I respectfully disagree. To use an example from Royal Navy which I am more aware of. Posters have proposed in the Navy Escort thread about reactivating HMS Monmouth - that is not realistic as it has been de-commissioned and weapos and sensors removed - it is too far down the line and would be vastly increased cost.RunningStrong wrote: ↑26 Mar 2022, 20:01I hope they don't.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑26 Mar 2022, 14:10 I still hope that Treasury allocates additional money on Defence Spending.
If they do, one of the first things I hope they do for the army is reverse the cut in tanks and upgrade as many of the 227 Challenger 2's as possible. 148 tanks just feels too few.
We still have AJAX to be fielded, only limited BOXER variants, Mobile Fires programme to kick off, 105 also needs replacement, MRV-P part 1 and 2 revitalised, bringing autonomous and remotely operated ground vehicles into service, and a lack of ATGM Overwatch platform. And a cancelled IFV programme.
So hopefully we'll replace the FV432, Pinzgauer, WMIK, UOR, AS90, CVR(T), HET and Warrior before we focus too much on additional MBT.
Instead I focus on wanting HMS Montrose, a similat T23 Frigate to HMS Monmouth and similarly neither had gone through LIFEX, but crucially still in active service in the Persian Gulf. Keeping HMS Montrose in service will cost - it will mean that the Royal Navy won't save on half of the (from memory) £100million that the planned scrapping of both Frigates early would have saved. To me spending that extra £50million for one extra escort is worth it, especially after what we saw in the T26 thread about defence questions House of Lords.
Now I used that example fro Royal Navy as I pay more attention to that side. But I believe it is a comparable situation with the Army. From what I know of those projects that you listed (Ajax, Boxer, MFP etc), they are all significant acquisition projects that will costs billions and take years to fully implement the acquisition.
I suspect that cancelling the scrapping of around 79 tanks will be far cheaper than those billion pound acquisitions. But more importantly I feel it is better to make that decision now before they ahve been scrapped rather than waiting until after they have been scrapped, where the reactivation costs will naturally be higher.
It's ok if you have a different opinion - but hopefully that explains why I think the most urgent decisions are to revere the planned capability cuts or at least postpone them. Specifically for the British Army once we have cut the number of MBT's down to 148, then I fear we are unlikely to ever increase the number of MBT's until far in the future when we come to retire and replace the Challenger 3's. I fear this would be effectively a permanent capability gap.