductions are implemented?

Deadline for submission to the web forum was Thursday 21 December 2017.

Return to the Royal Marines and the UK amphibious capability inquiry

954 Contributions (since 27 November 2017)
Closed for contributions

This web forum is displayed for archive purposes and is no longer accepting public contributions. For queries relating to the content of this web forum, please contact the Defence Committee.

Total results 954 (page 10 of 96)

Nick Prince

06 December 2017 at 17:25

The Albion class ships allow deployments in a range of environments and are flexible unlike most RN ships currently in service. The marines are also highly regarded professionals who can and do serve by land and sea. Reducing numbers will cripple any future operations whether military or civil.The communities affected have been neglected in terms of generating new industry or commerce and would be devastated by the loss of ships or troops. Overall it would mean the UK might be unable to defend itself or be involved elsewhere. Lessons of history suggest showing you are weak increases the likelihood of attack. While nuclear weapons have kudos they are too expensive and without a substantial non nuclear capability our defence will be compromised.

martin emerson

06 December 2017 at 17:10

I'm 64 and these times are the most dangerous during my lifetime more so than the cold war period when you also factor in North Korea and of course Russia once more. Which is why more than ever we need a multifaceted military for a layered response to an as yet un specified type of international threat. We would always need an nuclear aspect, also submarine hunters, surface ship protection (Destroyers for the carriers now we have them but we could have instead managed with an updated Harrier option on thru deck carriers combined with amphibious ship all in one that would have been cheaper, anti air & patrol frigates (anti sub) but we also need to able to land troops from the sea in numbers quickly with force protection ability when a port/airport aren't available as those locations are predictably first to be targeted. Also an amphibious capability is important for evacuation of Brits and dependants or humanitarian relief as demonstrated recently in the Carribean. Maybe part of the bloated overseas aid budget could be used to subsidise this as it flies the flag for UK as well. We are by and large still an island race so a well supported navy is crucial. After the Navy The RAF and Air Defence is just as important.

Michael Burt

06 December 2017 at 12:41

I have always been a supporter of the Conservatives through thick and thin but the possibility of these dreadful cuts to our senior service and Royal Marines is the last straw. They have hollowed out our Armed Forces to a dangerous degree in previous years and to now even think of removing our amphibious capability is insanity. The Conservatives once stood for a strong defence but not anymore and the knock on effects of this disastrous option will also have serious long term consequences for Devonport Naval Base and the city of Plymouth. I have also resigned my membership of the party in disgust.

Steve Parry

06 December 2017 at 11:57

UK forces are being cut to bare minimum purely to save money. You have to capability and ability to react. Defence is not just about high tech expensive equipment. It is about numbers of available units. If you only have a limited number and you lose some straight away in action - what then? Russia and China know this. Unless you use nuclear (!) you have nothing left.

Tina Dobson

06 December 2017 at 11:27

We as a nation are noting without the strength of our Armed Forces! We cannot and must not keep making cuts! We as a nation voted to be independent of Europe again and stand as a proud nation in our own right with our mighty Navy, Army and Air force behind us to protect us from all advances, how can they do this without the equipment and necessary tools that are constantly being taken away or decommissioned? We are only as strong as the men and women that protect us.... HELP THEM, DON'T HINDER THEM! Britain is called Great for a reason, let's keep it that way and allow those that protect us the invaluable equipment needed to do the job!

John Straker

06 December 2017 at 11:13

As a former Warrant Officer Royal Marines, served for 30 years, I have seen changes in the RM Orbat to meet the ever changing threat. However, our amphibious capability has always been available and has been utilised many times, for both peacetime military aid and warfare. Whilst the new carriers, if they ever become fully operational, may to some extent provide an alternative to the amphibious capabilty of the RMs, they are not designed for this role and there may be conflicts in operational requirements. I also believe that further cuts to the RM strength will have an adverse on morale in the Corps. The recent poor treatment and false imprisonment of Sgt Blackman RM has already had an impact on recruiting and morale. Royal Marines have always provided Spearhead units for urgent operational and humanitarian crisis' despite the small size of the Corps, plus they have provided a significant element to Special Forces who are already overstretched. Further reducing the RM by 1000 will undoubtedly have a significant negative impact not only on operational capability but morale, there are few units in the British Forces who are as capable, well trained or versatile in their roles as the Royal Marines.

Kevin West

06 December 2017 at 10:06

I do not understand why an important military capability such as amphibious landings from specialist amphibious vessels with specialist amphibious troops (Royal Marines) is being considered for review, when these are strategic assets and capability which if discarded can never be recovered to the same level. Where is the strategic decision made by the government that this capability is no longer required? This decision if made impacts our allies, potential enemies and current specialist forces. The Royal Marines provide a truly unique premium that has been proven as valuable time and time again and given all uncertainty in the world should be invested in rather than diluted. The amphibious capability is a flexible asset that assists in not only military activities but also in humanitarian ones as well and helps to provide the flexibility in HM Government to project support/assets/influence accordingly. A decision to reduce this capability is a political and strategic decision and is not one that should be made by the head of a Service, or a non elected official. This decision has to be made by the Prime Minister and signed off by parliament as duly elected representatives of the people who have a responsibility to protect the nations interests and assets. If this reduction is approved by the elected members of parliament chosen to represent the people it removes a capability that is truly unique in the world and one that our allies look to for support and one that our enemies envy, who will be happier, knowing that is either reduced in size/ability or removed completely. If the issue is cost, then perhaps reductions have now gone too far and it is time to stop. We need strong leadership from our elected officials to agree strategically on the future of this important capability.

Geoffrey EARP

06 December 2017 at 09:41

I connot see how anyone can consider reducing the Royal Marines and the amphibious shipping at this or any time.This crack force can turn its arm to anything and go anywhere. Has any consideration been given to the communities around these bases. It would be devastating. It would hang around the people who was to do it like the Beaching report did for the railway. It would never go away and they would probably never be in power again

Mike McNamara

06 December 2017 at 08:18

People say you don’t know what you’ve got until it's gone and this will surely be true if we reduce our amphibious capability further. We already have a much smaller defense force than we really should have and will come to rely on it increasingly as we try and defend our 'post-brexit' existence. Relying on another nation (France) to 'hitch a ride' to solve issues/defend the UK is not what I would call 'strategic' planning. Too little thought has been put into the so called defence reviews of recent years, relying too much on commercial business influences and not on what matters; i.e. defence of the UK in an increasingly volatile world.

Nicholas Cunningham

06 December 2017 at 07:25

I simply do not understand the short sightedness and penny pinching of this potential decision. This from what is supposed to be a major world power. In an era where the world is rearming as new threats emerge it seems odd the UK is going reverse. Nor is this a healthy debate about the best direction for defence spending that I could at least understand (I would still be supporting Marines). However where will the money go if this cutback happens? I am guessing not into defence. It is simple really. The government needs to simply prioritise and “ringroad” defence like it did for NHS. Make it clear it is the #1 priority for a nation and simply cut back elsewhere. Period. If you need more money then that leads to the whole separate question economic performance.

Total results 954 (page 10 of 96)