Source · Select Committees · Defence Committee
Recommendation 12
12
Rejected
UK policy of disposing retired warfighting equipment limits strategic resilience capacity.
Conclusion
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 platform which is even halfway viable for regeneration is better than none at all. Given the long lead times to build complex platforms (such as warships, tanks or combat aircraft) combined with the importance of mass and resilience on the battlefield (as demonstrated on both sides of the war in Ukraine), we question whether less expensive alternative storage solutions could be sought, for example through access to US desert facilities. In this context it is worth noting that the United States, China and Russia have for many decades had a policy for mothballing warfighting equipment, whereas the UK policy has been to dispose of it—often at a fraction of its original acquisition cost. Russia has been able to draw on these reserves to add to its capacity to fight in Ukraine. (Paragraph 112) Strategic Readiness
Government Response Summary
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.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
The decision as to what happens to equipment when it reaches its Out of Service date sits with the relevant Front-Line Commands. Invariably this is because we are replacing the capability with a modern more capable system that is more economic to support. A range of options will be fully considered for each equipment type, including storage against future contingency, sale or gifting to Allies to help with collective Defence. One of the key factors in the decision-making process is obsolescence: much of the equipment which reaches its Out of Service Date is by definition old and consequently unsupportable through a lack of spares inventory, its material condition and/or excessively priced overhaul costs. Often, long-term storage is not a viable option as not only can this be extremely costly (even with a reduced maintenance schedule) but it is highly likely that the maintenance support and spares would not be available in the future. It would also not be possible to maintain a force of suitably qualified individuals to either maintain or, more importantly, operate the equipment into the future. In all cases, the decision is considered in the round, taking a number of factors into account, including long term financial value to the taxpayer as well as short term affordability. For the disposal of all ships, Navy Command has established a formal Disposal and Exports Programme to manage the effective disposal of assets in accordance with the Defence Plan, ensuring Value for Money and the most appropriate outcome for the present day and future Defence. Aircraft are generally retired when it is no longer cost effective to maintain them, due to either significant obsolescence or regulatory compliance costs, or the amount of work which would be required to extend structural airframe life (which may indeed not be possible). Frequently, ongoing maintenance of the remaining fleet is dependent upon the ‘reduce to produce’ premise, wherein components are removed from retired aircraft to maintain the operational fleet: this is the case for both Hawk and Typhoon Tranche 1. For land vehicles of all kinds, the Department has robust fleet management policies and procedures in place, including for the management of vehicle disposals. The relevant Service will engage with the Defence Equipment Sales Authority, on the potential disposal opportunities, to determine the most appropriate course of action. Again, a range of factors are considered when decisions are made whether to dispose of vehicles, including operational implications, costs of repair and the availability of spares. A vehicle will be considered for disposal if it is surplus to defence requirements if the estimated costs of repair exceed the authorised repair limit or if the vehicle has reached its end of life.