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 7 of 96)

David John Daniels

08 December 2017 at 19:56

1. The Royal Marines and their supporting amphibious ships are critical to providing a flexible response to any threat to the U.K. or her allies. 2. There is low morale in all the service personnel in all the armed forces, due to the cuts that this government has already made and the treatment of service personnel once they leave. What happened to the "Military Covenant" ? In my opinion, The poem Tommy Atkins so very relevant to the way our troops are treated. The government doesn't want to know, until they find another dictator to pick a fight with, or back up the Americans. 3. Any reduction in numbers of the commando brigade will have a knock on in the communities that rely on the bases for the customers and jobs. For example, German ex garrison towns and cities are struggling since the British Army of the Rhine was stood down. Due to the loss of a major source of income and jobs.

John Parkin

08 December 2017 at 19:38

It is a disgrace to even consider cutting back on a service that has served this country so well, since the days of sailing ships. There is often no other way to achieve an objective than assault in boats, The home of our government could be at risk if terrorists where to strike up the Thames with no fast boat response. I have never been in any of the services but we would be in a sad state without any of our services, we are already at a critical state without any more cuts

Kenny McDonald

08 December 2017 at 15:11

In these worrying times where Russia is continuing to build its forces up and neighbouring countries are worried about invasion we need a strong military not one weakened beyond its already low levels. We also need a strong military to be able to provide assistance to the Security Service's in these uncertain times of terrorist activity. The Royal Marines have served this country for over 300 years and time and time again are the first troops (along with the parachute Regiments) who are mobilised to an area of conflict. To do their job effectively they need the capability of being able to be transported to an area of Operations in Royal Navy ships capable of providing helicopter or amphibious means of getting Marines and supporting Arms (RA, RE etc) ashore. Instead of continuing to send money overseas to countries that no longer require assistance or spend that aid corruptly we need to be strengthening our armed forces instead of continually stripping them of more and more manpower and equipment. Remember the Falklands. Could the UK mount another Operation Corporate to retake those islands again. Prior to the Falklands Margaret Thatcher was about to sell off a large proportion of the Royal Navy. What if she had done so and then the Falklands had been attacked in 1983 not 82??

Terry Sheldrake

08 December 2017 at 12:10

As an ex RN officer I am, of course, biased. However it is surely obvious that the RM capability is truly unique. Without assault ships we cannot land any force against a defended coastline and we would therefore lose all meaningful ability to intervene without a cooperating country adjacent to our enemy. Who would care to guarantee that that will always (sometimes, occasionally) be available? Our armed forces are shrinking and will continue to do so as we are not prepared to spend adequate sums to defend ourselves independently. At the very least we should prioritise our most specialised and at the same time most flexible land fighting units - the RM - with maximum deployment flexibility. We have spent huge amounts to acquire them - keep the ships.


08 December 2017 at 11:28

Serving Royal Marine 1963-1973 the worlds surface is two thirds water where is the sense in relinquishing the capability to operate into every corner of the Globe.Our reward for being the first in to almost all our recent conflicts,savage cuts. HMS Ocean designed for us sold,Albion and Bulwark to be retired, where is the sense in that. Spend some time with the fine young men who carry on our traditon today and you will be mightily impressed by their professionalism, integrity and dedication, don't treat them in this way T Nicholls.

David Matthews

08 December 2017 at 10:24

In early 1982, a Conservative Government was examining the same situation, and were well on the way to dismembering the Corps of Royal Marines and the UK amphibious capability. Thank goodness this was not completed, otherwise the Blue and white of Argentina would be now flying over the Falkland Islands, with ALL the Political, Commercial and trade implications that would have followed. We are leaving the EU, and our future will depend on trade elsewhere. We will need to PRESERVE our capabilities to defend our interests anywhere in this dangerous World, This requires that we retain an amphibious capability, through the UNIQUE expertise of the Royal Marines, and the Royal Navy's amphibious assets. It should also be noted that the Royal Marines are well able to work closely with the USMC and the RNLMC. This, also, must not be sacrificed

Ian Titcombe

08 December 2017 at 09:20

There is continuing unrest throughout the world and whether the hand wringers in Government (or more likely the lefties in the Civil Service) like it or not, the Royal Navy is still recognised as being one of the best navies there is. To cut back on any part is questionable and could amount to a treasonable act and requires a major rethink in my book.

Geoff Guest-Hilton

08 December 2017 at 07:59

The governments first responsibility is the defense of the realm. This must be their priority above all others. We are an island nation therefore our boarders must be protected at all times. We have all seen the terrible consequences of an attack by terrorists from within. The recent attack in and around parliament brought armed forces personnel onto our streets to support our police, and rightly so. The recent devastation in the West Indies and the support given to that area following the hurricane, in the first instance at least, could only be supplied by our Navy and our Royal Marines. If the government are not able to see the need for a fast response to defend our country think of the devastation to that government if a forward thinking terrorist group attacked parliament by way of the River Thames, using fast inflatables and RPG's. One would hope that somewhere along the line this government (you know, the one that is considering reducing our ability for fast response) might look to their own safety as well as ours.

Howard McGee

07 December 2017 at 23:27

The Royal Marines are a versatile & highly trained force with a unique amphibious capability - however firstly recent cuts in numbers effectively mean they are not currently capable of Brigade sized operations. To conduct amphibious operations requires specialist assault ships - the new carriers are neither designed for this role and, I would suggest, are far too valuable an asset for close "inshore"operations. To further degrade this capability will seriously affect the UK's ability to project power, effect disaster relief or simply provide a presence in the littoral domain. Lastly the combination of a reduction in numbers, the impending loss of HMS Ocean, media debate about the Royal Marines future and further numbers reductions will surely have an impact on the morale of serving Royal Marines. As an ex career soldier (who served alongside them in Iraq & Afghanistan) I have to admit that the RM are superbly trained & highly specialised troops and, until recently provided a wide variety of military options unique to them - sadly they are now in grave danger of becoming "just another Infantry Regiment" albeit under a different service chain of command.

Geoffrey Hill

07 December 2017 at 21:26

It is, to me, a cause for concern that defence forces are being cut to the bone. We have now come to amputations and I feel we are passingly below the safe minimum levels of defence forces, and a halt needs to be called.Ausfahrt MAIRIE

Total results 954 (page 7 of 96)