Armed Forces Readiness

Defence Committee Closed Inquiry
Opened: 24 Apr 2023 Closed: 24 May 2024 Parliament page
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 … Read more
10 Recommendations
122 Conclusions
1 Report
6 Oral sessions
6 Events
Activity timeline 14 events
25 Apr
2024
Report published
4 Feb
2024
Report published
22 Nov
2023
Oral evidence
22 Nov
2023
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · The Grimond Room, Portcullis House
14 Nov
2023
Oral evidence
14 Nov
2023
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · The Thatcher Room, Portcullis House
7 Nov
2023
Oral evidence
7 Nov
2023
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · The Thatcher Room, Portcullis House
21 Jun
2023
Oral evidence
21 Jun
2023
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · Room 15, Palace of Westminster
20 Jun
2023
Oral evidence
20 Jun
2023
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · Room 5, Palace of Westminster
Oral evidence sessions 6 sessions
22 Nov 2023
View on parliament.uk
Panel 1
General Sir Jim Hockenhull · Ministry of Defence Rt Hon James Heappey MP · Ministry of Defence
14 Nov 2023
View on parliament.uk
Panel 1
Admiral Sir Ben Key KCB CBE · Ministry of Defence Rear Admiral Steve Moorhouse CBE · Ministry of Defence
7 Nov 2023
View on parliament.uk
Panel 1
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton KCB · Ministry of Defence General Sir Patrick Sanders · Ministry of Defence
21 Jun 2023
View on parliament.uk
Panel 1
General (Retd) Sir Nick Carter, Former Chief of Defence Staff (CDS)
20 Jun 2023
View on parliament.uk
Panel 1
The Lord Houghton of Richmond GCB CBE DL
6 Jun 2023
View on parliament.uk
Panel 1
Dr Simon Anglim · Kings College London Nick Childs · The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Professor Justin Bronk · RUSI
Title HC No. Published Items Response
First Report - Ready for War? HC 26 4 Feb 2024 132 Responded
Recommendations & Conclusions
5 results
Clear
104 Conclusion Rejected
First Report - Ready for War?
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 … Read more
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 equipment may be cannibalised for parts for remaining fleets or offered for sale/gifting.
Ministry of Defence
View details
105 Conclusion Rejected
First Report - Ready for War?
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 … Read more
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 and Typhoon Tranche 1) or disposed of through sales or gifting to allies.
Ministry of Defence
View details
106 Conclusion Rejected
First Report - Ready for War?
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 … Read more
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, and that equipment may be cannibalised for parts for remaining fleets or offered for sale/gifting.
Ministry of Defence
View details
112 Conclusion Rejected
First Report - Ready for War?
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 … Read more
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
View details
12 Conclusion Rejected
First Report - Ready for War?
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 … Read more
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
View details
Government Response AI assessment · 131 of 10 classified
Accepted 79
Accepted in Part 5
Acknowledged 19
Deferred 11
Not Addressed 12
Rejected 5
Total 10 recs + 122 conclusions