Source · Select Committees · Defence Committee
First Report - Ready for War?
Defence Committee
HC 26
Published 4 February 2024
Government response
Fourth Special Report - Ready for war?: Government response to the Committee's First Report of Session 2023-24 · published 25 Apr 2024
Recommendations & Conclusions
104
Conclusion
Rejected
Mothballing retired equipment to create a strategic reserve remains a viable option
Conclusion
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
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 equipment may be cannibalised for parts for remaining fleets or offered for sale/gifting.
Ministry of Defence
View Details →
105
Conclusion
Rejected
High costs and cannibalisation needs hinder mothballing retired Tranche 1 Typhoons
Conclusion
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
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 and Typhoon Tranche 1) or disposed of through sales or gifting to allies.
Ministry of Defence
View Details →
106
Conclusion
Rejected
Mass of military capabilities remains essential in future conflicts, as demonstrated in Ukraine.
Conclusion
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
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, and that equipment may be cannibalised for parts for remaining fleets or offered for sale/gifting.
Ministry of Defence
View Details →
112
Conclusion
Rejected
MOD's disposal policy for retired military equipment limits future warfighting resilience and 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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
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
View Details →
12
Conclusion
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 …
Read more
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.
Ministry of Defence
View Details →