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

Dissolution of Parliament

The dissolution of Parliament took place on Thursday 30 May 2024. All business in the House of Commons and House of Lords has come to an end. There are currently no MPs and every seat in the Commons is vacant until after the general election on 4 July 2024.

Find out more about:

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 25 of 96)

Andrew Fermor

02 December 2017 at 12:19

I understand that the government needs to make cut backs but surely by cutting defence you are playing into the hands of certain aggressors. I think by cutting back the Royal Marines and the Albion class naval vessels would be a great threat to our ability to help maintain peace around the world and with our NATO allies. The Marines and the Navy have shown that they and this type of vessel is needed to get larger equipment and troops ashore which helicopters cannot always manage to do. This has been proved when giving humanitarian support abroad and especially during conflicts (eg like the similar craft during the Falklands conflict 1982). If the RM and Albion class vessels are so unimportant why then are other nations deciding that they are an important part of any force that has a sea border.

Chris Jackson

02 December 2017 at 12:19

I was part of the UK Amphibious capability in the 1980's & 90's in the FAA Junglie world and we suffered greatly as the Fearless & Intrepid plus the Sir ships were gradually payed off! That capability was recognised then as vital to UK interests then and we prospered with both the Ocean, Bulwark & Albion. UK vital interests remain unchanged since then and will only get bigger, post Brexit! Therefore, to chop this capability now and let's be honest it's down to lack of coin, is absolutely absurd! The QE will not fill the shortfall and although they do a sterling job, neither will the Bay class RFA's. The UK relies 100% on trade and keeping international seaplanes open is vital to our security. Throw the RM on the scrap heap at your peril! Rant Over!!!

Patrick Robinson

02 December 2017 at 12:12

How can the armed forces the navy carry out future operations, with no landing ships or marines? makes us a impotent laughing stock all countries need this ability especially if we get involved in future conflicts, and what about disasters these men and ships would make us inept as we would be relying on destroyers carrying supplies etc very little compared to the landing ships and over taxing the crews insane idea.

Iain Parker

02 December 2017 at 11:35

The Royal Marines need to be a certain size to maintain their flexibility. If you cut them too much and remove their resources like the amphibious ships then not only will you reduce their fighting capabilities you will remove a large part of the UK's capability to respond to other emergencies. If there is no port available and people and equipment have to be moved between ship and shore this will be a lot easier with an amphibious ship available. the general rule is that you need at least 2 to ensure 1 is available. Th RM's flexibility means they are just the sort of force you want available to deal with the crisis that you can't predict. If you need them but have cut them then it is likely to cost the country far more than the few £million saved. If you want to cut somewhere then move the RAF back to being the Army Air Corps and get rid of most of the senior RAF officers. A lot of the RAF operations are in support of the Army (apart from the odd Russian bomber) so why not integrate them?

Steve Cox

02 December 2017 at 11:20

Without an over the coastline amphibious capability then any overseas mission near to the coast (where 70% of the world's population live) whether humanitarian or war fighting requires the provision of a port where a ferry style off load can take place. This is simple to disrupt with a few well paced IEDs. The amphibious force allows intervention at a time and place of our choosing and does not require somebody else's permission. This is a difficult and complicated military option and requires specialist knowledge and equipment. The Royal Marines are an elite capability with utility across the spectrum of operations - why would we reduce our best whilst keeping troops such as the Ghurkas within the UK forces? For an island nation with UK nationals and interests spread across the globe this should be a no-brainer - sadly that term might apply to those advocating this disastrous option designed to save money and not address our nation's defence priorities.

Derek Crossingham

02 December 2017 at 10:54

Utter madness to suggest cutting our armed forces. How does that demonstrate the duty of care the Government has to protect its citizens? If anything our MOD budget needs increasing.

Lindsay Ireland

02 December 2017 at 10:41

The importance of the royal marine's to the defense of our country is vital and all resources be made available to them not cut.more times than not these men will be sent into danger first. Rather than cut numbers they should be increased.

heather hotine

02 December 2017 at 10:35

Amphibious forces and craft are vital for assaults and relief work.

Mick Beard

02 December 2017 at 10:30

The government must not go ahead with the cuts to the Royal Marines, i.e. the two assault ships and 1000 job cuts. The Marines are a specialised assault force which has cost thousands to train and maintain. In todays turbulent times the UK must be able to go anywhere in the world to protect its interests/people. This also shows the world our determination to get involved/act at a moments notice when crisis occur. The world then sees the Union Flag at the worlds trouble spots/natural catastrophes doing something to help. This in turn raises our profile and attracts business to the UK. The country is seen to be fair/professional and honest in our dealings. To do away with these assets is short sighted. Once again when we are slowing down our commitment to a region the politicians see a way to cut bills. This is to the detriment of our fighting forces who put themselves in harms way to inforce decisions that politicians make, but our young service people pay with, with their lives. We should be investing more from the foreign aid budget to pay for the very best kit for the armed services so that they are built up to 1000.000 regulars and not drop to the poor numbers we have today. We cannot fulfill our commitments now never mind with additional cuts.

Geoffrey Thomas

02 December 2017 at 10:29

All the Services have suffered enormous cuts over the last few years, to the point where they are all reduced to ‘the bare bones’. To cut the Albion Class ships and part of the Royal Marines is not only a further threat to our national security (not everything is cyber based yet!), but also a massive reduction in our civil emergency capability. Only when an independent (?) review of the MOD and redundant bases etc., concludes there is no further available room for further cuts will I believe the proposed cuts to be justified. This is not to mention the enormous waste in the use of the Foreign Aid budget.

Total results 954 (page 25 of 96)