In a recent House of Lords debate, Defence Minister Lord Coaker addressed concerns over the decommissioning of military equipment and outlined the Government’s commitment to modernising the Armed Forces to meet future challenges.
Stressing the importance of unity in defence, he emphasised the shared goal of ensuring the best for the Armed Forces.
“We all want the best for our country and for our Armed Forces, and here there is no division between us,” Lord Coaker stated. He also paid tribute to the Armed Forces’ global contributions and acknowledged the bipartisan support for their efforts in Ukraine.
A Necessary Step?
Lord Coaker responded to questions from Baroness Goldie and Baroness Smith of Newnham regarding the rationale behind retiring ageing equipment such as landing platform docks, Type 23 frigates, and Chinook helicopters. He noted that these decisions were guided by advice from military chiefs.
“All of this has been backed by all the chiefs in the Ministry of Defence,” he said. “We are trying to accelerate the replacement of the Type 23 frigates with eight of the world’s most advanced, Type 26 anti-submarine ships.”
On landing platform docks, he added, “Neither ship had been to sea since 2023—indeed, HMS Bulwark had not since 2017.”
He explained that older systems, such as Watchkeeper drones and Puma helicopters, would be replaced with modern alternatives better suited to current and future conflicts. “If we do not support such decommissioning, we will have equipment that is 50, 60 or even 80 years old. That is ridiculous. You have to move on and take difficult decisions.”
Commitment to Future Capabilities
The Minister highlighted the forthcoming deployment of HMS Prince of Wales leading a carrier strike group to the Indo-Pacific in 2025. “That is where the carrier will be next year, demonstrating hard power and defence diplomacy,” he remarked, framing the mission as a commitment to the international rules-based order and freedom of navigation.
He also reaffirmed the Government’s pledge to protect key programmes like the nuclear deterrent and the AUKUS partnership. “The nuclear deterrent and AUKUS will be protected. There might be better ways of doing both, but it will not be at the cost of the ability of those systems.”
Addressing concerns over defence procurement and its impact on UK industries, Lord Coaker said the Government aimed to build much of the new equipment domestically. “We hope that much of it will be built within the UK, across the whole of the UK, benefiting all the regions and nations.”
He acknowledged challenges posed by national insurance increases but reassured that these costs would not directly impact the Armed Forces.
“Of course, national insurance will have an impact on other firms as it will for all firms.”
Lord Coaker concluded by highlightig the need to adapt to modern threats. “The defence equipment plan before us seeks to decommission equipment that we believe is out of date. New equipment can be better placed to meet the threats we face: it is the wars of the future we need to fight, not the wars of the past.”
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!
Just wave the carrier deployment at them as a distraction, and it probably works too lol. Bunch of morons
“benefiting all the regions and nations.”
I hope we’re not going down the USA route where government contracts are handed out to specific states to protect jobs and the local congressman’s re-election chances.
Yes I suspect we are thus taking any competition out of the process. Lots more cost plus contracts I suspect rather than fixed price. Putting the tax payer on the hook rather than the supplier. Forgive the cynicism but It’s not like they’ve gone easy on tax payers to date.
We already have our UK variant of it…
The UK Armed forces are force fed politically mandated UK procured equipment Watchkeeper/Wildcat etc,etc, if they want it or not.
Mind the Gap!
No one is suggesting we keep kit for 50 years.
One should have replacement equipment entering service before retirement/cutting of the outgoing.
Did all the RAF Jaguars and Buccanears get withdrawn before Tornado GR1 entered service? DID THEY?!
No.
You’re cutting to save money and leaving gaps in capability and numbers, just like the last lot.
Bulwark. Was finishing a refit, spend money, recruit sailors.
Or, keep her in reserve for the 9 million a year.
The Waves, perfectly good ships. But let’s get rid anyway as “We have enough” in the 4 Tides.
Assume you had that rationale with the Chinookforce:
60 cabs. Plenty.
Cut to 51.
Now another 14, leaving 37. Now not so many.
Nice work.
How many years before the 14 ER versions are in service?
As always, cuts camouflaged as modernisation.
You fool nobody but the electorate, and that’s what you rely on.
Totally agree, the government must plan to ensure new capability/equipment is brought in before old disposed of. Even old kit is better than fighting with nothing which is what we risk when gaps are created. If Healy can’t fight the treasury for 100m a year which is 0.0018% of the budget than we gave areal problem
“If we do not support such decommissioning, we will have equipment that is 50, 60, or even 80 years old. That is ridiculous. You have to move on and take difficult decisions.”
I’m sorry but what? The US operates B-52s that are over 70 years old and they remain highly effective because they’re maintained and modernized. I’m not suggesting we should cling to outdated systems indefinitely but it has been proven it can be done. Cutting our entire LPD fleet, retiring all Pumas and scrapping Watchkeepers without any replacement plan is beyond comprehension. Not to mention NMH has come to a complete standstill with only 1 Bidder!
I agree these systems needed to be phased out however retaining them even in a mothballed state especially the bulwarks would at least preserve critical capabilities in case of an emergency. Prematurely retiring assets without replacements or waiting for the SDR to inform these decisions is nothing short of reckless.
I would have thought that one of the lessons the government and those at the top of the military would have taken from the war in Ukraine is that old weapons are better than having zero. I guess not then.
Better ways of doing the nuclear deterrent and AUKUS? Is this just a throw away reassurance or is there something of substance behind it? We are fully committed to Dreadnought and Trident so I don’t see how that could change. AUKUS is still in the early stages of planning so I have no idea what doing it better might mean.
I took it as a subtle acknowledgement of the fact that capabilities are being ‘gapped’ (again), by ‘reassuring’ us that those particular capabilities won’t be.
Of course they won’t. Greatest £ passed to industry, always HMG priority over giving conventional forces enough people and kit.
If, say, in a decades time GCAP is cancelled by a future government after 12.5 BILLION of Mods budget was spent on it, do we think MoD get that money back?!
Course not, industry is rubbing it’s hands with glee.
I don’t think anyone objects to old systems being retired – it’s the risky game of delaying replacements for financial reasons and hoping the capability gap doesn’t happen when we need them. Too many defence ministers have rolled the dice, gotten away with it, and sailed off to other jobs while patting themselves on the back for being ‘efficient’ when in fact they were just lucky.
So let’s be clear this saves 0.0018% of the defence budget per year, the defence secretary can’t even stand up to the treasury such a tiny part of the budget then defence really in a bad way. I bet Reave’s spread sheet does even round to 4 decimal places. 😀.
Simply they,re scrapping the armed forces step by step , the waves and HMS Bulwark still they were totallly valid assets , the savings are ridículous compared with the gaps in the forces they will leave.
Defence is not a priority for any british politician.