Defence Secretary John Healey has reassured MPs that the UK’s aircraft carriers are not at risk of being mothballed, despite speculation to the contrary.
Speaking before the Defence Committee, Healey responded directly to concerns raised by committee member Emma Lewell-Buck, who asked whether the carriers were safe.
“We have some really important programmes and capabilities across the board,” Healey said. “The Strategic Defence Review, because it is a Strategic Defence Review, is looking across the board at everything. However, I absolutely do not want you to take that as a signal that any part of our programmes and capabilities—to be clear—are in jeopardy. This is an ongoing question, and they are under scrutiny but not in jeopardy. We will take the decisions that we have to, but we will take them in the light of the reviewers’ analysis, when they come to report.”
Healey spoke on the importance of strategic planning, noting that the review is set to deliver its findings in spring 2025. “I expect the reviewers to complete their reports and deliver them in spring. I expect to be able to publish a version of that report, and I will report that Strategic Defence Review to Parliament,” he stated.
The Defence Secretary also pointed to the planned deployment of the Carrier Strike Group to the Indo-Pacific in 2025 as evidence of the carriers’ continued strategic value. “This Committee should take seriously the commitment to the Carrier Strike Group 2025, which will be one of our aircraft carriers spending four to five months in the Indo-Pacific, taking part in military exercises, as well as diplomacy and trade—a demonstration, if you like, of that capability and of its reach,” he said.
Committee member Mike Martin questioned the appropriateness of such a global deployment in light of immediate threats closer to home. “The clear and present danger from Russia, versus a global expeditionary military, is one of the big questions that clearly the SDR is grappling with,” Martin said.
Healey defended the decision, highlighting the unique opportunities provided by the Indo-Pacific tour. “There is a great deal of potential value in the Carrier Strike Group undertaking this tour,” he explained. “There is military and exercising advantage, alliance building and consolidating advantage, and economic and diplomatic advantage, as long as we plan it properly.”
He added that such advantages could not be replicated in regions like the Baltic or North Sea. “You would not be able to exercise with the Australians or the Japanese or the Koreans, or the extent of the US, in those different parts. You could not replicate the extent of part of the elements that the Carrier Strike Group tour is planning. There is a value; otherwise, I would not be sending it,” he said.
The Secretary of State also underscored the importance of defence reform in implementing the review’s findings effectively. “We have touched on the imperative to see serious defence reform in place in order to make the decisions effectively and then drive the implementation of the Strategic Defence Review,” Healey concluded.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
The decision to scrap a load of equipment in the middle of a defence review was a massive mistake and very telling off the lack of communications strategy across the current government.
The LPD’s could have be mothballed and left on extended readiness, savings where only a £9 million a year from scrapping them. The other decisions where probably correct however again they should have been done as part of the defence review with a clear Indication of where the cash was going.
They would be a token force.
Regenerating them would be close to impossible as the HV system didn’t like being left to get damp.
Hulls and electronics deteriorate fast if the HVAC is off or the ship isn’t dry nitrogen flooded – which is impossible with the construction of the Albions.
I don’t disagree but they should not have been scrapped in the middle of a defence review. It now destroys any credit he review had and now it looks like cuts are being made to the MOD budget even though the budget is going up.
I tend to agree with your point but over Navy Lookout they are suggesting that they might have brought the move forward to avoid the cuts, however logical they may be, being taken when Trump is in power…
It is certainly food for thought.
Cheers CR
Quite right, we really don’t want to get into the same position as Russia with ships like aircraft carriers, and nuclear powered battlecruisers sitting for decades awaiting refurbishment simply because pride says that they must be kept even though they will almost certainly never go to sea again
I put this in another post but do you reckon the Albion and Bulwark could be reworked into arsenal type ships even with some ABM capabilities if these ships are still half decent. They’re such huge platforms and those well docks could support several mk41s and podded systems and plenty of room up top for decent radars. Probably all cost too much and money better spent on the T83.
It will be interesting to see who might buy these if at bargain price, maybe India, Brazil, NZ?
No-one would be able to man them Jim.
The reality is, this decision was taken by the last government, they just left it to the current government to officially announce.
The RN ‘effectively’ cut them last year and gave up any possibility of taking Bulwark to
sea.
I suspect ( though Labour say the RM’s are safe), the Corps will be cut in size to match it’s assets next year.
Probably cut to about 4,000 and ‘spun’ as an enhancement, ” smaller, more lethal super special, secret squirrel capable superman force” etc, etc….
The usual…
So the Sec of Def says and I quote. “However, I absolutely do not want you to take that as a signal that any part of our programmes and capabilities—to be clear—are in jeopardy.”
Well I suppose that is true if you completely disregard the forced retirement of the RN’s Amphib capability and the scraping of the watchkeeper program without replacement so that the ‘review’ can’t be blamed for the clear and obvious cuts. Two capabilities that it is highly unlikely we will ever properly get back.
I wonder if Norway would like to buy the Albions and then they can come and pick us up if we ever need to do a landing there like we practice pretty much every year.
I don’t disagree but they should not have been scrapped in the middle of a defence review. It now destroys any credit he review had and now it looks like cuts are being made to the MOD budget even though the budget is going up.
We might be in the middle of the review but enough is known to make this a sensible decision e.g. Iain’s post above + I assume, what the RN are feeding in to the design requirement for MRSS. We pulled out of the joint project with the Dutch because they want a small hybrid OPV/LPD design. We need to wait to find out for sure but it looks like MRSS will be large LPDs with bigger flight decks than Albion. I’m thinking Argus sized with a well dock.
Why not take it a step further and buy the design for the Trieste? A man can dream.
Larger ships need more crew, so do flight decks, how do we design a ship that can operate alone, is more capable than whatever we’ve had before but we’re also getting less of them
Modern warfare rules out the use of large drones like watch keeper for artillery spotting and heavy vehicle landings in an amphibious assault. The concepts these systems were based on are out of date which is why they have no direct replacement. We didn’t come up with a direct replacement for horse mounted infantry or gliders either.
Agreed on Watchkeeper- just not survivable on a modern battlefield.
I’d like to think that the replacement will not be like for like, but actually far lower unit cost, more mass and at least equivalent capability- devolved further down so that (maybe) even batteries would have organic drone spotters. If I understand correctly, we didn’t have enough Watchkeeper for that level of direct feedback to the guns.
Ukraine proved that large drones aren’t useful against an opponent who actually has their shit together, early on the TB2 drones caused havoc but Russia adapted and now they’re basically never seen.
The quotation from the defence secretary does not say that one of the carriers couldn’t be mothballed. Were a carrier to be mothballed, they would simply say that they are continuing to maintain a carrier strike capability – after all France manages with one carrier. They could throw in some rhetoric of “working in tandem with our French allies to coordinate carrier deployments”.
This week the government effectively eliminated the core of the UK’s amphibious capability … but supposedly “core programmes and capabilities are not in jeopardy”??
Exactly. Given how many decisions are being made public before the defence review, the fact that Healy didn’t confirm that both carriers are safe isn’t as reassuring as the article seems to assume. We could mothball one and still do CSG 25.
Interesting take on CSG2025, that it shouldn’t hit the Indo-Pacific. I do take the man’s point about threats closer to home. But we’re in (potentially) the most expensive defence programme that the UK will commit to in the next 50 years -Tempest- with Japan, not to mention updates to Meteor and other things. We’re also looking to deepen relationships with South Korea and are I believe trying to convince them to more actively support Ukraine. Are they really going to look to help with a conflict half the world away if we’re unwilling to show our support for their defence concerns? I agree with Healey, we should definitely send the carrier group out east.
Besides, Russia has a Pacific coast- why not sail the CSG a bit further north with a few Japanese and/or USN vessels and remind Putin that we could sink his Pacific fleet quicker than it took Ukraine to reduce the Black Sea fleet?
The fact there was statement means there was a discussion.
New English spelling for idiots materialised with Healey’s cuts:
L.A.B.O.U.R.
You trust any mealy mouthed politician at your peril.
Frankly my contempt for the lot of them is increasing exponentially by the day. I cheered when Labour won, I thought, foolishly finally we have a government with its head on straight regarding defence. HOW WRONG I WAS.
We all know these capability gaps will never be filled. They will be quietly forgotten about. Scraping the Albions is a colossal mistake, their replacement if they are ever built are still at the bank of the envelope stage.
My frustration is getting to the point where we should just disband all three arms of the military at once and get the utter embarrassment over in one go rather than this drip feed .
How our Defence Secretary can stand up in one breath admit the barbarians are approaching the gate and in the next announce a raft of cuts beggar belief.
Carry on up the Kyber springs to mind , where the civilian asks the ambassador when the Hostiile natives are at the gates. He asks “ what are you going to do” the ambassador replies “ Do, Do, we are British, we will do nothing until it is too late”. This joke has become a reality.
I remember when the amphibs were safe too.
I trust Healey, and Labour, about as much as the local CND rep.
Sorry all.