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 95 of 96)

Edwin Terry

28 November 2017 at 19:35

HMS Albion has just come out of a most expensive refit. The taxpayers would be outraged if this ship were to be scrapped or sold to another nation. Every naval vessel refit should be accompanied by a public statement that the ship will not be disposed of within a minimum of five years, except by accidental loss or severe damage in service. In the past refit followed by sale or scrapping has happened far too often. I believe HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark should be kept in RN service, not least because the RN and Royal Marines are currently world-class in this kind of operation and the skills should not be lost. Thanks. I have no connection with the RN or RM. I just pay very large tax bills to fund both, and I am pleased to do so.

Liam Wylie

28 November 2017 at 19:22

I served in the Royal Navy and my first ship was HMS Albion. The Royal Navy is currently at its bare minimum both in manpower and platform numbers for the UK to maintain it's overseas commitments without putting a ridiculous amount of strain on personnel. From my experience the main reason for poor retention levels is overstretch and the strains on family life as sailors eventually settle down into family life. Of course one expects to spend significant periods away from home, indeed many of us join to see the world. It is a simple fact of life that in todays world people will only accept a certain level of separation before the pressure forces people to reconsider their career. A reduction in the surface fleet will only add to this problem. As for the loss in capability, this will be catastrophic for Britain's ability to project power in an increasingly unstable world. It continues to send out the message that Britain is retreating from the world. Our amphibious capabilities are vital to being able to react rapidly to a fast moving crisis almost anywhere in the world, be that humanitarian or conflict. If Britain truly wants to be "global Britain" a strong armed forces and particularly a strong Royal Navy are vital in demonstrating our commitment to global security and by so doing raising Britain's profile around the world. I have also read that some believe that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers will be able to fill the gap with one being modified for an amphibious role. The main problem with that is that they will not be able to match the capabilities of HMS Albion and HMS bulwark's ability to land heavy machinery due to constraints on landing craft size. With regards to the Royal Marines, they are probably our best trained and most adaptable troops. A reduction in size would be a devastating blow to an already much reduced force. To conclude, the loss of this capability will not only degrade our capability and further damage our military prestige worldwide but will also have a knock on effect of further stretching an already critically overstretched Navy. It is time British governments start to take security seriously. It may not be a big vote winner, but the security of this nation should be a top priority of any government and not just an easy target for short term thinking and opportunistic politicians to target for budget savings.


28 November 2017 at 18:26

I truly believe that the loss of this capability would be the final step in a long journey from the Suez Crisis, where Britain’s global influence started to wane. If this capability and these assets are removed from the fighting order, what is Britain doing with the red arrows? Why do we have so many army bands when actual military capability is being removed. Why do we have so many mounted soldiers and their horses when actual capability is being removed from the order of battle? It makes zero sense. Why do we have a BAe Hawk jet display team - the red arrows - when the potent fighting forces of the UK amphibious HQ might be disbanded. It is beyond insane. I always believed the Conservatives to be party of defence but of these cuts go ahead that will no longer be the case. I am no sentimental softie for the Marines but I am an old fool for the idea of a Britain able to project influence beyond her home waters and any decision to cut this will have ended such an aspiration.

Josh Thackham

28 November 2017 at 18:23

In a world of intensifying threats across the spectrum of warfare where the defence budget of2015 never met the identified threats let alone the deliberately un-highlighted ones. To cut your forces is not only severely dumb but dangerous. In the sessions undertaken by the defence select committee it was highlighted that the U.K. does not have the resources it needs to met the threats of today let alone tomorrow. In U.K. defence planning we have predicted none of the conflicts we have fought so why are we considering cutting a very unique capability such as the elite Royal Marines and the LPDs they deploy from. These capabilities are unique in the case of their utility. How can we stand up and say we are a tier one military power after possibly cutting and eroding these capabilities when other nations not deemed to be tier one recognise the capabilities we are considering cutting and are investing in them?

Jason Palmer

28 November 2017 at 18:05

Our Amphibious and Maritime Strike Capability’s are vital to the UK as well as our NATO and EU Partners, with continued threat from our Northern Neighbours in Russia the GIUK Gap And our Arctic Warfare Capability are essential to the security and balance in the North Atlantic. Our Special agreement with NATO that would see the RNL Dutch Marines embedded within 3 Commando Brigade is also vital to our relationship with Allies. HMS Ocean, Albion & Bulwark Plus our stretched RFA ALPD fleet are vital tools for both Disaster Relief, Humanitarian And Warfighting Capabilites spearheaded by Royal Marines. Amphibious Warfare is a unique Skill and provides ability to dominate littoral Battlespace providing Bridgehead for Operations and capability to deploy from Sovereign Facilities should the option of Land Bases be non available for example Turkey refusal to allow 7th & 4th Armoured Brigades deployment for Iraq in 2003. Also deployment of a multi billion pound assest such as QE or PoW into littoral and potentially hostile waters would be folly. Providing a mere LHP with no full Amphibious Ready Group or ability to supply logistics through specialists capabilities. Once lost it would be very hard to regain and our reputation all damage would be forever. We can not afford to waist this capability or see he clock turned back to the Defence Review of 1981 Nott.

Martin Franklin

28 November 2017 at 17:48

Totally speechless that even consideration should be given for further cuts in particular to the Navy/Marines. Both the amphibious forces and Marines are an important part of the Fleet, we need the amphibious capacity which includes HMS Ocean is a force we have built up with ships and expertise. An example is in 1978 we lost a fixed wing aircraft carrier and and some 35 years later we now have tom build up those skills again for the Queen Elizabeth class. The amphibious also dove tails into NATO strategy, and losing 1,000 RM is absolutely craze and will be regretted in the near future. These skills need to be maintained. As much as I lovely seeing there Red Arrows display team, I would sacrifice this instead of losing ships and Marines, who are elite and need to be maintained. Please DO NOT cut further Armed Forces, in particular the RN/ RM. Cut overseas assistance and cut social security.

Nathan Dawson

28 November 2017 at 17:43

The fact we are having to debate over the Royal Marines future shows how disastrous this country has become when defence matters need to be addressed. This has nothing to do with a strategic review it is pure cost cutting. Military reductions are a choice plain and simple, nothing to do with money! The Marines are at the forefront of our defences and their Albion class ships have more than just a war fighting role. I am pretty sure the ridiculously large foreign aid budget could be stripped by a few billion to help our military. All three branches.

Peter Donaldson

28 November 2017 at 17:34

I am concerned that the loss of the amphibious ships and the capabilities that they provide would jeopardise the UK's ability to support its NATO allies in Norway and in the Mediterranean and would send the wrong message to the government of Argentina about our willingness to defend the people of the Falkland Islands against future aggression. It would also reduce our ability to help stricken communities, including citizens of British dependencies in the aftermath of natural disasters such as hurricanes. When the only rationale for such cuts is to save money, which is not scarce for any currency issuing government, the idea seems pointless and self defeating. Peter Donaldson Reading, Berkshire.

Greg Bartlem

28 November 2017 at 17:17

HMS Albion and Bulwark provide the UK with the ability to land heavy equipment right on the beach. They alone can dock down in such a way. The Bay Class cannot perform this task, neither can the Carrier's. It is vital for the UK to retain this ability.

Allan Sneller

28 November 2017 at 16:44

The Royal Marines and their amphibious capability are the UKs most flexible and adaptable fighting force. They provide much more value per soldier than the average infantry soldier. King Charles II created them for a very special reason, and that reason hasn't gone away. They can fight any where, any time, and any method.

Total results 954 (page 95 of 96)