Labour in talks to sell British warships
The Government is in talks to sell UK amphibious assault ships to Brazil.
The sale of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, which have not been in use since 2023 and 2017 respectively, was agreed during the recent LAAD Defence and Security event in Rio de Janeiro.
The decision to mothball the ships was made under the Conservatives and was initially criticised by Labour.
While in opposition, Luke Pollard, now Labour's Armed Forces minister, said the ships 'are important for the Royal Navy and should be retained'.
However, John Healey, the Defence Secretary, has since announced that the ships would be mothballed to save money.
A defence source said that, on current planning, there had been no date for either ship to return to sea before their planned out of service dates of 2033 and 2034.
The decision to mothball the two assault ships came after The Telegraph revealed last year that the Navy had so few sailors that it had to decommission the warships HMS Westminster and HMS Argyll to staff its new class of Type 26 frigates.
The Navy still has Lyme Bay, Mounts Bay and Cardigan Bay – Bay-class landing ship docks – all of which have amphibious capabilities and will fill in until new multi-role support ships replace them in the early 2030s.
However, Lord West, a former First Sea Lord, warned that although the current Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and other surface warships could provide 'invaluable help', they were unable to transport equipment such as heavy-lift vehicles ashore.
'As has been shown, time and time again, only HMS Albion and Bulwark, and their forebears, Fearless and Intrepid, with their shallow-draft landing craft and hovercraft, plus their helicopters and embarked military force, can be of any practical and lasting value in the initial stages of war or a natural disaster,' he said.
'It is not just the ships that will be lost under the MoD's cost-saving plans but, with their premature demise the possibility and, of more importance, the expertise required to conduct any form of entry or exit across hostile or damaged shores in time of conflict or, perhaps of more significance, disaster relief.'
Lord West warned that, by mothballing the ships, the Royal Navy risked losing the ability to conduct amphibious training.
'A decade, as now planned by the MoD, without amphibious training and exercises means that this most complicated of tri-service arts will be impossible to regain,' the Labour peer said. 'By the mid 2030s, a near generation of naval and marine practitioners will have long gone. The expertise, so painfully gained over countless years, will be lost forever.'
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: 'We can confirm we have entered discussions with the Brazilian Navy over the potential sale of HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion. As announced in November, both ships are being decommissioned from the Royal Navy. Neither were planned to go back to sea before their out of service dates in the 2030s.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Minister Peter Kyle Boldly Compares Labour's Arrival In Government To Steve Jobs' Apple Takeover
Labour's return to government is comparable to Steve Jobs' restoration of Apple, according to the science secretary Peter Kyle. The government's finances are under intense scrutiny right now ahead of next week's spending review where the chancellor will set out how much money each department will receive in the coming years. Labour has promised to fix the foundations of the country after 14 years of the Conservatives, and the economy did grow by more than expected in the first quarter of 2025 and increasing by 0.7% of gross domestic product. Interest rates have also dropped – but the government has faced public backlash over the way it has managed to claw back this cash. Labour chose to cut winter fuel payments from pensioners – a policy it is now looking at partially reversing – and to keep the Conservatives' two-child benefit cap. In comparison, Steve Jobs was ousted from his famous tech company in 1985 but returned to Apple in 1997 when it was on the cusp of going under, and helped to reinvent the world-famous firm. Pressed on how the government would try to revive the economy with its spending plans, Kyle told Sky News: 'The key thing is we are going to be investing record amounts of money into the innovations of the future. 'Just bear in mind how Apple turned itself around. 'When Steve Jobs came back to Apple, they were 90 days from insolvency. That's the kind of situation that we had when we came into office. 'Now, Steve Jobs turned it around by inventing the iMac, inventing a series of products like the iPod, now we are starting to invest in the vaccine processes of the future, some of the high-tech solutions, there's going to be high growth, investing in our space sector – all these really highly innovative sectors.' 'When Steve Jobs came back to Apple they were 90 days from insolvency. That's the kind of situation that we had when we came into office.'Science Sec. @peterkyle compares the government's record to Steve Jobs.#TrevorPhillipshttps:// Sky 501 & YouTube — Sky News (@SkyNews) June 8, 2025 Diane Abbott Slams Keir Starmer's Immigration Speech For Being 'Fundamentally Racist' Why Keir Starmer Believes It's Far Too Early To Write Reform UK's Political Obituary 'This Is Panic': Defence Secretary Forced To Deny Keir Starmer Is Rattled By Nigel Farage
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
We've been here before: what the 1930s teach us about rearmament
We are living in a new era of threat. So writes the Defence Secretary John Healey in the just published UK Strategic Defence Review. This is a credible document, reflecting the serious team assembled to work on it. But it's come under fire for promising much without explaining where the funding will come from. Sir Keir Starmer has committed to lift defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP from April 2027, with an ambition to reach 3 per cent in the next Parliament. This is a good first step. But laying out a plan, fully funding commitments and prioritising investments all matter. So, too, does discounting for the optimism bias around procurement. In defence, we commit in haste and are billed at leisure. The strategic environment has pivoted fast. We live in a world where great power competition is a reality. It took time for governments across Europe to wake up to the level of threat. Radek Sikorski, Poland's foreign minister, was an early proponent of higher defence spending. In a brilliant speech last summer at the Ditchley Foundation, he reminded his audience that: 'We are in a pre-war moment. The question is not whether we will be attacked, but whether we will be ready.' The Poles have been preparing. They have been there before. History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Our volatile world now looks and tastes more like the 1930s: competing nationalisms and a real threat of war. But there are differences, too. In 1935, even amid mass unemployment and economic hardship, Britain spent more of its GDP on defence then than the 2.3 per cent we spend today. That in a year when 2.5 million were out of work and industrial output had not yet returned to pre-1929 levels. The difference now is that other demands on the public purse have grown: the NHS, pensions, and a large welfare state. A more expansive government is more expensive. This is partly true – but Britain's levels of debt in the 1930s were much higher than they are today. We now need to invest in fresh capabilities as we did then. Just as air power represented the cutting-edge military technology then, cyber and space capabilities define today's defence frontier. All this takes us to the task ahead. There needs to be a vigorous national debate about defence and the current and likely threats we face. Despite social-media doomscrolling and breaking news, public understanding of the threat and what it means has yet to filter through. It's incumbent on all our politicians in government and opposition to be fostering that debate. There's a job for universities, too, where – with a few noble exceptions – teaching and talking about war and defence has withered. We need to be spending much more on defence. The UK risks falling down the league table of European defence spending as others commit to lifting their budgets. There is a logic for Britain to pursue a Nato-first approach and focus on the near-term challenge: Russian aggression. But there is also a logic in maintaining 'actor-agnostic' capability – you never know where the next threat comes from. Cyber attacks mean that hackers in North Korea or China can threaten UK national security. There is still a logic in keeping close to the United States: our firmest ally, a generous friend and the most powerful country in the world. Yet there is logic, too, in co-operating with European countries – while protecting our own strategic autonomy – because we need manufacturing and innovation as well as money. The Allies won in the Second World War because of money, technology and manufacturing prowess, as well as grit, leadership and sacrifice. Without committing enough money, Britain's rhetoric on defence will run hollow. The 2025 defence review is a major contribution, but what matters most is money. This Wednesday we will see that unfold when the Chancellor sets out the spending review. Prof Alexander Evans teaches at the London School of Economics Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Buzz Feed
16 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
Dan Rather's Defense Of A Gay Rights Icon Against Pete Hegseth Is Going Viral
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told the Navy to rename a ship named after iconic civil rights leader Harvey Milk. For those who don't know, Harvey Milk was one of the first openly gay elected officials in US history and a pioneering gay rights activist. In 1977, he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, where he promoted anti-discrimination laws/LGBTQ rights before being assassinated in 1978. Harvey served as an officer in the US Navy during the Korean War before being forced to leave the military because of suspicions about his sexual orientation. A ship was named after him in 2016. Now, ABC news reports an official told them the renaming of the ship during Pride Month was intentional. Veteran journalist Dan Rather posted a response on Facebook, and it's going mega viral. Here it is: The comments are one of the rare areas online lately not full of garbage: "Kind of a backhanded compliment! Now I know who he is and why the Navy honored him in the first place," one person commented. "They say they want to promote a 'warrior culture.' Milk was most definitely a warrior, as well as a decorated Navy veteran," another person said. And this person joked, "Could we then rename the Titanic the Hegseth?" Then there are a bunch of people who said the post caused them to look up Harvey Milk for the first time. "I never knew of Harvey Milk. Thank you, Hegseth for educating me about this great American hero," one person wrote. "I didn't know that the U.S. Navy had a ship named after Milk. Now I do," another person commented. And this person said, "I didn't even know that Mr. Milk was a veteran, but now I do!" I guess it's working!
