Select Committee · Defence Committee

Armed Forces Readiness

Status: Closed Opened: 24 Apr 2023 Closed: 24 May 2024 10 recommendations 122 conclusions 1 report

The Committee welcomes written evidence on the following: Are the armed forces sufficiently capable, resourced and ready to protect the UK and our allies? What are the main gaps in capability and/or readiness, and what will it take to fill these gaps? Are the UK armed forces a ‘tier one fighting force’? Do they need …

Clear

Reports

1 report
Title HC No. Published Items Response
First Report - Ready for War? HC 26 4 Feb 2024 132 Responded

Recommendations & Conclusions

5 items
104 Conclusion First Report - Ready for War? Rejected

Mothballing retired equipment to create a strategic reserve remains a viable option

Successive Defence Committees have looked at the possibility of mothballing equipment due to be retired220 to create a strategic reserve of equipment which could be utilised in the event of high intensity warfare. In 2018, the Government told our predecessor Committee that: When equipment is approaching retirement, Defence always has …

Government response. The government clarifies that decisions on retiring equipment are made by Front-Line Commands, considering factors like obsolescence, maintenance costs, and the availability of spares. It explains that long-term storage is often not viable due to expense and unsupportability, and that …
Ministry of Defence
105 Conclusion First Report - Ready for War? Rejected

High costs and cannibalisation needs hinder mothballing retired Tranche 1 Typhoons

In response to our recommendation last year that the Government mothball the 30 Tranche 1 Typhoons it is proposing to retire in 2025 (with 60% of their airframe fatigue lives remaining), we were told that whilst it would be feasible to retain the aircraft in storage, the investment required to …

Government response. The government reiterates that decisions on equipment retirement lie with Front-Line Commands, citing obsolescence, maintenance costs, and lack of spares as key factors against long-term storage. It states that equipment may be cannibalised for parts for operational fleets (e.g., Hawk …
Ministry of Defence
106 Conclusion First Report - Ready for War? Rejected

Mass of military capabilities remains essential in future conflicts, as demonstrated in Ukraine.

The Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Financial and Military Capability) told us that there was no point in holding on to capabilities which would become extinct, a point supported by the Secretary of State. However, he also acknowledged that mass would still be a requirement in future conflicts.224 The …

Government response. The government reiterates that decisions on equipment retirement lie with Front-Line Commands, citing obsolescence, maintenance costs, and lack of spares as key factors against long-term storage. It explains that long-term storage is often not viable due to expense and unsupportability, …
Ministry of Defence
112 Conclusion First Report - Ready for War? Rejected

MOD's disposal policy for retired military equipment limits future warfighting resilience and capacity.

We understand the financial implications of retaining capabilities after they have been retired but we question whether the MOD have considered all the options. We accept that maintaining equipment comes at significant cost but argue that such platforms do not need to be fully maintained—in a war of existence, a …

Government response. The government rejects the premise of alternative long-term storage, explaining that equipment disposal decisions consider obsolescence, lack of spares, high maintenance costs, and the 'reduce to produce' policy for maintaining existing fleets.
Ministry of Defence
12 Conclusion First Report - Ready for War? Rejected

UK policy of disposing retired warfighting equipment limits strategic resilience capacity.

We understand the financial implications of retaining capabilities after they have been retired but we question whether the MOD have considered all the options. We accept that maintaining equipment comes at significant cost but argue that such platforms do not need to be fully maintained—in a war of existence, a …

Government response. The government rejected the recommendation for alternative mothballing solutions, explaining that decisions on equipment disposal are made based on obsolescence, lack of spares, high maintenance costs, and the need to use components from retired platforms.
Ministry of Defence

Oral evidence sessions

6 sessions
Date Witnesses
22 Nov 2023 General Sir Jim Hockenhull · Ministry of Defence, Rt Hon James Heappey MP · Ministry of Defence View ↗
14 Nov 2023 Admiral Sir Ben Key KCB CBE · Ministry of Defence, Rear Admiral Steve Moorhouse CBE · Ministry of Defence View ↗
7 Nov 2023 Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton KCB · Ministry of Defence, General Sir Patrick Sanders · Ministry of Defence View ↗
21 Jun 2023 General (Retd) Sir Nick Carter, Former Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) View ↗
20 Jun 2023 The Lord Houghton of Richmond GCB CBE DL View ↗
6 Jun 2023 Dr Simon Anglim · Kings College London, Nick Childs · The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Professor Justin Bronk · RUSI View ↗