Comments by "David Houseman" (@davidhouseman4328) on "BFBS Forces News" channel.

  1. Good to see a video pointing out some of the smaller countries contributions.
    256
  2. Seemed a good level of person to interview, not too politician, not too grunt. Nice video.
    139
  3. 2.5% is basically just avoiding the cuts that were otherwise coming. Its only with the growth to 3% that we will have significantly more capability.
    107
  4. It does still look like it should be from a Sci fi film, the F35 somewhat too.
    102
  5. I believe we will have a Dutch frigate and US destroyer with us, I wonder who else we'll pick up along the way?
    95
  6. Looks awful to control to me but as long as pilots are involved in the development I'll be happy.
    83
  7. The NCO/Junior officers training and independence seems like a big advantage.
    59
  8. Soviet weapons, of which the Ukraine was part. Where do you think Russia's large ships were built.
    54
  9. Soft power at it's finest.
    48
  10. I would loved to have seen that live.
    45
  11. I'm a bit jealous of the CV90s.
    39
  12. Nice to see that combination of pride and sadness.
    36
  13. Good to see India commissioning such a mighty vessel. I hope the two work along side each other. I'd be hoping to fill it with Rafale if I were India.
    34
  14. It seems to me that this is the job of these ships, though they do other stuff too fisheries protection is a role they are for.
    33
  15. Great to see the Trojan, we dont see enough of the engineers kit. Also loved the dog through the window!
    31
  16.  untilyougethit  we work very closely with the US, they don't think it's a joke.
    31
  17. Wars are won off the back of Logistics.
    30
  18. Always a good sign, you know its built to be effective and not to look pretty to the public.
    26
  19. If your forces aren't preparing for war, they aren't doing there job.
    26
  20. Hes a politician I repsected irrespective of party, they seem a rare breed.
    25
  21. A nice lower intensity mission to start things off.
    25
  22. The troops are great value for money, the kit could sometimes use work.
    25
  23. @Ben Woodcock the closed comparison to the USMC in the UK is the army. It has an expeditionary focus, a relative light infantry focus and quite small.
    25
  24.  @theylied1776  How do you figure that? The US came into the European war late and never fought alone.
    25
  25. An SDF base used by Americans, seems the simple, deniable way to operate.
    24
  26. We are actually in the Long Peace.
    22
  27. Got to love a bit of logistics.
    22
  28.  @henryfchapman3544  "ruin" is a pretty strong word for 4% over 15 years. We're unlikely to even hit a recession.
    22
  29. Good video, its a serious hard power asset but the soft power is also key.
    20
  30. It will help support our joint fighter project.
    20
  31.  @monsterg4603  a relatively low number of wars particular between great powers.
    19
  32. You also have a British convention of "+", they'll often understate by saying something like 25km+ instead of 40km. It all means public stated ranges don't mean that much.
    19
  33. It could be you, buy a few shares.
    19
  34.  @ursulavondercrazy9197  rather than Finnish military (a long with a dozen others with actual access to the jet) being fooled could it be that the F35 is actual a decent jet?
    19
  35.  @Pebb86  how's our royalty holding us back, it's just a figurehead.
    18
  36.  @mikeycraig8970  Nope, I kind of forgot there were still people denying manmade climate change.
    18
  37. QE recently travelled across the world including stopping at India. That sounds operable to me.
    18
  38. They pay us.
    17
  39. I can't see how they would join NATO when already at war.
    17
  40. Royal Marines commandos are an elite fighting force, the USMC is just an expeditionary army. Man for man the Royal Marines are a step above. You need something like the Marine raiders to compete.
    17
  41. This is the core any NATO force will be built around, got to see us exercising together. I want to know the scenario now though, they kept tantalising us about it.
    16
  42.  @rudrakshsinghkatal5609  Yep, nothing to do with the ship so why do you bring it up?
    16
  43. Ukraine isn't part of NATO.
    16
  44. Prince William seems a worthy successor to the Queen. He served in the RAF and Air ambulance and does diplomatic duties like this with no hint of a gaff. What's your issue with him?
    16
  45. Where's the hypocrisy, Vietnam (half a century ago) is widely condemned and ended becasue of US public opinion.
    16
  46. A great workhorse.
    16
  47. We're an island with nuclear weapons surrounded by allies. I don't know what you think you've been defending us from? On the other hand we've followed the US into wars like Afghanistan where our troops have died.
    15
  48.  @MikeJones-bg1mh  this would seem like exactly the situation where they should be present to make sure nothing gets out of hand.
    15
  49.  @kunaalsharma1039  Putin isn't suicidal he won't use nukes for anything short of an invasion of the mother country. It's too likely to lead to the end of the world as we know it.
    15
  50. Yep, that why we are continuing to buy them.
    14
  51. Why's it silly? It's very relevant to Forest/Bush fires.
    14
  52. jagara1 huh, how does that make sense?
    14
  53. Why?
    14
  54. 8000 civilians is only those verified by the UN, the actual figure will be much larger.
    13
  55.  @franfountain7278  Influence, as opposed to force which is hard power. All those armies we train around the world will look more favourably on us.
    13
  56. We don't have to worry about Russia because of actions like this. We won't have to fight because we are prepared to.
    13
  57. Super Hornets will fly along side F35C until the F/A-XX comes along.
    13
  58. Its civil unrest in the context of a war zone, ie. Irregular combatants.
    13
  59. The UK and France are closer than NATO, Lancaster house has more cooperation than average members.
    13
  60.  Proud Indian  2,000 km isn't pulled out of the hat. It about the distance across Europe to the Russian border. A specific consideration of the Strike Brigades is to get to the frontline before the fights lost.
    12
  61. It not worth spending all the money to develop an aircraft alone. In terms of building the F35 is a net export as we build more in parts than we buy in aircarft.
    12
  62. Trust to do what? We will be getting millions but not losing anything, this isn't buying up, it's buying from.
    12
  63. @meme4one  of course not. Defence including our allies and interest. It's not like there's no wars going on so you can claim there's no need for our forces.
    12
  64.  @monsterg4603  a did a quick count on Wikipedia UK wars and it gives 44 wars in the 70 years prior to WW1 compared to 28 since NATO.
    11
  65. NATO acts by consensus not at Washington's behest. The Iraq war for example wasn't a NATO op because there wasn't agreement.
    11
  66. Thanks for buying British.
    11
  67. Oil companies do pay hundreds of millions if not billions in tax each year. And oil isn't just for making money but essential for normal people.
    11
  68.  @desnebula5699  the nukes haven't moved forward as NATO expanded.
    11
  69. Never occupied except the large part of its history under Sweden and following that by the Russian Empire.
    11
  70. Given technology advances that makes perfect sense.
    11
  71. The British plan is 50 years with a major refit half way. Given India previously used second hand carriers I'm sure they will get plenty of years from a new one.
    11
  72.  @rpm1796  the argument is air superiority is just about information. The F35 denies it to the enemy via stealth and picks it up better than the enemy by it sensors. That make sit a boss CAP aircraft. Once we've adapted the meteor it has the weapon advantage too.
    11
  73. Don't be foolish, we can wield a position of respected leadership but its much harder with people claiming we should rule.
    10
  74. The UK cost was for 2, it's a video fail.
    10
  75. Well this video failed on the cost comparison.
    10
  76. The suggestion that only a quick victory is a victory is ignoring the question completely.
    10
  77. NATO kit, training and intelligence is helping Ukraine as we speak.
    10
  78. Rather than a restriction I'd guess it was a choice, a couple of weeks assaulting and then regroup. Either in Kherson or because it's gone worse than planned.
    10
  79. There's more than just Steel in a carrier.
    10
  80. It is just wrong, the 6.5 covers two.
    10
  81.  @jimohara  I think they are still on non lethal aid but an army need medical supplies as well as guns.
    9
  82. Agreed. I think it just depends months mission type. Sometimes is more like basic training, this sounded more advanced tactics that even we've only developed recently.
    9
  83. We need to keep up the support. Importantly we seem to have failed to ramp up ammunition production. A year ago that would have made sense, now its government incompetence.
    9
  84. It doesn't have a catapult, adding one isn't a slight modification.
    9
  85. Rosyth, as it says, in Scotland, where it was built.
    9
  86. Good stuff. I'd like to see an expanded engineering section for helping developing nations and rebuilding after war.
    9
  87. On a basic front they are fellow human beings. On practical front what we are spending is small compared to what we spend on defence each year and yet it is doing the same job.
    9
  88. Why wouldn't you need stealth, missiles go Mach 4 and beyond.
    9
  89.  @marcusaetius9309  what didn't you understand about the example proving it?
    9
  90. Sending weaponry to conflicts was the norm through the coldwar. This difference is the amount of publicity in this conflict.
    9
  91. Sugarnips IV Early in development. But it designed to avoid dogfight and hit from range.
    9
  92. Not a lot, then you vote them out at the next election.
    9
  93.  @YourMom-rk1me  if your talking in total then yes, the USMC is stronger, it's 20x bigger. But that size means selection is a lot easier.
    9
  94. Of course it will be an unspecific enemy that comes from the east and happens to speak Russian but I want to know numbers, which planes are playing the enemy, results, tactic. All the stuff our airforces can't tell us.
    9
  95.  @jamjardj1974  Goalkeepers the Dutch CIWS
    9
  96. Your not into big bums then?
    9
  97. I'm afraid India won't be allowed them, too much contact with the Russian defence industry.
    9
  98. It's not about an air force challenging them but stopping an attack, which would likely be from none state actors.
    8
  99. The first thing is make sure there is the funding for the current plan (we waste too much starting things and not following through). The second is build up stocks of ammo and other consumables. Third is the speed up the current plans. Only then would I increase the size and there won't be the money for that. My worry is they will look for headline numbers rather depth.
    8
  100. Although a carrier could do some work your probably better off with something like a bay class with a well deck as the jet fighter focus doesn't help much.
    8
  101. Damn show offs
    8
  102. France has its problems too. CDG had it's own teething issues, a French nuclear sub caught fire not too long back. Its just an issue of the complexity of modern kit and the lack of focus an actual war brings.
    8
  103. WW2 carriers were as big as battleships. It wasn't size that was the issue it was weaponry.
    8
  104. Lasers is an example, but it includes other forms of electromagnetic radiation.
    8
  105.  @philiprowe7452  It's a Royal Navy survey ship. There's no contradiction in having guns and being a survey ship. It not trying to be something it isn't, your just sounding dumb.
    8
  106. Why do you think a liability, even when countries that aren't spending a lot are adding extra military forces not taking away and everyone pays a share of the NATO budget.
    8
  107.  @Hillrunner768  there are certainly some countries like Luxembourg who contribution is next to nothing but the risk there is also next nothing. And that isn't over half of countries.
    8
  108. Not really, they aren't metrics that are particularly useful in deciding if an F35 wins a fight.
    8
  109. You haven't even given them the whole season, but we'll keep supprting them after that as Ukraine need to be at least secure for a reasonable negotiation.
    8
  110. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Launching your hypersonic missile from an undetected location closer is a big advantage.
    8
  111. I'd like to see a report of Russia taking mainland Europe in 5 days? That was the kind of thing talked about with the USSR + Warsaw Pact starting in East Germany. It's laughable from present day Russia on the other side of Poland. If Russia could run a decent democracy it could start integrating with the rest if Europe, til they we're not interested.
    8
  112.  @kamilszadkowski8864  What do you think the lesson from WW2 is? This isn't Germany attacking anyone.
    8
  113. It's why we work with others like this, though we have quality we don't have massive numbers, but together we have quality and quantity.
    8
  114. The question is why were we still there?
    8
  115. Not sure where to ask but. Where's the Lib Dems?
    8
  116. Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania all border the Ukraine. It is NATOs backyard as much as Russia's. It is the Russian belief it should dominate it's neighbours that is the problem.
    8
  117. The point is you print them when they are needed?
    8
  118.  @1chish  we spend money on our armed forces not a NATO armed force. Not being in alliance with Germany for example just means 10s of billions of defence budget we're not allied with, it doesn't save us money. Other nations do Baltic patrolling. Even if they don't do there fair share, they do some work that we don't have to.
    8
  119.  @datonaone  why? I'd prefer to protect our industry than our pride. We build 15% of each F35. In total that's the equivalent of 450 aircraft. Build our own and we wouldn't even get get 138 we plan because of all the extra we'd need to spend on R+D.
    8
  120. A no fly zone would mean full scale war.
    8
  121.  @flaggnerd  The Italian are assembling some, the Japanese some. Most in the US of course. The UK is building 15% of the parts. Lockheed is the prime, but BAE for example is building more than 10% of it (some of which is BAE in the US). Defence industries are so intergrated now.
    8
  122.  @squirepraggerstope3591  it turning a weakness (the exhusts) into a strength (survivability). Good practical engineering.
    8
  123. I believe all the Merlin's went to the Navy. Puma is only a temporary replacement, ultimately they want something lighter than the Merlin as despite being classed as medium it's pretty hefty.
    8
  124.    all the major navies are building carriers. The US, China, India, France has just started planning there next. You appear to be sucking up Russian propaganda. Russia aren't building any because they are too skint to do so.
    8
  125. Tech is what allows us to compete, we'll never have the numbers and training can only go so far.
    8
  126. Other the HMS PoW?
    8
  127. It was the exciting jet of my childhood. I'll always have soft spot for it.
    8
  128.  @meme4one  Not even close to US vs Russia. The aid the US has sent is tiny compared to even it's yearly budget and its only sent a limited set of equipment. And Ukraine was invaded invaded by Russia, stop the bull about about it being US.
    8
  129.  @willw8011  not even close. Something like visually flagging an unresponsive aircraft can only be done by a jet. Seeing from the air is a big advantage, so moving to engage a threat before it gets close.
    7
  130.  @monsterg4603  coming if the back of decades of world war preceded by Empire. It is a world view rather than a UK centric one.
    7
  131. It clearly doesn't have enough weapons.
    7
  132. The Russian ruling elites like the benefits there wealth brings, NATO doesn't want a war on that scale. It works for neither side.
    7
  133. The sympathy and help isn't for the government it's for the average person.
    7
  134.  @soumyajitsingha9614  It's a STOBAR aircraft when it's on a STOBAR carrier. There is no point in having options when you aren't going to use them. Vikrant for example doesn't have the heat resistant surface QE has to protect against the F35Bs downward thrust. Similar QE doesn't have arrestor wires. Both would be reasonably easy to add but pointless. Catapults are difficult to add, though QE was designed to be adaptable say at the midlife refit.
    7
  135. Technologically its drone development these come from so drone in the name makes sense.
    7
  136. You can't annex something that's already yours.
    7
  137. Silent about what? JEF is about JEF nations.
    7
  138. It's a NATO mission not an EU one.
    7
  139. I presume you mean top brass, because NCOs and low level commissioned officers fight and are key to the quality of our force.
    7
  140.  @elitecoder955  Because armour is being stockpiled near the border. He has option in the goal but major war will involve armour.
    7
  141. The same as what? Russia travel near the UK all the time. And Turkey is an ally.
    7
  142. The channel is run by BFBS, a charity whose main purpose is to provide tv and radio to British forces around the world but it also does somethings to inform others about those forces. Its independent but does get most of its funding from the government.
    7
  143. Even those against the EU were generally for NATO. Happy to fight together, just may be not administer together.
    7
  144.  @markojovanovic1750  we're not threatening Russian sovereignty but ensuring the independence of it neighbours. No NATO member is stupid enough the consider an invasion of Russia. But without NATO you get Russia willing to act as it has in the Ukraine or Georgia.
    7
  145.  @Amen-Magi  again, I gave an example of NATO countries not following the US blindly. As another point, other NATO nations than the US have there own nuclear weapons.
    7
  146. They do, and there is no regret. It's all about information.
    7
  147. The EFP's were original just trip wires, not expected to hold but to ensure NATO was at war. But given Russia's efforts in Ukraine frankly any invading force would get shredded by NATO airpower.
    7
  148.  @farzana6676  Nice of you to proclaim your ignorance.
    7
  149. Great clip, I'm reassured by King Charles III service and his heir to follow.
    7
  150. You haven't understood the concept of a carrier group then.
    7
  151. Trump wasn't batter for asking countries to spend more, as you said the common, before and after. But for threatening not to fulfil article 5. He chose not to reiterate the commitment at the beginning of his term. The unity of NATO is more important than the spend.
    7
  152. We could happily keep a 100k army with a weaker Navy and Air force. We choose not to, as an island...
    7
  153. The only full scale war envisioned is defending eastern Europe against Russia as part of NATO. In that context continental Europe will provide the tank numbers. If we were somehow fighting alone we be turtleing on our island and it's the Navy and RAF thats key.
    7
  154.  @happyhap7207  not about that the video was just wrong.
    7
  155. I think we'd actually be more capable of an op like the Falklands as it didn't involve large numbers and out tech is much advanced.
    7
  156. 8:00. Oh yeah, we might have some in the UK too.
    7
  157. Houthis aren't fighting for Palestinians, it's having no effect on Israel. Trade routes are an essential, they don't just effect the rich but everybody in there cost of daily living.
    7
  158.  @TheSkunkyMonk  Did you notice this video was about a jet taking off from a carrier? Which the SU35 doesn't do.
    7
  159. What makes him a token black guy and not just a black guy?
    7
  160.  @johnallen7807  Currently an army that we can deploy quickly and support in the field is more important than numbers, hence the mentioned strike brigades. Also your Waterloo numbers were a large part allied troops.
    7
  161. Which is it, Afghan or Syria, they are very different in terms of UK involvement?
    7
  162. ​@sigmaputin6888 that's parliamentary democracy, nothing strange there.
    6
  163. Ian Simpson why would you transport a large number of soldiers to the UK rather than a few trainers to Kenya?
    6
  164. Hardrive33 it lacks a bit to the A though not the key stealth and sensors part. But A's can't fly from ships.
    6
  165. They punched well above there weight, rolling over half of Europe. Ultimately they ended fighting 3 powers with much greater resources.
    6
  166. Why, it wasn't charity, it was a business deal.
    6
  167.  @bl8danjil  there's no suggestion of a pilot, suicide is in the context of drone, the defining part of which is no pilot. This doesn't stem from a missile, it's not a missile designed to persist, it's a drone that's been weaponised.
    6
  168. It's choice not impossibility. P9lands choice, neighbouring Russia, is different to ours. (It's also worth noting it's Poland's army that gettingbthemmassive uplift, that is the least of Britains military)
    6
  169. The building that is a fleet headquarters? Not many innocent people, you don't have to be on the front line to be complicit. But yes innocent people die in war, it doesn't mean the war isn't worth fighting. Also incidentally killing civilians isn't a war crime, only dilberatley killing them.
    6
  170. The French Navy has more people in it, given automation this can be as much of a sign of being old than better. The RN is larger by tonnage (by a long way with the RFA) and in key asset, SSNs and Carriers.
    6
  171. I don't know why you think tanks define an army?
    6
  172.  @colonelangus8247  what outcome? Ukraine was never going to win straight up but by bleeding the Russian over weeks and months.
    6
  173. It's a survey ship, what's your point?
    6
  174.  @philiprowe7452  seemingly, you can't understand to concept on a survey ship with guns
    6
  175.    I didn't mention specific nations. But regardless your comment illustrates your lack of IQ.
    6
  176. No. The UK has appropriate carriers. We aren't that big but can deploy some power across the world. We happily work with the US but also with other medium navies like France, Italy and increasingly Japan. Not being a superpower we are quiet capable of losing a war, but no one is taking our home islands.
    6
  177.  @PavelPavlov-hj3lx  That's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. Adding extra forces for collective defence is still an asset rather than a liability even if they are half as large as they should be. Nor is it about leaning on the US, rather its about generally feeling safe, countries away from Russia didn't feel threatened with or without US support. Countries near Russia have tended to meet the guideline (A guideline that was designed to be moved towards rather than immediately achieved).
    6
  178. To all those who want much larger numbers, first we need the proper support for the numbers we have. And frankly that will take all the money we can get when every department is looking for more and we are already spending money we don't have.
    6
  179.  @happyhap7207  India has a very good navy, but it still behind the UK and France. India is catching up on carriers but still behind on the other key SSN/SSBNs.
    6
  180. Because they have access to actual information unlike random guys off the internet. Plus you then have a video to hold them to account to latter.
    6
  181.  @TT-hd3zi  Not in the fight, but for overall effectiveness yes. For now we just need jets but tankering will be something to look into once we have numbers.
    6
  182.  @MrGuyJacks  helping them to create a stable country would be a way to stop unwanted people.
    6
  183. it will end non descriptly as it always does.
    6
  184. I'd guess it's because they need more practice of vertical landings. But also remember they look cooler on videos.
    6
  185. It's the fifth gen aircraft that are the big factor.
    6
  186. Anything we are getting now like this or the carriers is a prebrexit decision, military projects take time. We'll see in a decade what Brexit brings. Generally though the military constantly get news kit and updates, it not really that special.
    6
  187. Troops is a bit less formal so more easily covers people like pilots or medical specialists.
    6
  188. @SplurbBat Nothing innocent about Saddam's regime. I was referring to post invasion, but there was a time when it was getting support from the US and the Soviets.
    6
  189. No, they weren't, we sent 14?
    6
  190.  @uioplkhj  at the request of the Afghan government l.
    6
  191. They don't run them, they store them.
    6
  192. Great workhorse, I hope future ships are as good.
    6
  193. Our Canada spot is absolutely huge, a fifth the size of Northern Ireland. That simply isn't something we can replicate here.
    6
  194. Nice picture, flanked by the Typhoons.
    6
  195. Its travelled to the otherside of the world?
    6
  196. Because it is only an opinion and one that has effect in a democracy.
    6
  197.  @barenddutoit9794  Stalingrad, and WW2 in general, wasn't anything special about the Russian winter soldiers just them dieing in huge numbers to achieve victory.
    6
  198. @MyAqaa The last budget was an increase.
    6
  199. An astute has been confirmed.
    6
  200. There are cheaper missiles avaliable, the type 45 is getting CAMM added. But air to air off a helicopter might be a good option.
    6
  201.  @authenticmax6350  I'm guessing you completely made that up rather than have some numbers to back it up?
    6
  202. It stems from the engine exhausts but one is used for the ship, the other the aircraft, though if one is damaged the other can do both.
    6
  203. A little but of training now stops us fighting a war later.
    6
  204.  @basemanawakens6089  talking about hypersonic is just propaganda. Hypersonic isn't new, ballistic missiles have travelled at hypersonic speeds for decades, Thaad or S400 work at hypersonic speeds. Also they may defeat air defences but so do large numbers of subsonic missiles.
    6
  205. An EMP would fry a normal vehical controls too. You just have to engineer against hacking, its not like we don't use drones at the moment.
    6
  206. Its the size of the very largest WW2 ships, the biggest ever RN vessel.
    6
  207. 2030 is a couple of elections away, any claim either way it pretty empty. The manifesto pledge of above inflation is the question for now.
    6
  208. It's a Main Battle Tank, heavy and medium aren't used anymore but in weight it's heavy.
    6
  209. It's succinct answer to the question, not claiming to be news. That isn't what clickbait is.
    6
  210. No they couldn't, it wasn't attacking them, but others, phalanx is self defence
    6
  211.  @ljt3084  WW1 decimated the upper class because officers die with there men, sometimes even more because they are expected to set the standard.
    6
  212. The original plan had 5 of those 13 being general purpose rather than anti sub. It's a lot of ship for a GP frigate, I'd prefer a larger number of worse ships.
    6
  213. Don't see why you're saying NATO looks like fools, this is nothing like what Russia was wanting, Ukraine as an EU member and guaranteed by NATO members.
    6
  214.  @guillerbrady9261  no treaties, no historical ties, not exactly a pristine government. We were never sending in the troops. We could be supplying more military aid but we were struggling to supply our own forces.
    5
  215.  @andreaaltan3982  and he won't be, because it isn't.
    5
  216.  @PAllen74  Generally speaking the UK is more focused on the Navy and Airforce than Army, those cost more per person as they have the expensive kit. Our nuclear deterrent is an even more extreme example of this. A lot of other countries, Germany is a prime example, have the same complaints about inefficiency. For the army, rather than the whole military, you may have a point. We've had a lot of bad projects recently and key kit is aging. The other services not so much our air force is running 4.5th/5th gen jets, the navy has new subs, new carriers and new frigates about to come in.
    5
  217. Tier 1 partner means we get to choose our delivery schedule. We are buying them at a rate our budget will allow. But 6 F35s is easily at an invisible class level. 12 will give us good CAPs. Really looking forward to 24 though.
    5
  218. Better. Catapults. Better choice. It varies. Budgets are limited, worse but more is often the best choice.
    5
  219.  @English.Andy1  The whole point is we aren't picking up rifles we allowing others to defend themselves.
    5
  220. What do you mean, do anything about? It has ten of thousands of troops securing it's neighbours. Do you mean why isn't it invading a country with 1.4bn people and nuclear weapons?
    5
  221. Its like people can't say Iraq without adding Afganistan. Different wars for different reasons.
    5
  222.  @thomaspickard4138  That's Challenger 1s record not 2s
    5
  223. The carrier map is a bit dodgy, only a frigate transited the Taiwan strait and it's certainly not going to have gone between Hainan and the mainland.
    5
  224. For essential the same reasons Ukraine wasn't in NATO. Ukraine isn't a top draw democracy and does have corruption problems, it was already in a war if a stagnated one and there was genuine pro Russsian sentiment in many areas. The invasion has galvanised things that were much more grey before hand.
    5
  225.  @acoustic5738  The choice of ships wasn't random, it's a survey ship doing surveying. Nor is it in bad shape, a bit of rust just means it's been at sea.
    5
  226. A shark with half it's teeth is still scary. What less scary is not having one part of the time. The extra cost would have driven us to only 1 carrier like France.
    5
  227. It isn't, by role it more covered by Boxer. Ajax isn't for most for troops.
    5
  228.  @bl8danjil  once your calling it a drone the suicide makes perfect sense (whether or not drone is a good word is now irrelevant, its long been accepted). The argument is drone or munnition, and this comes from the drone line not the munition line.
    5
  229. In WW3 the SSBN is still king. Carriers are for the wars we actually fight.
    5
  230. The US is buying more F35Bs than F35Cs, as well as Japan, South Korea, Italy and Singapore buying F35Bs so far.
    5
  231.  @extremistcontent1337  tanks doesn't at all, it actually points to the exact opposite. There isn't a potential fight anywhere near us. So the overall size of our forces doesn't matter, it's the size of we can deploy at distance that matters. And you can deploy twice as many Ajax or Boxers as Challengers with air power taking out any big threats. We aren't defending our islands with tanks, we're doing it with jets and subs.
    5
  232. Anyone big enough to run them has there own ship building industry to support.
    5
  233. For the US Thaad is hypersonic, ICBMs are high hypersonic. There is no fundamental problem, the specific of how good they are is more in doubt. But the Russian have had super sonic anti ship missiles for decades it wouldn't be so surprising for them to be progressed.
    5
  234.  -KracN-  he didn't sell, it was allowed to be sold. Defence is an international business. You don't think BAE owns companies in the US?
    5
  235. Protection levels
    5
  236.  @matthewbaynham6286  Typhoon is flying until Tempest replaces it. The F35 will never be alone.
    5
  237. Very few countries capable of affording them outside the EU.
    5
  238. Typhoon can fight it's way through contested space, F35 flies through uncontested.
    5
  239.  @harrykuheim6107  British politicians elected by British people are what is stopping us leaving, not the EU.
    5
  240. The sinnews of war are unlimited money.
    5
  241.  misternovelbro  I wasn't giving you the benefit of the doubt because you just following the rote line. The war in donbas was one incited and supported by Russia. And then in the full invasion they have pounded many places in the donbas like Mariupol. Far from Russia protecting Russians in Ukraine they have caused a massive increase in there deaths.
    5
  242.  @katerinakempb8217  This is the opposite of Empire which is Hard Power. Countries can decide whatever they want, we work by persuasion and on trust. And the commonwealth is thriving as forum for communication and cooperation. There are a shed load more treaties between members than with neutral nations, and it now even has members not originally part of the empire.
    5
  243. Both sides are still far apart in there demands.
    5
  244.  @SJstackinbodys  I'm completely on the side of Ukraine so there would be nothing hard to take about there victory. But if the war stopped now I can't see how the loss of large amounts of territory could be considered a Ukrainian victory. And its Russia taking more not Ukraine. So even if you end up saying Russia is losing it at very least needs a heavy argument it certainly isn't selfevident.
    5
  245.  @CaliPlays5651  so first off, this isn't about Oman specifically who have relatively little, but the region. Secondly the countries don't want to keep there oil they want to sell it.
    5
  246. I really like the idea of spiralling technology from the Typhoon to the Tempest. And not thinking of a jet as done, but just the latest iteration.
    5
  247. How about a normal man with a Kornet ATGM?
    5
  248. The jets join after the ships leaves port so you are going to continue to see a carrier without jets in Portsmouth.
    5
  249. There are numerous physical deployments and as noted in the video previous action.
    5
  250. It not funny, it's reasonable. The UK has precedent and friendly nations joining it. Iran doesn't.
    5
  251. We aren't expecting them to pay?
    5
  252.  @tomjones7184  It not a debate, we are giving them kit.
    5
  253. @SplurbBat He gassed his own people and invaded his neighbours, he was beyond the even a normal dictator. The validity of the invasion is a different question to being innocent.
    5
  254. Double simply isn't going to happen. You may as well say a Death Star is a minimum.
    5
  255. NATO has fought very few wars, but which has it lost?
    5
  256. Over half the build and final assembly will be in the UK.
    5
  257. You're always going to train, from a European perspective Russia is the only possible threat to NATO, so of course they'll train with Russia in mind.
    5
  258. We helped create them, they are designed to be what we wanted, of course we're buying them.
    5
  259. It's to not give legitimacy to terrorists. Find something real to complain about it.
    5
  260.  @theylied1776  As you own post says Britain was still attacking Germany not just tasked with defending. But more importantly air superiority wasn't achieve through physical presence, it was achieved through depleting the enemy air force. This was done as much by defence efforts like the Battle of Britain or Malta as bombing raids. And those earlier fights were done against veteran pilots not new recruits.
    5
  261. Maybe refresh your own knowledge. Tempest, Typhoons replacement is aiming for 2035. The most recent Typhoons are only a couple of years old.
    5
  262.  Perplexing Enigma  wow that's a lot of text. Why are you wittering on about the US on a British video where I asked about the RAF?
    5
  263. Learn what the word literally means, the only thing is half of is the UKs carriers.
    5
  264. Arming is indirect.
    5
  265. How do you figure? The threat of invasion ended with the Battle of Britain, fought before the US entered the war.
    5
  266. We are part of Europe?
    5
  267. @John Doe the F35B isn't.
    5
  268. The Skill is increasingly in the battlespace awareness than actually flying the plane. Certainly pilots say it's an order of magnitude easier to take off and land than a Harrier.
    5
  269. Competition doesn't mean conflict, it's useful for the pursuit of excellence.
    5
  270.  @johnallen7807  % of GDP is irrelevant when looking at total capability, and even without the US, NATO dwarves Russia. And theres no longer even the claim of Russian exceptionalism as there failures in Ukraine show. The risk to NATO is political division not lack of money. As I said we work from European bases all the time, the infrastructure is there.
    5
  271. Since when? Based on what?
    5
  272.  @jonalkr1236  yes. I read your post, it wouldn't solve anything. The whole point if this thread isn't that elite units within the USMC aren't as good but that overall they aren't as good.
    5
  273. They aren't getting rid of MBTs.
    5
  274.  @datonaone  I think we do, not necessarily today but 10-20 years time. Air defences are getting a lot better, both the ability of high end systems and the spread of cheap capable ones. This is what the F35 is designed for, breaking air defence networks.
    5
  275. Fully fifth gen and not all US carrier group are the big armadas it's not a ridiculous statement.
    5
  276. You might want to refine your country knowledge.
    5
  277.  @submarineradioman5535  ha, it's secretly camouflaged as two ships.
    5
  278. US carriers haven't had an active deployment with F35C yet, those F35B are a big plus.
    5
  279. It doesn't. The advanced nature of QE is best demonstrated by the fact it needs half the crew for a larger vessel. It can also take more jets and those jets are more advanced.
    5
  280. We want to export our military hardware, it's not genrally wanted.
    5
  281. If the worry is Russia, sending weapons to fight Russia is ensuring our defence.
    5
  282. An English electric, yep.
    5
  283.  @magecraft2  though it might not be relevant, stealth is often about targeting rather than spotting. A burst of data will tell people your there but not allow them to shoot a missile at you.
    5
  284.  @itzmatty1906  scope out an area before your commandos go in, you can't see how that's useful?
    5
  285.  @itzmatty1906  you can't stick a Reaper on a frigate or in Viking. And you don't waste resources on a job that can be done for a fraction of the cost.
    5
  286. The money comes from the crown estate not the tax payer.
    5
  287. Because it isn't more effective to do the same thing. Actually look what current drones do, they work in very uncontested environments.
    5
  288. Why everyone, there's Russia invading or nothing happening, that's just Russia needing to simmer down.
    5
  289. The archer purchase is short term cover, so it's likely it was what's available.
    5
  290. You haven't looked at history then, France spent most of it fighting anyone and everyone they could. WW2 isn't all of history.
    5
  291. The only division is NATO not being hive mind. NATO countries are supporting Ukraine.
    5
  292. 2 squadrons will be a quiet normal deployment, though closer to 24. The UK is still working up it's pilots which is easier from land, as this is diplomatic rather than war there is no need to push it.
    5
  293.  @johnallen7807  The troops in Estonia just represent that he would be fighting NATO. Putin would never knowingly start a war with NATO, the only risk is if he feels he can present us with a Fait Accompli.
    5
  294. Afganistan started with an invasion and toppling of a regime, how's that similar to a small deployment in a UN mission?
    5
  295.  @Mohawk2185-o3q  your trying to do it with Tejas. And even then your using an American engine. I'm not a trying to put you down but aerospace industries are hard to build up and your still at the stage where outside expertise is very helpful.
    5
  296.  @WhateverMan35  enjoy your bull
    5
  297. Sure it can.
    4
  298. ​@Hobosurvival you really can't fix stupid, you've managed to look at Ukraine, where artillery is possibly to most dominant feature and concluded it has no future. One of the successes of drones is even that they can spot for artillery.
    4
  299. It's good you feel so passionate about something that doesn't have fixed definition.
    4
  300.  @aflyingcowboy31  the UK, Japan and Italy clearly care, and given theres no current suggestion NGAD will be exported much of the world probably cares more about Tempest.
    4
  301.  @aflyingcowboy31  So what you mean isn't who cares, it's "you" don't care because it's to far off time wise.
    4
  302. The USSR has a similar population to the US, so the US being richer allowed it to spend more. China has around 4x the population even poorer it can compete and it's catching up.
    4
  303.  @robertlackey7212  250 vs 290 in 1990. Similar.
    4
  304. By the time the Soviets fought, the cream of the Luftwaffe had fallen to the RAF and friends and the Royal Navy had cut off the resources of the rest of the world.
    4
  305. Weird definition of scrap?
    4
  306. Alone, no, but NATO out numbers Russia.
    4
  307. It's the squadron nickname, various other aircraft have flown under it over the years, gives an extra sense of pride.
    4
  308. Great interview, I really got a feel for the role. I like the comparison to what we use now.
    4
  309. The fact you think anything on this video is a helpful insight for enemies is a joke.
    4
  310.  @VincentComfy  We no longer have the army of the Rhine. Large numbers of tanks something we can't deploy quickly and so not a high priority.
    4
  311. Ajax is shorter than I imagined.
    4
  312. Honestly, this makes me think the opposite, that we don't need US level spending. This is a superpowers weapon looking for the ability to protect power anywhere at anytime not a country looking to defend itself. For me Ukraine has shown Russia is less of threat conventionally. If it struggling with Ukraine it would get nowhere with only the European part of NATO.
    4
  313. If it was worth keeping the USAF would keep it (see B52), if its not worth keeping why would the RAF want it.
    4
  314.  @seniorslaphead8336  There are literally former Soviet states in NATO and the EU?
    4
  315. Russia's an oligarchy with good relations with Israel. If there was a conspiracy they'd be part of it.
    4
  316.  @stun5700  Because they're very high class soldiers.
    4
  317. Yes, it worth pointing out they are easily countered. But coming so cheap you can just give it a go and sometimes you'll get lucky.
    4
  318. The original design idea of the F16 has long been rejected for the F16 itself. The F16 isn't successful as a day fighter, but as a multirole aircraft.
    4
  319. There's a New Medium Helicopter competition on going to replace a few different helicopters. I think there's four different possibilities.
    4
  320.  @hb9145  It's the only way the UN can do the little it can, without a veto for the large nations they just leave and it'd end.
    4
  321. India has Mig29s, the UK has F35s?
    4
  322.  @Al_Pollock  it's not the type of thing you'd ever know, the Royal Navy isn't going to announce they lost track of a sub.
    4
  323. Better tanks and better support makes the question different to the one answered in Ukraine.
    4
  324. You know it's a budget increase?
    4
  325.  @soumyajitsingha9614  What is needed for the F35B is a step up from the Harrier, but as I said it not that hard, you just don't do it if you don't need it. It would be a waste on Vikrant when it isn't flying the F35B.
    4
  326. Mastiff is US, at least as much as the Boxer is German. The Boxer will be majority built in the UK and we have export rights, we also started life in the Boxer program but dropped out.
    4
  327. @alangunningham5667  lol, you didn't "sink my reply". You said no else buying them and which I pointed out was total rubbish.
    4
  328. Hopefully they won't confirm anything. Silence is golden.
    4
  329.  @gilbert7794  it's a NATO deployment, NATO comfortably out numbers Russia.
    4
  330. NATO has now long bordered Russia. Russia is acting in the Ukraine nether mind watching.
    4
  331.  @philiprowe7452  none, why would it matter?
    4
  332.  @sausagejockyGaming  there's already plenty of mechanisms to help the homeless in the UK. And building stuff like basic infrastructure allows other countries to help themselves in the long term.
    4
  333.  @aquilatempestate9527  You say something like Climate Scam and it reassured me I'm on the right track.
    4
  334. No, it's not true. But it would require pulling ships from other duties.
    4
  335. It is honouring those people by keeping the name alive. If you you hadn't seen the name here would you have thought about them today?
    4
  336. The fact that you use "lemon" shows you prefer to listen to random guys off the internet.
    4
  337. Because thats what we wanted, helped select, develop and build.
    4
  338. Yep
    4
  339.  @colonialdad1  We are trying to sell the design to the Indians, not the physical ships.
    4
  340.  @colonelangus8247  The UK military is active across the world, training and combat, not the typical role of a parade military.
    4
  341. @colonelangus8247  no it couldn't, though its army might. But it wouldn't matter either way. It isn't a big military, but it is a fighting military, so not a parade military.
    4
  342. It's not about leaning on Russia, it's about allowing countries to make choices free from there pressure.
    4
  343. Presumably for the defensive implications
    4
  344. It's an existing ship and doing work that is good a good exercise for the crew. The marginal cost for the benefit is low. From a selfish perspect and stable and friendly Lebanon will cause us much fewer problems.
    4
  345. It's the most tested aircraft ever to work through as many of these as possible.
    4
  346.  @clydeceniza2521  and that doesn't even narrow your country down much. Theres only about 20 countries with a bigger GDP than it.
    4
  347.  @mrgingerninjadan  BAEs official bid was in Sweden, made thinking they'd win anyway. After the decision went against them they came back trying to sweeten the deal with a UK build.
    4
  348. For that to be effective you need mass genocide, including innocent people that are hard to distinguish, which I really hope your not advocating. Otherwise you have to combat the ideas as well as fighting militarily.
    4
  349.  @abrahamedelstein4806  I'm not flattering myself. 10 is too few when you want to run ops that need 12. The US Navy is in a league of it own, but so are the demands put on it.
    4
  350. Typhoons are too. It's essentially training.
    4
  351. Most wars end in negotiation, total victory is rare.
    4
  352. This is a British development, MDBA is as much British as French, head office location means jack. Some MDBA projects are multinational but CAMM is a specifically British project.
    4
  353. Justifying them is just reality. This video points put the practical value not moral choice. Ultimately a country defending itself will use what it has available, especially when civilians are dieing daily. Just damning there use is flawed, providing sufficient alternative is a practical step.
    4
  354. It's not a stop gap, Tempest will fill a different role.
    4
  355.  @koolyman  more in the vein of the Typhoon, with a stronger air to air focus. Also obviously not STOVL, but not strengthen for catapults either.
    4
  356. Kinzhal is basically just a short range ballistic missile, just air launched. Defences exist for that type, though of course they aren't infallible. Getting Zircon working well will more of an issue. Also unless it nuclear tipped, one is unlikely to sink a carrier.
    4
  357. Not a lot at the moment but the good thing is they can works as eyes directing Typhoons missiles.
    4
  358.  @uioplkhj  we went without invitation, that's not why we're there now.
    4
  359. B52 is very much an exception but it's is still a ship of theseus with very little of the original. Type 23 replace is a combination of technological progress a la type 26 and economics a la type 31. Upgrades, cost of running, crew numbers, hours at sea will mean you get to a point when new is cheaper than old.
    4
  360. We've stopped buying Typhoons because we are buying F35s. They seem the more urgent need?
    4
  361. They can, but subs, frigates and helicopters will be competing to protect it. Like most things it's a constant armed race.
    4
  362.  @ThatCarGuy  it's not a back up to long range SAMs, it's a back up to jets.
    4
  363. Do you think we should fight fair?
    4
  364. All ships are she
    4
  365. Who's starting a war? NATO isn't going to attack Russia.
    4
  366.  @phuktard  most of the world was controlled by other powers for large chunks of time. A history of oppression doesn't say anything about the present. Estonia is the country of Estonians. They don't even have a Slavic language. Russia has no claim.
    4
  367. We haven't always done, see the F4 flown from previous carriers. But the F35 is a joint project, we build 15% of each. Net that's about 3x the about we will buy. The F35 is good for British aviation.
    4
  368. I don't think NATO has, I mean Turkey has stopped any Russian warships entering from the med for example.
    4
  369. Jim Ramsey Its the step between ordered and haven't got a clue how many. Would be changeable in the future but probably only from a SDSR.
    4
  370. That's it name, nowt to do with Brexit.
    4
  371. How?
    4
  372. Doesn't make sense to go alone, challenger 3 bridges the gap others like Germany or the US are looking for a new design.
    4
  373. No but it's not a straight forward partnership. For example with Sweden we are together on systems that might be in it rather than the overall jet. Italy is the other country current collaborating.
    4
  374. So she can only work with the US, Italy, Japan and South Korea rather than only with the US and France if it used catapults?
    4
  375. Hundreds of Europeans have died in Afganistan fighting on the USs behalf. The only time article 5 has been invoked.
    4
  376. Clearly explained.
    4
  377. A capable military allows you to decide on peace. Politicians decide how to use it.
    4
  378. To inform the British public. It the kind of thing any half baked any agency could find out with ease so no loss in secrecy.
    4
  379. They don't need the UKs help, but they certainly want it. Extra assets are extra assets.
    4
  380.  @theylied1776  lol. WW2. Precision bombing.
    4
  381. Yeah, modern tech and a highly trained force, classic liability.
    4
  382. Russia has lot more conscripts that the UK but are no threat. China is a powerhouse in the making. Russia just another regional power.
    4
  383.  @hs342  Do you want a statement like Putin saying he wasn't going to invade?
    4
  384. Good image.
    4
  385. It's been in active service for years?
    4
  386.  @FallenPhoenix86  you don't pay for them, they are paid from the crown estate.
    4
  387. A US Sec-Gen would reinforce views that NATO is just an extension of US policy. As it not really a power position, perception is an important part of the role. Canada/Belgium is likely more of chance/desire of good candidates as I believe they work from Brussels more local people are more likely to want the job.
    4
  388.  @bigboots8785  Some Russian troops are well trained and equipped, others are conscripts with Soviet gear.
    4
  389. Not that much money is actually spent on NATO and where it is it's mostly where collective operations help, like a combined AWACs fleet rather that multiple overlapping ones. Money is instead spent on national armed forces. As well as collective defence which may be more distant since the end of the cold war it also helps with interoperability, which we use in the wars we do fight and helps us benefit from the training methods and tactics of others.
    4
  390. Denis Nyokabi it's your choice but it would seem better to get the benefits of both east and west.
    4
  391.  @BillCameronWC  Yep, I heard reports that one of the big changes pilots converting to F35 are having is getting used to how much information is available.
    4
  392.  @Mmjk_12  outdated is different to less capable. The advanced nature of HMS QE is best illustrated by how few crew is needed for it to operate due to automation. If you want to compare a US carrier to a UK one you need to stack up 2 or 3 UK carriers for comparable purchase and operating costs. US may then still have some edges it looses a lot in flexibility.
    4
  393. I'd take well trained with poor equipment over the opposite. But of course we should have both.
    4
  394. Big Lizzy just went to New York and PoW is having well published propelllor issues, not sure how either is in stelath mode?
    4
  395. 623 base driving units and from what it looks like the same number of modules. The flexibility will be from more easily changing already deployed vehicles and being able to maintain each part separately.
    4
  396. Bulletproofcammy it's more important to be able to act quickly, the only time we need numbers is when we're occupying someone else's country.
    4
  397. Trials are normal, militaries are impressed by the F35, over budget is unfortunately how all these projects go, they aren't costed right to begin with.
    4
  398.  @sovietred7371  this is a video about the UK helping Estonia (it's friend down the street).
    4
  399.  @alexanderrose1556  Yeah, Poland would be the battleground, and allies take time to get there.
    4
  400.  @theabstract100  even without Belrus, there's Kaliningrad.
    4
  401. Adversaries are fielding old jets or none at all on carriers. Day to day it will be more of an assault ship, it's good to see the flexibility, carriers are good for a major conflict but over kill for many missions.
    4
  402. It is a worry, but the alternative is losing the fight.
    4
  403.  @charlieharper2529  Russia didn't stand alone against Napoleon or Hitler. It stood with Britain.
    4
  404. Ultimately, Yes. Genuinely covert is people, scouting is having all the tech to see.
    4
  405. It would be quite reasonable if Russia had friends near us. Imagine if Russia had friends...
    4
  406.  swansea007791  NATO is an organisation countries freely join. Those like Estonia do it for fear of Russian interference. Russia has done more to expand NATO than the US.
    4
  407.  @blueband8114  They already do, bombers fly up to UK airspace, subs and ships sniff around every so often. And that's without an ally nearby to justify it.
    4
  408. Yep, 2 Scots is normal infantry. They'll be training and protecting none military personnel. Don't think Canada are there at the moment but could be wrong.
    4
  409. Mathew Bateman we spend £8bn+ on new kit every year, following NATO guidelines, that isn't stopping. By 2035 we are going to need to start replacing the Typhoon and will buy something. Better it be made in the UK to benefit our economy. If we get exports it starts paying for itself.
    4
  410. NATO
    4
  411. Dozens of terrorist plot have been foiled. While not perfect our intelligence services do a great job.
    4
  412. The west can continue to supply indefinitely, it is still fully in a peacetime economy. Its not ability in question, it's will.
    4
  413. With a global economy the whole world is our area. The Straits of Malacca for example sees a large part of our trade.
    4
  414. It was Protectorate, that isn't wrong?
    4
  415. The useful, professional bit of the Russia army is only about twice our size.
    4
  416.  @Briselance  these aren't replacing most vehicles either. From the description it mostly about allowing a vertical in situations where manned would be too dangerous. Modern vehicals aren't just mechanical. Electronics and now computers are now everywhere.
    4
  417. The 3 give 360 degree coverage, so I'd go none.
    4
  418. ​​ @edwardfletcher7790 t actually one of the better funded when you compare with the whole world. It's just we want to be the best and we only really compare ourselves to major economies.
    4
  419. They are doing the job they are needed for in Ukraine.
    4
  420.  @itzmatty1906  no that's entirely useful. It's high portable. Actual travelling x20 the distance just means it isn't there in a timely manner. Your making it into a very different drone again.
    4
  421.  @adamatch9624  experts don't think differently, no is saying MAD from conventional ICBMs is compromised.
    4
  422. Odd question, this is deployment with 2 other nations ships as part of the group visiting 40 more.
    4
  423.  @dellawrence4323  Our demographic issues are a lack of kids, get on it.
    4
  424. We already get gas from Qatar, but generally for the UK it's not about getting enough but about the cost.
    4
  425. Most kit is effective if used effectively. A T72 is still capable of supporting infantry. Its long past a spear tip, but it can be part of the shaft.
    4
  426. @Dan Didnot it is in our interests, keep any issue far away from home.
    4
  427. We are helping Ukraine.
    4
  428. They won't attack, neither will Russia, so it seems doubtful.
    4
  429.  @silasla  I agree it's the right set up for this type drone, just pointing out that the smaller warhead means it's more reliant on hitting or close to the target, typically an area less technologically advanced countries have been behind on.
    4
  430.  @theowl3756  Yes, a drone normally returns home, that's why this is a suicide drone.
    4
  431.  @theowl3756  Yes, dropping bombs or firing missiles is pretty common. Like the Bayraktar TB2 Ukraine have used in this conflict or the US predators drones that have been around for a couple of decades. Typically they aren't jets but propeller driven.
    4
  432. Denmark has one of the best Democracies in the world, why do you think it's corrupt?
    4
  433. That was the plan, but money.
    4
  434. The UK isn't restricted when in can fight.
    4
  435. Nothing. A Russian war with NATO is sucide as is a NATO war with Russia.
    4
  436. Because it needs public support. And there's no technical info or unthought of ideas in the video.
    4
  437. Firstly what deal was ever an option, Putin started this war saying Ukriane isn't a country? But also why would the fact Russia wants to do something prove anything, they've already given up on the north and are struggling with the east.
    4
  438.  @discoboy8169  Estonia has about twice the GDP per capita as Russia?
    4
  439. Why would you think a burning tank would mean it wasn't well protected?
    4
  440.  @meme4one  There's nothing stopping them sending fast jets, they are choosing not to sent them because it isn't there war. This war is Ukraine vs Russia. Ukraine is obviously getting support but it's there war.
    4
  441.  @meme4one  What does it have to do with article 5? And all you've described is harder to do, if it's your war you make harder happen, if your supporting someone else you might not, like is happening.
    4
  442. NATO itself runs more than a dozen in Europe, that would be the more likely port of call.
    4
  443. Russia has cut back a lot since oil prices dropped a few years ago.
    3
  444.  @greetb9330  These kind of figures will be based of public information so may not be accurate. I think Russia's will be more likely to be accurate as there isn't the same entrenched control as with the CCP.
    3
  445.  @adamatch9624  adapting the plane and all the medical kit tied up for transporting one person in a very niche circumstance.
    3
  446. It isn't, but that isn't what its for so its an odd question.
    3
  447. @Hobosurvival  do you think NATO has run out? They still have reserves just slightly fewer, they are also constantly making new munitions. They are just at the point where they don't want to undermine there own capability so are supplying from production, rather than reserves.
    3
  448.  @stretfordender11  we didn't have to invade in 2003, we chose to but also both Sadam and the Iranian revolution stem back to western interference, just older interference. We have troops in the Ukraine like we do in Mali, operation orbital.
    3
  449. Other way round. Long sighted. Not caring about today for the sake of tomorrow.
    3
  450. The US still has tactical weapons like gravity bombs.
    3
  451.  @stetomlinson3146  Variants on a base vehicle is standard and well attested. While you may argue modularity doesn't bring much up side it also doesn't bring much down side as it's just a slightly different way of making those variants.
    3
  452. We can't compete with China alone, it has 5x our GDP, 20x our population. We would be contributing to an alliance in the context of China.
    3
  453. Very little kit that wasn't sent by the UK is mentioned.
    3
  454. The STOVL gives it even more legs as they don't get designed as often, but 30 years build is quite normal.
    3
  455. There's clear progression with this. From radars to theoretical papers on the physics to F117 to B2.
    3
  456. Field kitchen?
    3
  457. The British did win the Crimean war, and in that ill fated order the British made the Russian guns. What lesson were you thinking about?
    3
  458.  @stephencockett9959  why? There's so much risk. New York would go straight up if anything went wrong. Somewhere like Iran would be a much nicer target even accepting your banking control premise (which of course I don't).
    3
  459. You said you weren't going to lie.
    3
  460. As far as I've heard Merlin Crowsnest is still awaiting official IOC (though it has been used).
    3
  461. He is a former serving military officer.
    3
  462. Different planes for different jobs. Need speed and height to say intercept a Blackjack. You want the Typhoon. Attacking in uncontested space or stood off with a storm shadow, Typhoon is perfectly capable. Breaking enemy air defences you do want the Lightning. So we have both.
    3
  463.  @dashikashi4734  thus is Estonia.
    3
  464. No, it's gunning for the trainer role, not tempest.
    3
  465.  @danlugo4365  that would be mad but it isn't true.
    3
  466. Ajax is covering that role.
    3
  467. Interestingly the language most similar to old english is Dutch rather than modern English.
    3
  468.  @kyle12111994  Have you got a source on that becasue it doesn't make sense with having F35s for the next generation?
    3
  469. Nope, but for the F35s it's a joint force. 617 is even commanded by a Navy man at the moment. The next squadron will be 809, a FAA one.
    3
  470.  @hb9145  If it still existed, it would just be a place for countries to moan with no power to enact anything. And Frankly taking out countries like China and US it would even start to lack legitimacy as that's a lot of worlds population missing.
    3
  471. You'd almost think is was a display and not a training exercise...
    3
  472. We never got to the stage of what the type 32 but an adapted type 31 was a likely candidate.
    3
  473. The cycle is perpetuated by hate not money.
    3
  474. If it was leaving port you may have a point, but your entering to do stuff like maintenance.
    3
  475.  @MrErnestsKarlsons  your not sorry your lying.
    3
  476.  @mnds1476  that's because with info the S400 could get on the F35, Russia could build a system to deal with the F35.
    3
  477.  @1chish  I agree cuts had to be made but it wasn't the decisions 10 years ago that got us here, but there reversal 5 years later.
    3
  478. Ramps are newer than catapults. And lots of nation use them. Everyone but the US and France.
    3
  479.  @MrHowardMoon  ah yeah, back c. 2012. When they were thinking of changing QE to cats it might have meant PoW being mothballed.or even scrapped.
    3
  480. Catapults are better in the abstract but the decision is what best on limited budget with CATOBAR requiring a lot of extra training and crew as well as the system cost. There are a lot of arguments on both sides, if you compare with the US they use catapults on the 100k tonne ships and don't on the 45k tonne ships.
    3
  481. Oil (and gas) are certainly important, but the deep water port on the Indian Ocean (over say Bahrain) speak to it not being the only reason.
    3
  482. Russia may have been overestimated but it wasn't considered close to on par with the US since it was the USSR.
    3
  483.  @TheMarineGamerIGGHQ  what's not to fear about the US, it's had no trouble with conventional wars and a decade long insurgency is frankly more terrifying.
    3
  484. No it isn't, 2% is the agreed aim.
    3
  485. It's not the era of procrastination but of complexity. A plane of the past is a shadow of today's.
    3
  486.    Russian feels attacked because it can't bully it's neighbours in peace?
    3
  487. Drones are used in uncontested air space. These aren't.
    3
  488.  @gilbert7794  Troop number are irrelevant, it wasn't an army that stood in the way it was the Royal Navy, the largest navy in the world at the time. The UK ended the battle of Britain with more planes that it started with, it wasn't that close but if you want to go that route it was Luck/Incompetence that saved Britain not Russia. And Russia didn't even choose to fight, it was invaded.
    3
  489.  @gilbert7794  How will pissing off Russia end badly. Are Russia going to invade us and face NATO, which as I said out numbers it militarily and utterly dwarves it by economic and population terms. What are their mechanisms to make it end badly for us? Also again "entered the war" suggest it was in anyway there decision, they tried there best to avoid with Ribbentrop, but were invaded, inevitably based on Nazi idealogy.
    3
  490. In maintenence doesn't stop ships existing. Every navy always has skips in maintenence you don't stop counting them.
    3
  491.  @sausagejockyGaming  a country is never perfect. It is however a lot better off than many. Do you not feel any compulsion to help the less fortunate?
    3
  492. You've not understood strategically important. Basically every place is on the way tom the next place. Something strategically important is like Mariupol linking two areas and being important in itself.
    3
  493.  @matthewbaynham6286  the remainder will follow soon because? I'm presuming so you can moan? Tranche 1 aren't worn out they are just not worth the upgrade and still they'll be about 20 years when retiring. Our youngest Tornado retired in 2019 was 26 years old and Germany are running there's to 2030, USs F15C are averaging about 35 years old. So given our last Typhoon was delivered in 2019, by Tornados 26 year standard I'd be 2045 they retire but could easily be stretched another decade by others standards.
    3
  494. Never as it stands, Tempest is being designed for traditional airfields not carriers.
    3
  495. Past the stealth, the F35 is faster, longer range, larger weapons load and generations ahead in avionics, EW and communications.
    3
  496. That is Ajax
    3
  497. Why do people like you say "only"? Biggest would give you a point to argue. Only just makes you sound really stupid.
    3
  498. It's not a race issue, it's a nationality issue, there are nationality restrictions on the rest of the army too.
    3
  499. By your own statement 40% are working, how's that none?
    3
  500. Banks don't care, they don't make weapons, they money in peace or war.
    3
  501. PDZ1122 so cover a country with goat herders and missiles, you'll only need hundreds of thousands of them...
    3
  502.  misternovelbro  the donbass casualties were primarily in the first couple of years, but it is another Russian transgression.
    3
  503. 1 won't match a US CVN bit what about 2 or in fact 3 because that's what you get for the same cost.
    3
  504.  @paggerd3210  The idea Russia can have a buffer at the expense of other countries is a problem.
    3
  505.  @matthewbaynham6286  I've posted link, I take it you can't see it, YouTube is problematic in that regard. But you say its 44 or 48, that part is not the case. While exactly how many we buy beyond that is a future decison that we are buying more isn't.
    3
  506. Anything with moving parts goes quickly. You always get it round the anchors. Seems the lifts will be the same.
    3
  507. The basic idea is it does help with the lack of numbers, by using the foreign troops they train and support to achieve our goals.
    3
  508. You know Ukraine is currently flying jets?
    3
  509. The US is is buying more in parts off us that we are buying planes off the US. The F35 is an export success.
    3
  510. It has a purpose, train the ANA so they can look after themselves. It may be futile but it is a purpose.
    3
  511.  @roddychristodoulou9111  are you simple. You posted this before and got corrected. The strike is the jets. It's a group of ships based round a carrier that conducts strike missions. How is Carrier Strike Group misleading?
    3
  512.  @roddychristodoulou9111  I'm not the first guy that posted. Though it can be be both, a US CSG will fire tomahawk missiles from its escorts ships as well as bomb targets with its jets. You can question it's cost effectiveness that is an interesting conversation with pros and cons. Saying it's not a Carrier Strike Group is just dumb.
    3
  513. A ship is always a she, makes sense to me another vessel is too.
    3
  514.  @fredmidtgaard5487  most European countries don't spend 2% on aid, only a few even pass the 0.7% UN target.
    3
  515. Much is just the video showing the price for 2 British carriers not 1.
    3
  516. It is precisely countries near Russia that need the protection of NATO. Countries that felt to need to join voluntarily. I'm also curious how you think Russia is capable of attacking the UK, an island a thousands miles from it.
    3
  517. Culture doesn't change quickly, they are helping Ukraine. Certainly they could be doing more and faster but even what they are doing is a change from there pacifist stance.
    3
  518. Indeed, the Eurofighter is just getting a massive update for ground attack.
    3
  519. Robin Seward Those numbers are wrong (or at least not comparable). Typhoon would need strengthening for catapults which would be extra cost too.
    3
  520.  @xXtuscanator22Xx  I don't think you'd know until pushed. The UK never wanted F22s, it won't want these (plenty of higher priorities to spend money on). Nuclear subs are one of the highest protected techs but they are working in AUKUS on them.
    3
  521.  @mrgingerninjadan  There wasn't a lot of difference in the base platforms in the competition. Its all the changes the MOD required that have caused the issues.
    3
  522. We have an AEW aircraft, its Merlin crowsnest. It may not be a capable but it won't cost us 1bn for catapults and then 1bn for the Hawkeye fleet. That means we can keep two carriers. France is also supposed to have two carriers...
    3
  523. You laugh but they are, not for capability but for numbers. The US just established the Second fleet, they are down to 10 carriers with Ford taking it time and China is increasing capable. The US are stretched, an extra carrier or two from a reliable ally makes life much easier.
    3
  524.  @abrahamedelstein4806  It's not 12 carriers for an operation, it's 12 for general ongoing operations. By law the US Navy should have 11 carriers. That's a number designed to allow 3 carriers to be permanently on station, roughly one in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans. For each on station you need 2 more, one for long term maintenance and one for short term maintence/training. That would be 9, 11 gives leeway, so 10 is mostly fine. But increasing tension means you will often see two carriers near China/North Korea. Or you might want one in both the North Atlantic and Mediterranean. So the US really wants 4 on station which means 12 in total. Of course you could have more carriers yourself but you'd have to spend an whole lot of money to get them. Money that's stretched as it is due to fighting for 2 decades straight.
    3
  525. Variously either rumour or untrue.
    3
  526.  @andyf3781  they have to wear something, where's the waste?
    3
  527. FAA still exist and have pilots flying the F35B.
    3
  528. Only the US can fight a war against a peer half the world away.
    3
  529.  @TT-hd3zi  CAMM is British, CAMM-ER is an Italian onward development.
    3
  530. They are very different so its hard to compare. India has a much bigger land force but it's struggles at higher tech like nuclear subs.
    3
  531.  @justonecornetto80  This isn't just at the moment. The Dutch and Royal Marines have a very close relationship in particular but you've also seen things like the perisher sub course where the Netherlands took over the conventional sub part when we went all nuclear.
    3
  532.  @maxmullen6337  The French didn't design it. BMT and Thales UK did, and then BAE and Babcock were added.
    3
  533. Sure they can, just a little training but with poor morale.
    3
  534. Yes, but all things aren't equal and the extra size comes from extra armour and weaponry.
    3
  535. Sad to see a video on Forces perpetuating rumoured cut numbers.
    3
  536. There's been thousands if sorties, there's a regular line of communication between the west and Russia about them. How deep is your head in the sand?
    3
  537. Not really, very different contexts.
    3
  538.  @afkfromk1  so you don't know what NATO is then because half of those aren't NATO and others are obvious successes like Serbia.
    3
  539. What long post describes the Challenger not doing Ukraine any good? Even being down on it you seem to have said it's better than a T72 and Ukraine have been happy to get any of those they can.
    3
  540.  @wchristian2000  The JSDF is a military, just a military restricted in what it's allowed to do. They can't defend allies at the moment but it is something they are considering changing.
    3
  541. There's a gun pod if needed, but as you say technologically advanced, that means it wants to stay away from the kind of fair fight a gun suggests.
    3
  542.  @thomasohanlon1060  operating kit is a bigger expense than buying it. Even storing kit costs money. When you talk about keeping old kit as a reserve your taking about taking money from your front line force.
    3
  543. And the colour sergeant.
    3
  544. @GonzoTehGreat  funding is allocated, but there is an overall shortfall for current plans. But yes, it will also go towards correcting deficiencies, but that means money doesn't need pulling from elsewhere to do that.
    3
  545.  @GracesGarden80  our F35 orders aren't restricted by any other than our budget. Money for Typhoons means less for F35s and makes that full fleet even slower.
    3
  546.  @GracesGarden80  I wouldn't make any adjustments based on Trump for the next 6 months. See how the election goes.
    3
  547.  @Horizon344  they seem more inefficient than actually bad, but I willing to be corrected?
    3
  548. Who the hell else would be building it?
    3
  549. It's less about profit and more about miscalculation. Putin thought a quick war was viable, it wasn't. Both sides are now losing and don't want to the war to continue, they just aren't willing to end it on the others terms.
    3
  550. Can't remember NZ needing us, but they've certainly fought with us when needed.
    3
  551. France doesn't edge the Navy, the 17 frigates for example include Floreals, which are basically an OPV.
    3
  552.  @LondonsFinestSon  Yes, we can independently deploy a CBG (or CSG as we use). But the reality is in a major war, like in QEs recent deployment, we won't be alone. A Russia fight would be in the context of NATO, a China one would be supporting the US.
    3
  553. You don't think the US are Germamy? And honestly why mention the EU, anything none bilateral will be NATO.
    3
  554.  @phuktard  it was a province of the Russian Empire. Occupied like lots of other places. What what you seem to be saying is you don't think it should be an independent country. Fully justifying why they want to be part of NATO.
    3
  555. This won't be competition for Tempest just the trainer. Having your trainer be able to better match your final aircraft sounds good, so does being able to to use it for cheaper sortie where Tempest is over kill. To be honest though I think the bug appeal would be for countries like in South America, that still want jets but don't want the cost of the latest stealth monster.
    3
  556. Failure depends on the aim. To obvious reason to cross the Russian border is to make sure Russia has to man the border and therefore pull troops from elsewhere.
    3
  557. Russia already has conscripts for low risk jobs.
    3
  558. They are looking for an artillery counter, something like a grad launcher isn't a heavily armoured target.
    3
  559. I expect helicopters to be pushed out by drones over the next couple of decades.
    3
  560. Do you really not get it? Look at history, the weak are at the mercy of the strong.
    3
  561. You build the base in the secure country to affect the insecure ones.
    3
  562. 76.2cm but of steel, modern armour is composite.
    3
  563. Beat 4th gen aircraft, break through capable A2AD.
    3
  564. Having two isn't really about deploying both at once but having cover when one is being maintained. That said if all planned 138 (they are joint Navy and Air force) are F35B we could deploy the 72 needed to fill both. But I think if we are deploying both at once one will be heavier on the helicopters either for antisub warfare or to deploy marines depending on the enemy.
    3
  565. Rather than grand ambitions just getting what we plan.
    3
  566. They can, they often don't. So in this case it covering a gap that comes from wanting to align with Harpoon replacement with Storm Shadow replacement (and France's exocet).
    3
  567. You may mean the B2, because this didn't exist 10 years ago to rip off.
    3
  568. Cheers for the support. In case your interested Great Britain misses out Northern Ireland. The UK is entity with the Navy (the UK being short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Just Britain is fine as its undefined but when you add Great it becomes something specific. Given HMS QE was assembled in Scotland, English is particularly wrong.
    3
  569. Core job of the RAF, keep it up.
    3
  570. Odd you'd make a main point without checking the obvious.
    3
  571. Around the anchor you basically get rust as soon as it launches.
    3
  572. It's a joint operation, both contribute, both get the benefit.
    3
  573.  @glennpowell3444  For what, us having the same enemy?
    3
  574.  @glennpowell3444  after WW2 we did owe them (though given the USSR wasn't broken I don't think it's for pur existence), but that's not why it's there. We has the same goal with regards the USSR. And the USSR planned on us both fighting together.
    3
  575.  @theylied1776  it was all carpet bombing, day or night. Historians shouldn't be claiming RAF won air superiority over Europe, they should be claiming that the allies did. It was a combined effort.
    3
  576. Yeah, an allusion the Soviet invasion.
    3
  577. We haven't seen troops with super fancy kit in Ukraine to judge there effect. Some of the fancier kit like Himars has proved effective.
    3
  578.  @christianhaupt2637  I don't think your getting anywhere near double the man power with a bit cheaper personal equipment.
    3
  579.  @bony7363  I mean, yes, your illustrating my point. That is the region of Russia. Look at a globe. They are strong regional power, but a regional power none the less.
    3
  580.  @lyndon_daly1889  Nope. For example, where is the furthest perminant base from Russia? Syria. In the region. Russia simply isn't comparable to the US in global reach. And China economic reach also puts it to shame.
    3
  581. That analogy would only work if it was called a Harrier. What is true is we got industrial benefit from both.
    3
  582. B21 raiders are on there way. These guys are 20 years old now.
    3
  583. In 1940 Britain got kicking like France, it just had geography to keep it safe.
    3
  584.  Perplexing Enigma  you actually believe the RAF has flown thousands of sorties in Syria and Iraq against sand?
    3
  585.  @glastonbury4304  yeah, he's a little too French at the moment.
    3
  586. Just European NATO spends multiple times that of Russia.
    3
  587. Precisely because Australia is further away, nuclear is better..It is over longer ranges nuclera excels, conventional subs are quiet capable locally.
    3
  588. Would you prefer a military that doesn't train?
    3
  589.  El Draque  do you think the Empire was optional?
    3
  590.  El Draque  lots of words, not a lot of truth.
    3
  591. I don't see today is any scarier never mind WW3. Russia has shown it's incompetence and some of our less interested allies are spending more.
    3
  592.  @RRaymer  PPP is fair enough, but you also need to be using per capita values, otherwise your using India vast population to mask it's poverty.
    3
  593. That fact your talking about the Taliban on an Iraq video says a lot.
    3
  594.  @akk424  India have been trialling the Rafale-M if there was something as obvious as not fitting they wouldn't do that.
    3
  595. Neither, it's a good quality system but not ground breaking to be overly scary and we won't be letting them dissect one.
    3
  596.  @meme4one  we didn't say we wouldn't expand NATO further east, the only discussion was about East Germany. We didn't put a pro NATO PM in, Ukraine put a pro EU president in but when Russia annexes your territory it become pro NATO pretty quickly. Missile only went into Poland after Crimea and they were defensive ones. You did get one right though, we have trained countries near Russia and that upsets them because Russia then can't bully them as easily. I'm sorry your so ill informed.
    3
  597. How do you not know where Estonia is yet think you know about geopolitics?
    3
  598.  @bigcoolviking  Just blithely continuing with your ignorance? You know the USSR did previously annex Estonia?
    3
  599. He's serious about the name, in function it's what the air force was already doing.
    3
  600. This government has barely been in power and hasn't even had it's defence review.
    3
  601.  @Mmjk_12  well that was a massive tangent to the advanced technology of our carriers but I'll reply anyway. We couldn't invade a large country across the otherside of the world. We are not in the days of Empire. No country can invade us either though. So we can wage war, we are just limited in the scope. As befits 65m people. As for S400 you are basically swallow Russian propaganda. We don't know how effective it is, but we do know the F35 is designed for fighting such types of systems.
    3
  602.  @TheGammaman84  I think basically because it isn't needed. It's being built for when the situation gets even worse.
    3
  603. The Gripen is a good plane and your getting domestic participation. Your governments made the right choice.
    3
  604.  @foedspaghetti3290  lol, so your comment was a dumb as "all assets don't take part in all exercises".
    3
  605.  @meme4one  They went out of production 2 decades ago but you think we are trying to sell them? It's got Ukrainians a country of there own. It's stopped Russian imperialism in it's tracks. It's got more than most wars and for less money. You call is willy waving but NATO is a defensive alliance, what action do you expect when not attacked? If anything its more of fighting force than it should be with actions is Yugoslavia and Libya.
    3
  606.  @jonalkr1236  the point is the USMC isn't special forces.
    3
  607. Really isn't worth it. Better to spend the money maintaining good air bases for others and SAM support.
    3
  608. Every government constantly spends money, including on the military. Not really sure your point.
    3
  609.  @LZE.  with those US jets production is still going. We are already getting to the end of Typhoon production with a Qatar and Kuwait for the UK and Italy's lines. There's no demand in those two countries for more as they're now buying F35. Also the Typhoon is expensive itself and cost control is part of core Tempest (which I actually believe with Sweden on board). I don't think you'll see the kind of cost difference like F15 to F22.
    3
  610. It is, we need to sell the military to the public, otherwise they disregard it. You hope insurance is a waste, but still get it, unfortunately the military needs selling to make sure we keep a good standard.
    3
  611. Missiles are faster than bombers.
    3
  612.  @1chish  do you think NATO is for the UKs defence? It's for the defence of the little guys like the Baltic states. And for interoperability, which you need other nations to operate with.
    3
  613.  @heisenberg906  We don't build on our own because it's cheaper to split development costs. But the F35 is a joint project for the UK not an off the shelf purchase. We build 15% of each jet and contributed to the development. It's just when partnering with the US they do the majority being much bigger so it's called a US jet.
    3
  614. Warthogs are at the end of there life. Taking a hit is stopping being viable with improving air defences down to the manpad level. So you get the F35 either not being detected with its stealth or operating from further away with its sensors. On the other side cheap drones are much more disposable that A10s and there pilot so will cover when F35s are too costly.
    3
  615.  @SuperWagner23  Wow. Have you read anything about global warming? Certain actions are responsible not just people in general. Renewable energy is becoming competative with fossil fuels. More vegetables in your diet is good for you as well as producing less emissions. There is plenty we can do.
    3
  616. The Dutch are pretty quick, particularly with flooding.
    3
  617.  @GdaySport  It can, but we are in an alliance that cab afford to dominate in numbers as well as tech.
    3
  618. Go look at Norway on map, and given is was the USSR at the time, Turkey as well.
    3
  619.  @adelaidesngan604  Urm? The UK didn't win the hundreds year war but has won loads since.
    3
  620.  @lacdirk  Challenger was only a political point. Uniquely British vehicles aren't generally worth the logistical issues for the small numbers. Some warriors wouldn't be bad just we can do more bang for buck.
    3
  621.  @AndresGrimace  Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey are all NATO members, hence the presence in the Black sea, as well as moral support for the Ukraine and Georgia who are being bullied by Russia. NATO isn't looking for war with Russia, why would it be?
    3
  622. To fight Russia because we disagree with there invasion.
    3
  623. The language barrier isn't French to English. It's English to Scottish.
    3
  624.    you just named one of the reasons why it's Britain's problem, instability at home leads to higher emmigration.
    3
  625. That is simply dumb
    3
  626.  @davidrobertsemail  the military ignored Cameron changing to catapults and continued with the STOVL plan which they chose in the first place off the back of the Harrier.
    3
  627.  @johnallen7807  you didn't watch this video or other like it? Untrained your a liability not a help. Even trained you'll probably do more good working at home and sending money.
    3
  628. Except we built the Tornado, the Typhoon and now the F35. Our work share on the F35 is about 3x as many jets as we are buying.
    3
  629. You would have more because that isn't a fight we would have alone.
    3
  630.  @notsomalicious4435  The Europe has less tanks, but still a hell of a lot of tanks. But different countries have different specialisations. We're a naval nation, countries like Poland and Germany aren't.
    3
  631.  Brett Mitchell  US carriers do have some advantages and the US can afford them. A reduction rather than elimination is likely better. 6 Ford, 8 QE would give greater numbers while still being cheaper.
    3
  632. It not about there inventory but about there experience and best practice.
    3
  633. The army has always been third in line.
    3
  634. E7 wedgetail. In service with Australia, more advanced radar.
    3
  635.  @GracesGarden80  we've always been close enough to the US that we are getting hit, defence sites or not. What we get, like this video says, is access to the information these sites produce. And no one has effective defences against ICBMs, its still MAD in action.
    3
  636.  @csvickers151  we are part of NATO.
    3
  637.  @authenticmax6350  thatd what I thought, no comparison, so you made up your first statement. Terrorist attacks are tragic but the numbers are small compared the the hundreds of murders each year. And our murder rate is low compared to the vast majority of the world. And how well our services are doing is a different question completely. If there was one planned attack and it worked they'd be doing badly. But there aren't there are lots, they mostly get foiled.
    3
  638. It was occupied by Russia not part of Russia. Scotland doesn't support the independence of Scotland, they voted against it.
    3
  639. There is a difference being naive and not being threatened. Countries not near Russia and part of an alliance that majorly out mans and out spends Russia have reason not to feel threatened.
    3
  640.  @theplaneimage  flying the crews out stops you saves you time for the ships traveling back to base and out again to get the most out if your ship. It seems like this deployment is set up as an attractive one for recruits, with a nice working timetable and lots of interesting port visits.
    3
  641.  @ARXDMOS  it not 1994 but the majority of there kit is the same. T72s, SU27, MIG 29, Kilos, Akulas. All cold war designs. And that's what they have numbers of, all crewed by conscripts. Anything new or professional is only in small numbers.
    3
  642. That's more likely a reflection of what you watching. For example Germany leads the Lithuania presence but if your in the UK you might not hear about it as the UK leads the Estonian presence.
    3
  643. Training
    3
  644. The Navy will be bigger, the army will be smaller. Air force is up in the air.
    3
  645. He's pretty clever, he's spotted that technology progresses over time.
    3
  646. Who is we? If your talking about Ukriane, "they" invaded "we" can conceed or fight.
    3
  647. Also we were invited to the Black sea, by countries like Ukraine and Georgia.
    3
  648.  @Phil_AKA_ThundyUK  Fair enough. I think Typhoon will be lent on heavily to develop Tempest though. We've already just seen a contract for Typhoon radar development that will be the basis for Tempest radar. With that I think your as likely to see early F35s cuts as late Typhoons.
    3
  649. This is a diplomatic mission, publicity is the whole point.
    3
  650. Russia won't be, there carrier has been in refit for 5 years with no sign of coming out. A C&C would be a dream.
    3
  651.  @louisgordon4388  it's inbetween Merlin and Wildcat. If it was just few you'd make do with a few of both but the 40+ planned is likely enough for its own type.
    3
  652. It's part of the future.
    3
  653. Why, it's worse, and given we already have typhoons it also more expensive.
    3
  654. You can't wholly rely on technology but you have to progress technologically.
    3
  655. Tactical nukes don't really gain Russia anything. It may be a tactical gain but it would totally isolate them and mean Ukrainians would never stop.
    3
  656.  @Markus117d  32 aircraft total so you do need a decent sized carrier but yes I'll be happy to see 24, and all British, as soon as possible.
    3
  657. Charmingly Cynical your BVR arguemnt might want updating for the half century since the Vietnam war.
    3
  658.  @williamwilson5577  the outcome was we supported our ally in a time of need.
    3
  659.  @williamwilson5577  You're now taking about different conflicts. I'm not sure what point your trying to make?
    3
  660.  @williamwilson5577  if you are unable to disconnect those conflicts and see the differences you don't understand those conflicts.
    3
  661.  @williamwilson5577  The Taliban protected the Al Qaeda leadership and training bases in Afghanistan that isn't equivalent to the Saudi regime. Iraq isn't a consequence of Afghanistan, it is a separate decision, for different reasons, and was in fact detrimental to Afghanistan.
    3
  662.  @CadetTommy2145  basically because BAE didn't put there best offer in the competition so the MoD went with more British construction.
    3
  663. ​ @kiabtoomlauj6249 you say bows and arrows but then name older US kit like Harriers and stuff the UK actually uses like F35Bs.
    3
  664.  @jb76489  none, same as the US army.
    3
  665.  @matjov  why would you spend money on that rather than normal hospitals when we can do this in an emergency.
    3
  666. The navy is unbalanced towards carriers as it is. We need more frigates, subs and aircraft before we need a third carrier.
    3
  667. Jealous much?
    3
  668.  @itzmatty1906  do you not get they are entirely different drones for very different roles?
    3
  669. Ships are historically all "she's".
    3
  670. 7 tonnes vs 37 tonnes gives you an idea.
    3
  671. Not redundant, but maybe they'll change. Battleships went but we still have cruisers. Similarly it might not be worth all the risk in one place that a supercarrier represents but a ship carrying aircraft still fulfils a needed role.
    3
  672.  @outdooradventureHungary  I think a big part staying in Germany was touched on in the video. They have all the infrastructure set up in Germany, to support families as well as troops. Also a big move east would be quite an aggressive diplomatically. So I think you are looking gradual change.
    3
  673.  @thatdutchguy2882  the royals are paid for from the crown estate not tax revenue. And there tourist effect is huge.
    3
  674. It's disappointing but nothing extreme, quite common with new vessels. Problems 5-10 years in are something notable.
    3
  675.  @truthmediarebel5816  exercises like this mean we won't have to fight for real. Russia won't invade a country it knows it firmly supported by NATO. It will invade a country without that support, as recent history has shown.
    3
  676. It's literally deploying to an international task force, how on earth do you get we are the only country in NATO?
    3
  677. The Falklands was a war fought with masses of tech and a few thousand boots on the ground. The actual invasion of Afganistan was the same. Occupation is different, but even then compare our casualties to those without the tech. I know which side I'd choose.
    3
  678. Boar Vessel, 600-500 B.C. , Etruscan Ceramic probably not but it's wasted money. I presume/hope plans exist for worst case scenarios.
    3
  679. Further away. CANZUK is kicking the US out of five eyes, this is kicking NZ and Canada out instead.
    3
  680. But it needs to be more accurate compared to 500kg.
    3
  681. The one thing it won't be is soon.
    3
  682. Cause only the yids would fight ISIS???
    3
  683.  @yuritarted984  We are pretty similar technology wise, when the US is significantly ahead we just buy US.
    3
  684. I noticed the same, type 26 will even it up a bit but type 45 will still be a lot taller for it's radar.
    3
  685. Yet you think Brazil can?
    3
  686. How do you come to that conclusion? We're no where near human decision making with machines.
    3
  687. Cool stat for the 1960s.
    3
  688. We don't just want a C4I platform, it's just part of its job.
    3
  689. I hope they do. A carrier is a waste for the Russian Navy, they don't have the F35B which it's designed around and copies tend to be worse anyway.
    3
  690. Why claim ignorance and knowledge in the same post?
    3
  691. It's more that they'll have say 50 base vehicles in theatre and can easily change the makeup.
    3
  692.  @rayhan_2k841  it's not really rearming as they are generally replacing older ships as part of the normal running of things.
    3
  693.  @rowanmaguire7890  you missed the point of you think T32s having steel hulls is an issue. T32s will sometimes transport the minesweepers, they aren't the mine sweepers.
    3
  694. There is no purposeful war with Russia (there is too greater risk it goes nuclear), only an accidental one. Being unclear about boundaries is the risk. NATO is a clear boundary, and we need to make sure Russia knows that.
    3
  695.  @Bellthorian  advanced doesn't mean does many things, it means doing what is does better.
    3
  696. Royal Navy "the distraction worked"
    3
  697. It will definitely make the prototype, £2bn is commited for this and that isn't too bad. That's 5 years. After it has to be assessed but at present there isn't an American prospect to buy.
    3
  698. Technically the Qatari aircraft are brand new, capabilities wise stealth would be helpful for breaking enemy air defences but not for a role like this, similar to QRA, there Typhoon is still top draw.
    3
  699. Because you can't eliminate a problem doesn't mean you shouldn't try to reduce it.
    3
  700.  @blacksmith67  Firstly I don't think your totally wrong but I would add a few points. Firstly the more apt analogy from world wars seems to me like Japan vs China is WW2. It had the current forces but the worse long term resources. Japan were winning that war before it expanded. Secondly US manufacturing on it own maybe lacking but it could use the rest of the world more easily. You would have western Europe feeding it kit like the US did before joining the world wars. And thirdly China is currently struggling with a lot of the most modern weaponry, most obviously jet engines. The USSR might have mass manufactured but it had to start with a quality bit of kit ie T34, for it to work.
    3
  701.  @zzirSnipzz1  smaller calibre, sure, so the type 31 is getting 2x 40mm as well as its main, type 26 2x 30mm + 2x phalanx.
    3
  702.  @meme4one  I take it you can't answer then.
    3
  703.  @mrsushihut  India could use the domestic industry more. A good 4th gen jet built in India would be better long term.
    3
  704.  Just Myself  The Russia side is basically worthless, but if the Guarantors are serious it makes Ukraine a defacto NATO member.
    3
  705.  @WhateverMan35  So EU it was run by the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency ...
    3
  706. @WhateverMan35  contradict what, it literally says NATO on the tin but your claiming different. Because what? Countries in NATO also happen to have been part of the EU.
    3
  707. It's cool, but it seems like a waste of resources.
    2
  708. About £50k.
    2
  709. What about the title suggests that?
    2
  710. @Hobosurvival  I have been watching, and artillery have been absolutely key, but they haven't been used against drones because it not what they are for. How vulnerable they are to drones might have been a worthwhile question but even then it doesn't work in isolation.
    2
  711.  @Hobosurvival  Artillery is by far the biggest killer in this conflict. If you mean how effective each shot is then it won't be artillery because a big part of it appeal is the ability to put a huge weight of explosives down field in a short amount of time. Drones are increasingly important but they aren't replacing artillery.
    2
  712. @charlesbrightman4237  that way you describe is more like a mine. Maybe there is a good hybrid, but you might also be getting the downside of both.
    2
  713. They are spending, its a major spending increase, just also a troops numbers cut.
    2
  714.  @mclarenm1  We are around a fifth of the US population, a twentieth of Chinas. We'll never be a superpower again.
    2
  715.  @ThePalaeontologist  That was my point CANZUK would be an alliance, not a country so shouldn't be talked about in the way as countries. The UK could defend itself, that isn't the measure of a Superpower, it's the ability to effect the rest of the world. In a proxy war we don't have the resources or the men. We are a world power, super power is another level up. The US is the true measure, China position as one is only just being established, there military being pulled along by there economic growth. Population is short hand for potential. We can excel but we will always be limited by simply being small.
    2
  716. The EU has never been a defence organisation.
    2
  717.  @andreaaltan3982  it does, but depleted uranium munitions aren't a crime against humanity anyway.
    2
  718.  @stretfordender11  quite a few, but we were talking about Mali, not British citizens. Anyway my original point was simply it's not always Islam. Which I'm happy you agree with.
    2
  719.  @californiadreamin8423  you saying it would be one thing, misrepresenting what others said is just you lying.
    2
  720.  @californiadreamin8423  nope, just pointing out a lie.
    2
  721.  @NickyKDChaleunphone  River class are plenty big enough for constabulary duty, if anything they're too big.
    2
  722. Only France is even close to the UK in all services capability.
    2
  723. As a pro European Brit it's a Typhoon because it's a much cooler name.
    2
  724. A400m is better. The issue is retiring earlier, that's to save money.
    2
  725. It's a first tour, not even really a show of strength just willingness, definitely not engaging.
    2
  726. It isn't about Britain alone, it's adding to consensus surrounding China.
    2
  727.  @trevortrevortsr2  Navy squadrons ae generally smaller, around 12.
    2
  728.  @trevortrevortsr2  I was just correcting you claiming 18 wasn't a squadron. I don't know why you'd think that meant Xi cannot count?
    2
  729.  @trevortrevortsr2  no they are going as part of there own armed forces. If your stating total Chinese numbers the comparison is total British and US at least. But we're at peace anyway, nothing wreakless in the slightest.
    2
  730.  @trevortrevortsr2  I think asserting international law as one of many countries that regularly do it isn't remotely wreckless. And as we saw nothing interesting happened. What do you think is going to happen?
    2
  731.  @catlee8064  Carriers supported ops in both Iraq and Afganistan.
    2
  732.  @kizzyp2735  there are some, trainers confirmed, special forces not confirmed as usual.
    2
  733. There were lots of problems will LCS not related to it being modular.
    2
  734. Nope, nor was that achievable but it is safer.
    2
  735.  @NickMusselle  yep, your right. And this does seem like one of the more worthy causes that I would be happy if we extended. I would say though given we commited to 3 years (and are giving an extra one) it may help secure future deployments by showing these types of deployments don't always go on without end.
    2
  736.  @davidcheung5133  ballistic missiles are early cold war technology.
    2
  737. They aren't IFVs. They are reconnaissance, command, recovery etc. Rather than lightly armed battle mainstays they are heavily armoured support.
    2
  738. On the scale of Moldova Russia has a massive airborne force, not something Moldova could face in normal times.
    2
  739. Works the other way as well. Upgrading Typhoons systems so they are at a good standard when integrated in Tempest.
    2
  740. Reserve is just ships costing money while being nowhere near front line. We need more ships in service, we don't need a reserve.
    2
  741.  @panzerfaust1  it's been a big part of the German discussions on the Tornado replacement and why they have bitten the bullet buy some F35s, it very much a current weapon or just a legacy one. Russia is more vocal on the subject but that reflects there weaker state. Things like Tomahawk missiles are nuclear capable.
    2
  742. We did stopping cutting, your about 5 years behind the times.
    2
  743. What natural resources? Right or wrong Afganistan was clearly about 9/11.
    2
  744.  @keithstirton7049  its named after a ship built before the current queen was born.
    2
  745.  @cyanoticspore6785  None of the variants are an IFV, the nearest might be Ares but that doesn't have the 40mm cannon and only has 4 dismounts. ASCOD that it was based was an IFV but its much changed (hence how it isn't working). It isn't replacing our IFV either it's replacing the CVR(T). Our IFV, warrior is to be retired without replacement.
    2
  746.  Hammer 001  the current plan is 48 navy, 90 air force so not primarily navy.
    2
  747. They'll be going there, it being international waters. But unless something really dumb happens we won't be fighting.
    2
  748.  @seeriktus  RFA Argus isn't technical a Hospital ship as it's armed but it fulfils the same purpose for the Royal Navy and has cover hurricane season before. (Its called a Primary Casualty Recieving ship instead).
    2
  749. All the countries we'll be visiting shows it not just about China, but that is parr of it.
    2
  750. None, if you want to be cynical this is the good one to distract from the bad ones.
    2
  751.  @Imprudentman  I'm no sure what you mean?
    2
  752. There is one, a lot of the other nations use it. But they have it in a heavier role than we do.
    2
  753. Would one of the major factors in the cost of living be oil and gas, something this is directly addressing?
    2
  754. Because of all those fights where it would have made the difference?
    2
  755. It's war?
    2
  756. If it didn't hit him I think he'd be happy, it would help unite Russians behind him and based on the his troops that are dieing he doesn't care about your average Russian.
    2
  757. You do realise this is a NATO operation. An organisation that over matches Russia is every way, even as far as land area which is about the only thing Russia has going for it. And how is defensive patrols begging for war?
    2
  758. It not a choice those who have previously serve, including conscripts, are automatically in the reserve.
    2
  759.  @stevem-h3562  it's a publicity shot, not for his ego. That is part of a politicians job. And in this case it's not someone pretending to be what they are not, it reminding people what he is. I'd like to see a few more people that have served as MPs.
    2
  760.  @catlee8064  Ajax itself doesn't carry infantry. Ares does but less. Weight creep definitely has been an issue with Ajax. In hindsight maybe a warrior with upgraded engine, weapon, electronics etc. could have filled the role.
    2
  761.  @reyvan3806  Ajax and Boxer don't seem the best fit. The impression I get is to think of Boxer as more part of the Logistics side. Fighting is Infantry supported by Ajax. Getting there Boxers will carry the infantry and Ajax will be carried.
    2
  762. Not really, and its a very different context. But there is always a chance of being sucked in.
    2
  763. They tend not to be, this would be fine, but a big issue will just drive the company under and the government would have to pick up a bigger mess.
    2
  764. good job it won't be fighting a superpower then.
    2
  765.  @LoremIpsum1970  Nope. But generally there are a few large scale trainers and many countries that generally on the receiving side, as this video says, 45 different countries have had people train. So for the franchise theory there are a few big competing franchises out there and many franchisees. The contrast is to where a major nation would station large amounts of there own troops in country.
    2
  766.  @stun5700  What day? I'm talking about today. Though technically a standard rifle regiment its only elite forces like the Paras and Marines that compete.
    2
  767.  @stun5700  training is basic British standard but entry is way over subscribed so the quality taken in is really high.
    2
  768.  @craigdavidson2278  SU 57 is an irrelevant test plane. SU35s would be leading there fleet. But even with old cold war planes NATO still out numbers them.
    2
  769. Nah, the have a budget in the billions and hundreds of people multiple world class companies working together.
    2
  770.  @dashikashi4734  we do this kind of stuff all the time.
    2
  771.  @stevefairbanks835  same basic idea, but a total rebuild rather than a upgrade.
    2
  772. Its a joint Lightning force. Made up of both FAA and RAF but the first squadron stood up was RAF so that's the name they go with.
    2
  773. Because you know doesn't mean others do too. But it its also i good intro to the pros and cons of each
    2
  774. karl Mallyon 15 so far.
    2
  775. It more that you have a group in the field you can fly out few extra ambulance modules say much easy than whole vehicles.
    2
  776. The limit is still on weapons, training and maybe most importantly ammo rather than man power. Ukraine has 5 million or more potential fighting men, that a lot more than can be equipped.
    2
  777.  @a.brekkan4965  Ukraine is under martial law, the willing isn't necessary, but as I said it numbers are limit by kit anyway.
    2
  778.  @Matherz4  If something happens to Taiwan this will be an addition to the US Fleets.
    2
  779.  @Patient-Unknown  This is forces news, not the navy.
    2
  780.  Hammerschlägen M  sounds like the classic westerners arguing how to say something and it ends up neither sounds like a Native saying the word.
    2
  781.  @jb76489  may be you are Chinookan, but I doubt it.
    2
  782.  @tomstravels520  it is camouflage, just camouflage isn't that important when your using Radar or IR.
    2
  783. A defence review is normal with a new government, SDSR 2015 was the last and 2010 before that. It doent imply anything about the carriers.
    2
  784.  @markrl75  2015 was an increase in capability. Shows how little you know.
    2
  785.  @markrl75  That was 2010!
    2
  786. A US strike group might be more powerful but how would you prove it? It depends on the capability of 5th gen aircraft (this being the biggest deployment of them) which is untested.
    2
  787. In the UK we use what ever we feel like at the time.
    2
  788. There's a second UK site and also some being built in Germany.
    2
  789. The problem isn't that bit was the wrong choice, it's that if you scale up we can't sustain it.
    2
  790. Its unlikely it will be designed to be carrier capable.
    2
  791.  @JamesKelly-tn2oz  the gens are a bit misleading. While it might be a generation a head of a current F35 things like loyal wingman will be integrated with F35s in the future.
    2
  792.  @maxelsoro6292  huh?
    2
  793.  @marcusaetius9309  How do you get it being like Yugoslavia, its an invasion not a breakdown with multiple sides?
    2
  794. Subs aren't very good at the "show" part.
    2
  795.  @VanderlyndenJengold  it was going before 2010, fighting wars without the extra funding to do so. 2003 saw us drop out of Boxer for example.
    2
  796.  @afcgeo882  it is pretty normal, just a higher sortie rate.
    2
  797. Isn't that what it said?
    2
  798.  @helmuthvonmoltke858  fair enough if you were supposed to be replying to a different threat. Seemed like you were replying to the video.
    2
  799. Frigates, destroyers, subs, jets, helicopters.
    2
  800. @helainewilliams8253  carriers have always been sinkable, subs were taking them down when they were dominating the seas in WW2. But that doesn't make them sitting ducks, and compared to other surface vessels, their defence starts hundreds of miles away.
    2
  801. @HighHopesBass NATO have generally said they won't fight, so probably not.
    2
  802. Keep yammering, and the RAF/FAA will keep progressing the F35.
    2
  803. This was a trip to the SCS, how's that forgetting about China?
    2
  804. Or scared enemies.
    2
  805. The basis of a new fighter would be a cross between a Typhoon and an F35 with the addition of loyal wingmen.
    2
  806.  @MrErnestsKarlsons  You know his isn't the Maidan government, its the one that replaced that one?
    2
  807. Why, NATO covers our defence needs quiet happily.
    2
  808.  @mississippirebel1409  The UK doesn't make jets alone because it didn't make sense to, not because it's incapable. The JSF program started out with the UK talking to the US about a Harrier replacement before anything was designed, it wasn't anything like the US offering the UK some building work.
    2
  809. It's not about us differentiating, it's about Putin.
    2
  810. The RAF are running F35Bs, same as the navy.
    2
  811.  @EnglishScripter  not even close, hence they buying more F35Bs.
    2
  812. Why have 2 squadrons that only fly from land and 2 only from sea when you can have 4 that can fly from either? You also only need one airbase, one testing squadron etc. Removing duplication.
    2
  813.  @martinw245  The RAF don't have any F35As yet and the only thing decided are the first 48 will be F35B.
    2
  814. 1) How is a carrier not a warship? And it offensive capability comes from it's airwing not other naval vessels. 2) That's not rumoured in the slightest, it just heading to test British F35 on-board.
    2
  815.  @TheMrBennjay  a carriers weapons are it's aircraft, and that's the whole point of a carrier strike group, the offensive power of the carriers weapons, its not a limited capability, it's a massive one. The other vessels are just support. If you send a carrier to war without an escort and not flying a CAP you deserve to have it sunk, but no one does. You said it will ONLY carry Helicopters, which given we already have jets, have conducted jet trials and are heading for more jet training is straight up dumb.
    2
  816. What are you doing with all your ships without carriers? They a necessary for any serious power projection.
    2
  817. Unfortunately the grey is a practicle camouflage colour.
    2
  818. How? When?
    2
  819. I would guess it gives better balance with the cargo in the middle.
    2
  820. Ukraine has nothing like the best equipped army in Europe, it's still uses largely Soviet kit for its heavy weaponry. The US may spend the most on it's own armed forces but terms of actually NATO funding it doesn't the spend the majority.
    2
  821. You know when you fire artillery shells you don't have them anymore?
    2
  822. Proxy war would generally involve both sides using proxy, Russia are fighting directly. Also it still a long way from what NATO could do, as you see with systems like this not being sent.
    2
  823. Where'd you read that, because it's never been a government plan.
    2
  824. It nowhere near all of Russias resources in Ukraine. Troop numbers cited are something like 200k out of nearly a million.
    2
  825. It's a video about today and Ukraine, why would they mention Vietnam half a century ago?
    2
  826. Apart from, you know, WW2, WW1, Napoleonic Wars.
    2
  827. Tiny means short range. So that's more the weapon used by the fighter, not the fighter.
    2
  828.  @limitlessLtd  oil isn't going away but there is potential for gulf oil being less important with renewables and things like US and Canadian exports.
    2
  829.  @Anthony-lg4dy  it's not tracked, and outpacing the tank your with doesn't seem like a good plan.
    2
  830.  @n1msu  Qatar spent billions, so there the straight up tax, plus people employed and then the supply chain knock ons.
    2
  831. We'd be fighting as part of an alliance, alone we'd be very limited but we can add useful power to a coalition.
    2
  832. It just tells you about the UK military.
    2
  833.  @gilbert7794  how do you come to that conclusion? Was Russia fighting Germany when Britain won the Battle of Britain? If Britain looked for peace the worse that would have happen was they'd loose a few colonies. But we thought the fight was worth fighting.
    2
  834. 6bn is general R+D not Tempest which is about 2bn. But that's only til about 2025, which should get us to the prototype.
    2
  835. Mostly it's about domestic industry not ego. Domestic military industry is as important as today's army. But it can also be about individual army requirements rather than ego, that is more the case with Ajax. Basically lots of reasons that aren't ego.
    2
  836. It's not built for area air defence, you'd need a big upgrade in radar as well, generally making it a different ship. So the ability to use Aster isn't useful. MK41 has wider use for choice in weaponry and compatibility, it will include FCASW.
    2
  837.  @callumpettitt8192  power isn't numbers. Turkey dwarves France in that sense. France has a claim on 2nd, especially until QE is ready but generally it's based on spend over time. Without deep analysis a 5-10 year spend is a quick view.
    2
  838. Russia has been militarily active in neighbouring countries, I wouldn't want to border them without NATO.
    2
  839. We don't just have one Jungle trianig centre, we have two. Few developed nations can compete with us.
    2
  840. Brits will only be fighting if Estonia is attacked. Where's is the hypocracy in standing by an ally?
    2
  841. We won't form two battle groups, two is for cover when one is being maintained. For one with have enough ships. And we fight with the US nor for the US. US F35s on her is excellent value for the UK taxpayer. We don't have to pay for them.
    2
  842. Since when were we not a target off our own back?
    2
  843.  @matthewbaynham6286  15-20 years is the planned timeline. It was already going when announced in 2018 and the aim is 2035. What confusing is why you think Typhoon will be gone before it arrives, we've only recently got our latest jets and a major radar upgrade program is still a few years away.
    2
  844.  @codyhearne932  CV90 would have also needed pots of adaption for the role, in hindsight it can't have gone worse but at the time it was a competition between two existing vehicles both needing a lot of development.
    2
  845. It would only make sense if Russia didn't use mines and small arms. Spoiler they do.
    2
  846. That one engine produces about the same power as the Typhoons two.
    2
  847. It was AGREED as a target for 2023.
    2
  848. Not at all, no war, it's only describing a set up that designed to be public to dissuade aggression.
    2
  849. @paulhiggins8774  we have the F35B, it isn't just a purchase, it is a program we were part of from the start and help build. A carrier aircraft requires quite a lot of modification even with catapults. The F35C, for example, has a larger wings and reinforced landing gear. It is possible we would look to a modified Tempest to replace the F35B, but it's a long way off.
    2
  850.  @Deepanshu700  we can hope. But it does a lot of thing like a smaller carrier. Particular crew but it modular construction allows participation by smaller yards.
    2
  851.  @californiadreamin8423  we don't, the production line ended year ago.
    2
  852. @paulcosens9022  practically they would be covered, required is hard to define. Something like a frigate in the gulf is a reasonably high priority but I'm not sure if it's required,
    2
  853. 18 5th gen jets against good A2AD they are going to be able to operate where 4th gen can't. Also 32 aircraft total.
    2
  854. A capable Russian system like the Kornet is also damned expensive. Russia kind of has two armies. A small well equipped professional one like ours and a big conscript one. Even if we wanted the conscript one there'd be no point as they be stuck on our island.
    2
  855.  @timmurphy5541  Blind faith is lazy. Faith in the present because of the past is reasonable.
    2
  856. Both? They'll be jointly operated. These first ones are part of the Dambusters (RAF) but will almost certainly fly from HMS QE.
    2
  857. So as far as I know 523 was the original order for £2.8bn. That was to work along side a life extended warrior and was more of a mastiff type replacement. With warrior cancelled the order was quickly increased to 623. 1016 and 1305 are plans rather than orders and I imagine highly subject to change. There is a second UK site in Stockport as well as some being built in Germany.
    2
  858. Warsame Adam it gives the refueling tankers a bit of practice. Seems like it's the standard method. We did some training in Japan and the Typhoons flew there.
    2
  859. Saying 70 would be much more misleading. That would only be in an extreme circumstance and not for years as we won't have the jets. When she sails with 24 F35B people will be disappointed when that's a perfectly normal load.
    2
  860.  @reyvan3806  there's different doctrines involved there. Russia is designed to fight without air superiority, the US will buy all mod cons regardless of value for money. Australia is more interesting.
    2
  861.  @reyvan3806  It strikes me as something highly vulnerable on the outside, but that could be rubbish. And though it might not be overly expensive it's money that is better used on equipping and training the infantry with them that's the prefered option.
    2
  862. What isn't happening is that. Even if the PM wanted it it wouldn't get past the back benches.
    2
  863. If it's the quarterback for American football, and the flyhalf for Rugby, what about other sports? Football - The deep lying playmaker (Pirlo esque)?
    2
  864. Even the US has 45k tonnes ship run the same, Russia 55k.
    2
  865. All wars end peacefully, otherwise it's still a war.
    2
  866. Why not, even to most basic of spy networks could get this information, you won't be hiding it from any one but the general public.
    2
  867. Ridiculous statements like that detract from genuine criticism of bad policies.
    2
  868. We millions of men in field in WW2, many thousands of whom died. Show some respect.
    2
  869. Yeah, it still planning on a new missile with France but 11 seems the NSM will continue along side the FC/ASW on the 45 and 31s.
    2
  870.  @Trambo1997  in a protracted war nuclear carriers need a constant supply of aviation fuel and munitions.
    2
  871.  @Trambo1997  aviation fuel?
    2
  872. But that would have been a completely different machine. Not stealthy, not supersonic, less range, less payload, worse sensors and networking.
    2
  873. Whats been sent is no where near making Ukraine well equipped even if it hadn't been used. Maybe $10bn has been sent, the UK spends that every year on kit.
    2
  874. zennus1 I haven't found any but feel free to point me in the right direction. Honestly though anyone with enough access also has a vested interest so I wouldn't expect to find any.
    2
  875.  @satoshinakamoto12  The biggest customer is the US buying F35 parts from the UK. The UK builds 15% by value of each F35. That means by value the UK exports about 3x as much as it buys.
    2
  876.  misternovelbro  it will of course include Donbass, Mariupol will account for a big chunk but the UN number isn't including pre 2022 deaths, but they would indeed increase it further.
    2
  877. What do you thinks wrong with it?
    2
  878. Plane needing repairs, how unusual.
    2
  879.  @jawarakf  you do know the very basics that partner nations build parts of the F35?
    2
  880. ​ @matthewbaynham6286 it's shame rather than make a reasonable comment that Temepst might be late and result in reduced front line numbers you go with a ridiculous we'll only have 44 jets comment.
    2
  881.  @matthewbaynham6286  the defence select committy has stated they negotiating the next F35 trache beyond the initial 48 (44 when you take put the 3 test jets and 1 lost). The last Typhoon was only delivered in 2019 and the plan has always been to fly them along side Tempest for a while.
    2
  882. They make the point of this being a rounded force, comparing it to paras is missing the point.
    2
  883.  @tedviens1  I'm neither, I'm simply aware isn't a world government. There is no possibility of a strong UN, your choice is a weak UN or no UN.
    2
  884.  @tedviens1  bored of this conversation now. You appear not to have understood basically anything I've said. And the fact you think Hungary is allied to Russia by taking a less opposing stance means your not informed enough to reason with.
    2
  885. Because a super carrier flies 432 jets?
    2
  886. We are better off building part of every F35 than all of a few.
    2
  887. Brody Wilson We paid a lot for the development.
    2
  888.  @eloidor988  B2 will definitely see use, it can internally carry stand off weapons.
    2
  889.  @mrsushihut  again I apologise for my fellow countrymen. Next time come to Yorkshire.
    2
  890. Buffer puppet states is long established strategic preference for Russia! Also Crimea has water issues as it used to be supplied from Ukraine.
    2
  891. Without getting in Putins mind we can't really know. If you don't care about life sending in your worse soldiers with old kit first is a valid tactic. The Russian army has been moving to smaller but professional, militarily if you loose what you were going to disband where's the loss.
    2
  892. He is giving more money to the armed forces and his wife is voluntarily paying more tax.
    2
  893. palmermsw longer than the harrier.
    2
  894. A couple of years for the first delivery and then a couple of years to be operational. The first 3 are about one every two years so around 2040 for the lot. That said the type 83 is planned for the mid 2030s so it might be a bit earlier. Honest answer is it will depend on future governments.
    2
  895.  @royalnavyrulebritannia5717  you could say that but by that time other ships will feel old. If done properly it should just be a continuous roll of new ships.
    2
  896.  Proud Indian  we wouldn't be fighting alone. I agree any single European nation would lose to Russia on land, that's not what they would be facing. But to make sure Russia can't defeat each country one at a time we need to be able to get to the fighting fast enough.
    2
  897.  Proud Indian  Those are the two expenditonary capable forces, and what you build around. But in our own backyard you'll be getting useful forces half a dozen more countries.
    2
  898.  @NaeMuckle  AMRAAM - Mach 4. The missiles on Thaad Mach 8.
    2
  899.  @skylongskylong1982  NATO has been the backbone of our defence for decades and we fully commited to it. So of course we work with European countries.
    2
  900.  @brothermaynard3200  I think its about showing unity so covering a selection of less obvious supporter. We know Australia will be at our back.
    2
  901.  @212thfives8  Yep, if you'd read the thread Lary already pointed that out. But my point was about asking the right question. Puma isn't the answer to an AK47, it's overkill. The right question to ask is about anti armour systems. You might be right that it wouldn't work, but I think the more likely answer is Puma would be fine in a lot of situations but not all.
    2
  902. We aren't likely to get the 138 planned but contrary to what he said we are getting more than 48. Money is commited for 74, past that is a decision for the future. In terms of where the money has gone, the cost of the jet is much more than originally intended and the Tempest program may also pull funds.
    2
  903. Compare just drones to a fighter with loyal wingman. You get much of the saving but retain short distance communications that are hard to disrupt. You also have things like the powerful radar of a fighter.
    2
  904.  @Nainara32  we didn't want an IFV, the problem comes from starting with an existing IFV (ASCOD) and adding lots of extra weight.
    2
  905. Russia defensively will be much harder, I think Crimea won't be possible and eastern Donbass unlikely.
    2
  906. We dont have the existing relationship with the Philippines we do with the likes of Singapore and Malaysia through the Five Powers agreement. I hope we will visit though.
    2
  907.  @PepRex  Where do you get 70s? The latest type 23s were commissioned in the 2000s. But if we run by your logic the US only has a couple if carriers. Shocking.
    2
  908.  @blueash0433  the intention is the €100bn is to fix issues and then to run at 2% but that will be subject to politics.
    2
  909. Imagine the US paying us billions for the 15% of every F35 they buy. Why is that being obedient.
    2
  910. The idea is that the US didn't want to enable an escalation to attacking inside Russia. But given Ukraine are striking targets in Russia with drones anyway the US wouldn't be causing that escalation. I would expect there use still to be restricted but it both means less incentive for Ukraine to break the restriction and less consequences if they do.
    2
  911. Challenger 3 makes more sense if you see it as a bridge to the future European MBT. Challenger 2 needs some work just the extend the life and electronics upgrades and the like, the extra changes get us working with NATO standard ammo and with Rheinmetall along with getting some more recent design and construction experience.
    2
  912.  @TomTheGamer913  the USMC are buying a few Cs as well? Even 340 is more than they'll use on there ships, they're accounting for some forward based (or off QE).
    2
  913. gordyboy01 A lot of focus was also given to sensors and networking. They are missile platforms and nodes in a network. The F35 is much more of a partnership than your post suggests, we haven't just bought the aircraft we've been part of its construction from the start.
    2
  914. gordyboy01 The bigger airforces (US, UK, Italy etc.) are all running it along side an air superiority fighter. I don't see a catastrophic issue being possible. I do see tactics being key, particular choosing not to engage. As an essentially offensive weapon this should be possible. But yes we have to wait and see. It'll be nice to get RAF reports vs the Typhoon. The Yanks aren't Russians but they're still prone to a bit of exaggeration.
    2
  915. Hong Kong? You are complaining at people wanting self determination?
    2
  916.  @frankrenda2519  no, obvious not just 10 soldiers. I see you just wanted to post lies.
    2
  917. We would have had many of the same issues with CV90, ones from British changes not the base vehicle.
    2
  918.  @abrahamedelstein4806  yep, your your interested in the truth, just want to put the UK down.
    2
  919.  @andyf3781  even at 5 or 6 times, it's hardly a big expense and it marks them them out for the same responsibility as the pilots in the sky.
    2
  920. Because Russian equipment is worse. Them have some comparable kit but anything they have in numbers is Soviet stock.
    2
  921. The UK has various deployments in Africa, France fought in Mali but then didn't in Iraq. It's swings and round abouts.
    2
  922.  @Justineexy  no would dispute the USN is a lot more powerful than the RN in total.
    2
  923. NATO has been touching Russia continuously since it was founded.
    2
  924. Even if they are vulnerable to major powers (which I doubt), we don't fight wars against major powers.
    2
  925.  @gomiladroogies5951  I'd fight for my country if invaded with foreign support or otherwise. We aren't causing the war we are allowing Ukraine to win. And as I said we are giving the kit (along with none military aid).
    2
  926. That's the reason for the deployment, it's automatic entanglement rather than having to make a decision to fight.
    2
  927.  @leary4  Your calling China explicitly expansionist yet you can't see why Russia, a country that has actually expanded by annexing territory, has sanctions?
    2
  928. It hits top down to get weaker armour and has a shaped charge so the explosion is focused.
    2
  929. 2:34, I'm going with beer.
    2
  930.  @loosecannon8340  yep, or at least let you avoid it.
    2
  931. That's how they are used, but origin is from engine exhaust. They can go straight up with this setup.
    2
  932. I'm pretty sure they would, they'd gain with little loss, like we're doing.
    2
  933. It's only actually fighting Ukraine. The few billion in aid is nothing compared to the hundreds of billions those countries spend on there own militaries or even the tens of billions Russia spends.
    2
  934.  @adepease6399  The US Navy in Vietnam didn't add a gun, they taught there pilots to fight without one. And Vietnam war was half century ago, closer to Spitfires than F35s. The argument isn't a gun vs no gun. It's a gun vs what ever replaces it. An extra missile? Extra speed from less weight? The gun is a case of you get the blame when it's needed, you can't see all the wins the lack of it has facilitated.
    2
  935. @SplurbBat Iraq has had Billions of $ in military aid.
    2
  936.  @craigwadey2122  France is not happy about it's loss of sales.
    2
  937. You know the British fought communists in the jungle, in Malaya?
    2
  938. The UK did mention East Africa in it's recent defence review. It would tend to focus more on countries it has historic links with (Kenya is the likely base we will spread from) but with Mozambique being part of the Commonwealth you might see British involvement.
    2
  939.  Duke Tango  North Korea historically was about China, not nukes. Burma don't have nukes?
    2
  940. It isn't getting rid of armour in general, just dropping down to Ajax, Boxer and Challenger. What it should mean is we actually get things updated and bought rather than discussed but we'll have to see.
    2
  941. How did they start this war? By getting Crimea annexed and and having Russian troops in the east of there country?
    2
  942. That would make perfect sense, it was designed to work with Challenger.
    2
  943. He did, that is what they are calling the upgraded Challenger 2.
    2
  944.  @limedickandrew6016  Again, you stated something and then described something different. Number are of course useful, so some Challenger sis better than none.
    2
  945. That isn't actually a ballistic trajectory as it's power throughout.
    2
  946. Nope, you need specific strengthening to use arrestor cables. They have a rolling landing, using the lift fan to be able to come in slower and use conventional braking.
    2
  947. We don't spend a lot on NATO, we spend it on our own armed forces.
    2
  948. It now His Majestys Ship, previous Her under Queen Elizabeth.
    2
  949.  @uioplkhj  The Taliban had already been told by the UN to turn over Bin Laden years earlier on other terror offencrs. The idea that they were just waiting for evidence is laughable and was treated as such.
    2
  950. We were part of the F35 program from the beginning.
    2
  951.  @JeewakaKarunaratne  Russian Aggression is very clear. NATO is Europe's primary defence organisation not the EU.
    2
  952. @UCxCdBMA6K00EO0peRP9o3Mw NATO isn't a construct of the US, it's built of the three perminant security council members that are in it. And it hasn't expanded by US pressure but by fear of Russian suppression. From the history of the Soviets to Russia starting its new life with force in Chechnya. The US funded all those hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians?
    2
  953.  @TheBenj30  Your right, it isn't good enough. If people complained Germany isn't going to meet it's target, I'd be supporting them. But people like Bob say Europeans aren't meeting there obligation.
    2
  954. Whether the Lightning is much better may be debatable but that it's different isn't. Firstly the Typhoon can't operate from carriers. Secondly the Lightning is stealthier. This is allows it to operate in contested airspace the Typhoon can't. Typhoon + Lightning is definitely stronger than just Typhoon.
    2
  955.  @lukearmitage1533  we aren't in a significant conflict at the moment, so of course nothing can match a Typhoon. You don't build your air force for the best case, but for the worse case scenario. But you seem to be saying get Typhoons as well as F35s? That isn't an option, we don't have the budget. F35 deliveries are at the pace the MOD specifies, at the pace we can afford.
    2
  956.  @lukearmitage1533  I don't know what point your trying to make. We are buying new jets as fast as we can afford. If we buy more Typhoons that would mean we'd buy less Lightnings.
    2
  957.  @overcorpse  I don't know specifics but even when they were both under the same FRES program banner they didn't want boxer for both. The obvious difference is tracks, but there could well be other advantages.
    2
  958. Your not crazy
    2
  959. Wheres the colonialism?
    2
  960. They are run flat.
    2
  961. Not the fleet, just a single frigate.
    2
  962.  @danlugo4365  Do you love your brother or your dad more?
    2
  963. We need more fighters, it isn't full.
    2
  964. Why do you think there old kit is still effective? Challengers 2 for example have shrugged off multiple RPG hits.
    2
  965. It's due to retire 2019. Still a few months to see it in action.
    2
  966.  @phuktard  simply put Russia has masses of nuclear weapons, invasion is suicide. It isn't going to happen. But Estonia had already suffered invasion and deportation by the Soviets before the Nazis'. But what about NATO looks anything like the Nazis? And what countries have that joke? The ones that embraced the west are prospering. Russian crony capitalism isn't western capitalism.
    2
  967.  @phuktard  what part of denying a country independence is liberation?
    2
  968. Shame we haven't been able to sort out anything with the Europeans.
    2
  969. It's not about Russia, it's whether it's in Putin's interest or not.
    2
  970.  @orangecat3021  actually on the F35 it's the internal gun that's having accuracy issues.
    2
  971. Physics
    2
  972. What your actually seeing is a move to heavier weapons systems. And while it maybe straining some countries the US has even left first gear.
    2
  973. Those Ukrainians wanting their ports to have access to the sea, they are so unreasonable.
    2
  974. How are Russia winning hand down, there been little movement for ages?
    2
  975. You'd lose all your energy and be dead in the air if you tried to do that,
    2
  976.  @Johnmk24  if your talking about Viffing, they didn't actual use it.
    2
  977. F35
    2
  978.  @4epa1012  we were part of the project from the beginning, build a significant chunk of it and own F35s.
    2
  979.  @Jib230181  It depends what you want your military to do. Ours isn't set up to defend our country, being an island surrounded by allies we aren't threated. It is for expeditionary warfare and that is optional. Politicians just have to remember if they don't spend they can't expect to be able to do as much.
    2
  980. Do you not think stopping the Nazis was worth fighting for?
    2
  981.  @MatthewMakesAU  Nope, there are 60 aircraft in the group and that includes various helicopters and support aircraft not just fighters.
    2
  982.  @MatthewMakesAU  then learn language, because you said it had 75 fighters aboard.
    2
  983.  @MatthewMakesAU  you made an inane point and when corrected tried to to defend it with lies. And then corrected again your now going for the personal attack. Quality.
    2
  984. Jason Kay I think the problem with Typhoon is we pay, everyone gains. We've already paid for the ground attack development.
    2
  985. You might buy a gate ready for when the old fails. But this is more a case having designed the gate, but not yet bought it.
    2
  986. Cuts don't help but the F35 projects is years behind schedule and millions more per jet than planned.
    2
  987. Finland goes down in the nuclear winter and radioactive atmosphere whether its directly nuked or not.
    2
  988. It's from previous budgets being stretched. Without money for a future plan services lives were extended. Now there is a plan but to make it work kit needs cutting now.
    2
  989. Russian jets aren't STOVL.
    2
  990.  @msquinn225  and one of there carriers cost more than both of ours.
    2
  991. Russia itself isn't threaten so there is no reason to think it would commit suicide by nulcear war much less China. And China has done pretty well out of the current order and would frankly benefit from a weak Russia dependent on it.
    2
  992. We have the option of more Typhoons. What Russians can't do is cutting edge.
    2
  993. It basically doesn't maintain home defence (that's just where it recruits and trains) thats done by the Navy and Airforce.
    2
  994.  @danieljames2015  We have a bigger Navy that France, a similar airforce and smaller army. Overall it's pretty similar.
    2
  995. They were the wrong kit for the job. Different job and they might be the right kit.
    2
  996. A main centre of operations for an area. You see forces head there first from the UK before fanning out to small bases or embed inother countries.
    2
  997. It isn't deploying against the French state but against individuals that might act illegally. Constabulary duty are part of the Royal Navies role as well as war fighting.
    2
  998. A tank alone is an easy target and tank with air cover isn't.
    2
  999.  @markcummings6856  What's changed recently is Russia showing it's incompetence and our allies spending more.
    2
  1000. Anti ship missiles aren't new, as they progress so do defences.
    2
  1001. No
    2
  1002.  @TT-hd3zi  Right. When your talking about conventional threat like jets, they also aren't being replaced 1:1. But there is a big worry about how to deal with newer problems like cheaper drones.
    2
  1003. It's kind of happening. Overt empires are a thing of the past but China is looking to gain influence and economic control. The US has bases all over the place and others have some stake.
    2
  1004. This isn't for Oman sake, and Oman isn't particularly rich.
    2
  1005. No they don't.
    2
  1006.  @rigel1632  you've no actual point then.
    2
  1007. ​ @mikewinston8709 You know just European NATO out mans and out spends Russia significantly.
    2
  1008. @mikewinston8709  yeah, because the British were slow to the fight is WW1 or 2, or Afghanistan or Iraq!? Or even more recently they certainly weren't striking Houthi targets. Where do you get the idea the British won't fight? Because it certainly isn't by there actions.
    2
  1009. We don't have enough.
    2
  1010. You blame those do something reasonable, letting countries decide to join a defensive alliance, rather than those doing unreasonable things, invading there neighbour.
    2
  1011. There is no suggestion Ukraine will start a war
    2
  1012. Defend from who, because the only realistic threat is Russia and the artillery is going to fight Russia. And they'd have to get through Poland and Germany to reach you.
    2
  1013.  @MrEsphoenix  CV90 would have need adaptation like ASCOD did to get to Ajax. Can't have gone worse but it still would have been a development.
    2
  1014. It's part of the BFBS charity. They do media for the forces around the world but I believe they are independent rather than government funded.
    2
  1015. Not in the original 523, but could be in the extra 100.
    2
  1016. Definitely. And it is already happening with units getting vehicles already.
    2
  1017.  @ca9968  Why is it not a good idea? It's info that would be a doddle to get hold of. Anything even remotely secret isn't included.
    2
  1018.  @ca9968  it's like showing the cards in the middle in holdem, info they will already have.
    2
  1019. Russia is relatively speaking next door, it military regularly operates near our waters. It's the immediate threat. China is a longer term threat.
    2
  1020. What way do you think that traffic is flowing because this is the US helping the UK?
    2
  1021. Yeah, it ain't $5k of cardboard.
    2
  1022. Your on.
    2
  1023.  @zipz8423  oh, could have sworn you meant the the Typhoon featured in this video.
    2
  1024.  Ian Brown  Whats the link between Carriers and Yemen?
    2
  1025.  Ian Brown  so nothing to do with carriers. Also your description is blatantly wrong, the crisis would have happened with or without British weapons. Other weapons would have worked as well.
    2
  1026.  Ian Brown  I'm not justify it, I'm not claiming it's right to sell them weapons. I'm pointing out the utter stupidity of your claim the Yemen crisis is due to the UK.
    2
  1027. Your not joking your just wrong.
    2
  1028.  @ThunderAppeal  I don't, but Russia isn't even playing by the rules it set in the Cold war. Annexing territory and attacking exchanged spies. Regardless a rule of self preservation is one even they won't challenge.
    2
  1029. The plan is designed so it can be gutted. We are spiralling Typhoon technology so we get the benefits of development regardless. But all imported fighters is a massive step that I don't think is politically viable so we will build something.
    2
  1030.  @marcusrasmussen2101  You basically just repeated what I said. I'm very happy Finland is joining. I think there system is great for them, the 280k they'll put out in the event of war is huge for a country there size, it's like the UK mobilising over 3 million troops. I just think how people are using the 900k figure is misleading.
    2
  1031.  @apocalypticweasel9078  Didn't want to just write "Yes I was wrong, they will be flying Typhoons in 10 years time"?
    2
  1032. Ian Kendall. But it flies fast in a straight line so well.
    2
  1033.  @alexanderrose1556  France is more than double the area of the UK. It's not that important for Navies but physically France is a great deal bigger.
    2
  1034.  @glastonbury4304  no, we still have them. Still possible we will sell them but France won the contract we were looking for so they won't be free. Last I heard though they were going for some old Dutch ones.
    2
  1035.  @glastonbury4304  the subs contract is worth 20x as much as was an underway contract not a competition like the frigates.
    2
  1036. 1tr+ isn't the development cost, it's the lifetime cost.
    2
  1037. Peace
    2
  1038. @TheBooban  it makes any individual loss less. Losing 1 of 3 is worse that 1 of 6.
    2
  1039. @TheBooban  its rarely work or not, it's work better or worse. The higher the risk to an individual target the more you spread them out. Were the risk too high then you go neither, and use the money for something different, say subs. Though we'd still want something for low intensity conflict or humanitarian work, but thats going to be the cheaper option and less.
    2
  1040. Simply because we don't have many. Long range fires is an area we had highlighted as needing to improve ourselves before this conflict so even giving some is a show of commitment.
    2
  1041.  @Durgesuth  we might a send a few more but we won't send a lot because we simply don't have many and need them for ourselves.
    2
  1042.  @crusader8626  I think ultimately because they aren't British. We have a great history together which justifies there existence but in the end you should defend yourself.
    2
  1043. It depends on your scale. Fundamentally we still do a lot if bombing, be it by fighter, drone or missile. For most countries its not worth having dedicated bombers, especially not $700m ones, but the US military is big enough it's worth the dedicated platforms.
    2
  1044. Not new, a few years old.
    2
  1045. As a Brit, when we fought those wars we were a tyranny. Controlling a quarter of the world against the will of it's native people.
    2
  1046. Afganistan doesn't have oil.
    2
  1047. They aren't making redundancies, just natural wastage.
    2
  1048.  @LTMoro  Sure, but in the context of Russia, it isn't the UK alone, it's NATO.
    2
  1049. In what sense is an aircraft carrier not a warship?
    2
  1050.  @barenddutoit9794  you can't use a word like huge to do with this conflict when comparing with WW2. Stalingrad had more casualitues than Russian army, never mind just the bit in Ukraine.
    2
  1051. The decision wasn't even close, conventional was the better choice by a long way. Cost, decommissioning and probably most importantly lack of a support industry for very little gain.
    2
  1052.  @RRaymer I'm pretty sceptical about your figures but regardless where did I say those others were not? We give aid to Brazil for example.
    2
  1053.  @ConstantineJoseph  It's not 6th because you've arbitrarily decided that speed is the basis of the next generation, it couldn't be any other step change in technology?
    2
  1054. We aren't superpower, we are no where near the fastest growing economies, didn't finish reading because have fundamentals are so wrong.
    2
  1055. Aster isn't particularly old and is already being onward developed. But honestly hypersonic manoeuvring missiles are claimed by the Russian propaganda machine and not much else.
    2
  1056. Under the current model the type 31 will cover the day job while the type 26 goes to war so basically there isn't a less risky asset to put them on.
    2
  1057.  @derealovesurvival7549  what would be the point of making war illegal when no one can enforce it? Many wars are already illegal under the UN, but that doesn't stop them. I also think there is such a thing as a just war, for example, to stop genocide.
    2
  1058.  @derealovesurvival7549  how would it stop them? They still make money of currently illegal wars.
    2
  1059. Where they were an effective part of the allied strategy?
    2
  1060. It's an issue, clever poor kids can become officers, but don't want to serve.
    2
  1061. It's about tech transfer, expanding it dilutes it as you'll only share as much as with the least trusted partner. And in your example Japan and South Korea aren't good friends.
    2
  1062. You say those numbers like they were large in the context of WW2, something like 50x that number of Civilians were killed by the Japanese.
    2
  1063. I do love that Gibraltan oil and gas? We there because the people there want to stay British.
    2
  1064. Ita designed to take one, given the time til it's operational there going to be a lot of changes is APSs
    2
  1065.  @54356776  lie
    2
  1066. I think we we missed out here. We had a very capable vehicle that was a bit too expensive. Should have built more spending that money on kit (in country) rather than deciding what kit to buy.
    2
  1067. If Ukraine was part of NATO, NATO would be fighting, that is a massive difference.
    2
  1068. We've spent decades telling Germany to be less aggressive, unsurprisingly now they are.
    2
  1069. It isn't, 4 of 19 escorts for example.
    2
  1070. The EU isn't a defence organisation it's an economic one.
    2
  1071. Scotlands way is very much undecided and at the last count pro UK. There's plenty of Scotland that isn't the SNP.
    2
  1072. So the carrier is from an age before it was invented?
    2
  1073. @1chish  thats the thing "the Torries did it" isn't old yet, it less than half a year since Labour got in, and they haven't even had a defence review. As your defending them for 2010, which your right to do in terms of cuts needed (though there were clear mistakes as well) because they hadn't been in government, you have to do the same now.
    2
  1074. @1chish  your joking? The economy was just in recession at the end of 2023, interest rates are high, cost of living is still a problem from the past inflation. Nothing about thats a thriving economy. Sunak had managed to stablise, but with a large deficit and debt and low predicted growth.
    2
  1075.  @burtlangoustine1  the wording important because you suggest something much more than what it is. People say any when really they mean a dozen countries, or even just Russia and China. As for where we actually stand, we have nukes, and a credible second strike capability at that, so we certainly have some ability. We couldn't invade quite a few nations but they couldn't invade us, only the US is could. We have the ability to operate a force at distance that is easily in the top 10. But we are a nation of only 65m so we have limits.
    2
  1076.  @ULSTERISBRITISH  EU = economic organisation. NATO = military organisation. You've named lots of NATO based deployments and direct government to government projects like the Eurofighter but not EU ones. Try learn what the EU is?
    2
  1077. Backyard suggests its Russias. NATO is in NATOs territory.
    2
  1078. Have you ever even read about wars? Some people fight, others don't, you have to deal with both.
    2
  1079.  @johnallen7807  It about collective defence not the US. None US NATO massively out spends and out mans Russia. There aren't so many British air bases left but there are still loads in Europe that we can, and do, regularly use.
    2
  1080. Just the targets provide all the practical services. Troop transport, Air support, Constabulary, Humanitarian, Survey, Mine clearing ...
    2
  1081. That is the point, this isn't a sneak attack, it a diplomatic mission.
    2
  1082.  @danielbailey5849  Ukraine can't pay it's poor, but then they are fighting the war our kit is for so our security grows not shrinks with very weapon we send.
    2
  1083. That poverty is just a percentage of median income, it means there poorer than average not necessarily that they are poor.
    2
  1084.  @royalnavyrulebritannia5717  The US has 10x the population and GDP of Canada. Those are factors that are important and the ones I mentioned. When I said size at the end I was referring to navy size, going forward China's navy will be many times ours.
    2
  1085. The decision of catapults was a close one. The one over nuclear wasn't, it makes no sense for the UK.
    2
  1086.  @1chish  Yeah, I think we'd be 5 years behind where we are now. We made the right choice but it's just there is a lot going for EMALs too.
    2
  1087.  @meme4one  PR disaster for who, we aren't selling them and we are upgrading those we have. We were always going to lose some when we gave them to Ukraine.
    2
  1088.  @hoadien158  sure, for the thousands of dead Ukrainians, maybe even for the Russian kids forced to go to war. For a tank, not so much.
    2
  1089.  @thegoldeneagle9890  his basic point was the range, this new missile can't do tomahawks job it has a fraction of the range.
    2
  1090. Shoaib Latif What would we do with them? No one's invading and that's far more than we can place and sustain abroad.
    2
  1091. Black Knight was one possible of a variant of what has become this upgrade.
    2
  1092. Unfortunately that kind of the point, it makes it stand out
    2
  1093.  @markbanner6473  the competition continues there as well with the SBS mostly marines and the SAS paras.
    2
  1094. Stopping a failed state on the borders if NATO, making a friend.
    2
  1095.  @chriswilde7246  it's training, we train in an insane amount of countries, googling got me 80 in 2015.
    2
  1096.  @MrKeithblair  There isn't just our home islands to defend, also our allies, our sea lanes, our overseas territories. The threat of a response is also part of defence.
    2
  1097.  @chrisward7582  They aren't here as a deterrent to attacking the UK, but for places further east. We are a staging post not the area to be protected
    2
  1098.  @chrisward7582  It's a credit to the US, but they aren't here defending the UK. The UK itself has jets on the Russian border. Together we are defending our allies. The US is important to NATO but just European NATO outmatches Russia. Unity is whats important.
    2
  1099. It does have plenty of life that why the deadline is 15 years in the future. And that's only the start of deliveries.
    2
  1100. Meteor is a few years off as the current version is a bit long. Sidewinder only fits on the outside of the F35 compromising the stealth.
    2
  1101. I don't think it's ideal but I think it makes sense on a limited budget.
    2
  1102.  @zhufortheimpaler4041  it's about weighing the pros and cons. You transport tracked vehicles rather than them transporting themselves. We'll still have tracked supper in Challanger and Ajax.
    2
  1103. Do you think peer adversaries don't have infantry?
    2
  1104. They haven't l.
    2
  1105. Politicians are elected, defence hasn't been a priority for the electorate.
    2
  1106. I don't think the Patriot/S300 is the right level, the current threat is highly numerous but less capable.
    2
  1107.  @theabstract100  it's highly militarised, they tend to send there newer systems there but it is still small. It would be easy for NATO to overrun but a threat to Poland.
    2
  1108.  @ChrisMCP2  life moves on. It very definitely Russian. There is the embryo of an independence movement though, better to encourage that than hark back to Prussian roots.
    2
  1109. Tell us why, and you might be making a point?
    2
  1110.  Maxi Delevingne  we sell across the world, including to the US. When the US doesn't buy from and we have a better product it's because they want to produce it domestically not because of an EU tariff. The example I would use I'd Brimstone, rather than buying in they chose a development program to upgrade the Hellfire. Not because its cheaper, they have to plow a lot into R+D. But because they want to keep production domestic. Not being in the EU wouldn't have changed that one iota.
    2
  1111.  @DrCrabfingers  Calling Chinas navy the most powerful is just showing you have no idea about navies. Even largest is wrong as tonnage is better metric than number of vessels. Prime assets are Carriers and SSNs, compare the US and China, and that's even discounting quality.
    2
  1112. It doesn't look like Ukraine could be overwhelmed at moment, Russian success would see a larger part of Ukraine carved off rather that total Ukrainian defeat.
    2
  1113. @jp3630  not by artillery, air defences, or any other kind of a fight but just by time and public opinion, so no, he doesn't have a point because of Afghanistan.
    2
  1114.  @turkey0165  The UK builds about 15% of each F35, it spent billions on the development and pays for every jet it gets.
    2
  1115.  @turkey0165  your saying sure as you can't just check what I said. It not controversial, it's in the main F35 site.
    2
  1116.  @turkey0165  yep it is, it just isn't very important. There are about half a dozen important issues but even those aren't stopping it be deployed, including on combat missions.
    2
  1117. I don't think it will particularly be better, it'll just be an extra element with a different focus.
    2
  1118.  @dont_give_a_flying_f  a Type 26 is the size of a destroyer, sea ceptor has some area defence ability. It has to be in the destrpyer concersation. Our six destroyers give us two dedicated air defence ships for a carrier group, that a good amount. Adding numbers it would be better to go with the more general purpose Type 26, or even the Type 31 with the idea to keep all Type 26s free to fight.
    2
  1119.  obese-anorexia  it more Dutch-German but Britain was still in the project when the first prototype was built. It is part British design.
    2
  1120. Production speed is generally based on order size rather than capacity. If the order was bigger they'd build up more capacity.
    2
  1121. I think your mistaking them for the Aussie version, these just make tea.
    2
  1122.  @adelaidesngan604  Didn't know France was an African tribe? 7 years war for example, did you just really dislike the Quebecois?
    2
  1123. It wasn't new, it was an adapted ASCOD, CV90 would also have needed adapting.
    2
  1124.  @datonaone  If you look at those two conflicts you see why we have the emphasis on technology, though they are warnings against hubris. We won the zulu wars, because of our superior technology. We got a draw against the Chinese in there own backyard because of the quality of our troops. On Duncan you have to be taking out those MIGs to even care about that weakness. We may have too few type 45s, but type 42s couldn't do the job. We are a nation of only 65m, we don't have the massed industry on 1800s. We need some leverage. But I don't totally disagree and think we should be using some of the R+D towards making things cheaper as well as better.
    2
  1125.  @MusicalMemeology  We already have organisations like NATO and G7, the point of the UN is to be universal you just have to be aware of it's limitations. And the problems with talking about just democracies is that there is no clear line just a graduation from high quality to low, Russia uses the trapping of democracy.
    2
  1126.  @roblong3684  that you just made up?
    2
  1127. "literally only has the Javelin" - this very video mention NLAW.
    2
  1128. While they are massive they're a similar size to challenger.
    2
  1129. Why would you think you'd be asked? Its a representative democracy not a direct one.
    2
  1130. Not the F35B, thats more.
    2
  1131.  @LevanGudadze  No. We weren't communist when we supported the USSR in WW2?
    2
  1132. Nope, but enough of it works
    2
  1133.  @kickboxerforever00  we don't even crew all the ships we have. Bulwark in extended readiness.
    2
  1134. Nope
    2
  1135. Only if the FAA can't hold it's own, so no chance.
    2
  1136.  @ancientmariner7473  It's the FAA thats getting the RAF to buy F35B as tornado replacements when they want F35As.
    2
  1137.  @henryvagincourt  I don't think it just money, I like the lightning force idea overall. A couple of front line squadrons is fine day to day for the FAA but the ability to field a lot more in an emergency really gives us a lot more punch.
    2
  1138.  @zeroniner1383  The reporter said nothing about dropping bombs?
    2
  1139.  @ThePalaeontologist  Dreadnought wouldn't do much, it's still on the drawing board. Vanguard however...
    2
  1140. Drone swarms will be one of Tempests weapons. They are complementary not competing.
    2
  1141. Russia is in the middle of taking major losses for very little progress in Ukraine. It isn't a present threat.
    2
  1142.  @LoremIpsum1970  what historically? Russian losses in Afganistan made them pull out and contributes to the fall of the regime. And this war (in how its panned out) is not what Russia had planned.
    2
  1143.  @LoremIpsum1970  the most recent war is the most relevant. Also they aren't fighting a war for the motherland in Ukraine so Afganistan is a better comparison. Russia of today is nothing like that of WW2 for example. This isn't a war someone would choose and they have entirely changed tactics, it not what they planned.
    2
  1144. It was pretty much designed 20 years ago but it isn't a Stryker, or do you think all tanks are Abrams?
    2
  1145.  @davidrobertsemail  a carrier group has 2 frigates and 2 destroyers. That leaves 15 left, how can't we have any elsewhere?
    2
  1146.  @davidrobertsemail  catapults aren't strictly better, they put a lot more wear in the aircraft, are more dangerous, it easier for an issue to stop all flights etc. But also they cost more which is a military consideration not just a political one because that money can be spent elsewhere. Is a catapult better than 10 more jets for example?
    2
  1147.  @johnallen7807  cool, I'll go by an 70 year old book about a different war rather than someone whose been to this one...
    2
  1148.  @GHOST5663  It was actually a less bureaucratic, quicker turnaround vehicle but used expensive materials to keep the weight light with and retain protection.
    2
  1149. Two is a good number of carriers. Other ships would be welcome. The type 32 seems the right direction.
    2
  1150. 20 years, 30 if you count other countries.
    2
  1151.  Alan Brookes  it's a worrying possibly, it won't be alone but it could be in coalition.
    2
  1152. You saying allowing for the difference in complexity and then don't allow for it. The difference is vast.
    2
  1153.  @RJM1011  and so is Tempest, Italy and Sweden are already involved. But I was more talking about the job losses, 1 is the same as 3x1/3, working with others didn't lose us work.
    2
  1154.  @RJM1011  it's UK led. But I would call Typhoon UK built anyway. We have a smaller fleet of jets and like any manufacturing industry automation is taking jobs. My point is ending one project doesn't take jobs when the alternative is a project with UK manufacturing.
    2
  1155.  @kissifferbritannica5357  The car guy is just troll, posts the same thing about nuclear carriers on every video which would be fine if annoying but then goes on about people being trolls if they mention the slightest disagreement. He's not worthy of respect.
    2
  1156. David Nikon no, our response to a Sarmat is see mushroom cloud, launch tridents, everyone dies.
    2
  1157. ​ @syscoord195 the weird part is though we may annihilate the 90s, we might actually struggle against the 50s because we'd destroy hundreds but the hundreds left would be nailing jets on the ground. We do need to be adding cheaper drones for some critical mass.
    2
  1158. Penny Mordaunt
    2
  1159.  @JuzzlinOSS  what's near the border, the UK gets buzzed by Russian planes? If those on the border fall new countries are suddenly on the border. Fighter from countries further back also support allies closer, Russia outmatches those on its borders Jets also get scrambled to escort civilian planes, not wanting another 9/11.
    2
  1160. No it would equate to being undefeated in the second division, it's seen combat but fair enough that Iraq isn't peer combat. But frankly Russia has been looking like a second division team.
    2
  1161. Which do you think is more likely, the military of as dozen countries across the world with access to the jet have been scammed or random people on the internet without access to the jet are wrong about it being bad?
    2
  1162.  @GracesGarden80  It's enough to seriously mess up any country that fires at us. Past that deterrent I don't see the point in anymore. There's no winning if they start flying. It also worth noting that it's congress that declares war rather than the president in the US.
    2
  1163.  swansea007791  Did you read the comment I replied to? I'm replying to complaints at NATO presence on the Russian border, not even international space but an allies space.
    2
  1164.  @vortexgaming1072  jealous.
    2
  1165.  @randommadness1021  simple context. Russia is invading Ukraine.
    2
  1166.  @Andrew-is7rs  France has soverign territory spread across the globe.
    2
  1167. German development, we were still part of the program when it was being designed.
    2
  1168. While we can ... so at any point for the foreseeable future.
    2
  1169.  @VanderlyndenJengold  just like the Typhoon and Tornado we reuse names.
    2
  1170.  Anthony Roic  we've pretty much always relied on allies, thats part of our deal. Prussian, Russians, French, Americans what ever gets the job done.
    2
  1171. The Russian reserve is different to the Australian (or British) reserve. They aren't part time motivated soldiers, they are just those that have previously served, including conscripts.
    2
  1172. This wasn't a complete list.
    2
  1173. ​ @synchc Ajax is a CVR(T) replacement not a warrior replacement. It's all about the scouting tech not moving people.
    2
  1174. ​ @syscoord195 CV90 would have had armour and tech slapped on it and been pushed to be built domestically. Ajax has gone badly, but from the start both options were similar.
    2
  1175.  Astuteous Maximus  I think his issue is with the F35 part, guessing he wants them called Lightnings?
    2
  1176. I believe the Griffins were essentially hired.
    2
  1177. Is that based of the only carrier fight since WW2 being won by Harriers in the Falklands?
    2
  1178. Don't take to many lessons from Ukraine, NATO would fight very differently.
    2
  1179. lol, what gave it away, was it the "Women in defence awards" part?
    2
  1180. Owen z. Politically. It shows Russia wouldn't be fighting Estonia, they'd be fighting NATO. So Russia won't invade.
    2
  1181. The eye movement with button handle part did look better.
    2
  1182. The design is good, the implementation is bad.
    2
  1183.  @Tihamah5  Just so your aware, Oman is the only Challenger 2 buyer, your posts about earlier years are about Challenger 1, which Jordan bought. Challenger 1 has the longest kill record but wasn't exemplary hence 2, but the idea either is the worst ever just makes me think your trolling.
    2
  1184.  @tedteddington6223  It wasn't important to add Ukraine to NATO, before the annexing of Crimea neither Ukraine nor NATO was bothered about pushing forward (nor had NATO stationed any forces in it's new members). Now, Ukraine is looking at a future in NATO and very hostile to Russia, Finland and Sweden are joining, NATO troops are permanently in places like Poland and Estonia and western Europe is rearming more committed to NATO than ever. This war was started by Russia!
    2
  1185. I imagine it would just be a punitive strike that Russia would be likely to suck up rather than start a full scale nuclear war as frankly it wouldn't hurt them that badly. The big deterrent is from friendly countries rather than NATO. It wouldn't be something India or even China could turn a blind eye to.
    2
  1186. Why in this day and age, nuclear isn't new?
    2
  1187. Would have liked to hear more about the military walls and defensive tactics we use. Guess that might stray into giving away secrets stage though.
    2
  1188. It's about resisting Chinese intimidation of SCS countries.
    2
  1189.  @Phil_AKA_ThundyUK  we'll still have loads of Typhoons by 2030.
    2
  1190.  @christopherdickinson9265  there's no reason to stop them being a jointly run force. We might need them all for the carrier at times but that doesn't mean there won't be times it better to deploy from a land base. I don't see what we'd gain giving up that flexibility?
    2
  1191. Russia isn't a threat to a united NATO. Putin won't attack knowing he'll fight the whole of NATO no matter how much they are spending. The only chance of war is if he thinks a member won't be supported. That uncertainty is what Trump created by not reaffirming his support like previous presidents at the start of his term.
    2
  1192. Of course it does if they are better.
    2
  1193.  @British-ranmsansame  Abe relaxed things so Japan can export arms, though it is still restrictive.
    2
  1194.  @sosaukr6666  the gained experience through combat Finland.
    2
  1195. It's sent Ceasar howitzers but it's generally been quiet about what it's sending. There a balance between informing your public and informing the enemy.
    2
  1196. You need both but Cyber is likely to be a major focus on the upcoming defence review.
    2
  1197. Not really, it just tells you Israel is threatened and has land borders.
    2
  1198. As they said it's a yearly exercise and the numbers aren't particularly large. It's nothing like the Russian build up.
    2
  1199.  @splatoonistproductions5345  The US 9 flat top amphibs to fly the F35B from many of which are still waiting for there Harriers to be replaced. The F35B isn't only built for sea, it's also built for small, damaged or adhoc airstrips on land. So the USMC very much wants it's F35Bs. The UK isn't pushing for much faster deliveries, firstly because of thr budget but secondly because there are still key features missing like the integration of Meteor and SPEAR III. And while QE class can fly more jets, it's built for 36, more than and it starts getting less efficient with less maintenance room, lower ammo stocks etc.
    2
  1200. ​ @EnglishScripter CAMM is to be added but hasn't been done yet.
    2
  1201. Sure, the US was attacked, we supported them.
    2
  1202.  @williamwilson5577  the outcome what? You said the UK was following the US, it was.
    2
  1203.  @williamwilson5577  There is nothing gung ho about war in response to an ally being attacked. Afghanistan has a clear cause, 9/11.
    2
  1204.  @williamwilson5577  There are consequences but what they are isn't yet fully apparent and they are entangled with other action (IS being very much an Iraq consequence for example). There is also the fact that US involvement wasn't contingent the UKs participation so consequences of UK involvement is different.
    2
  1205.  @thom0243  the idea is a mixed Ajax/Boxer group will cover the fire support and troop transport if from two different vehicles. If that works in practice is different question.
    2
  1206.  @thom0243  It isn't ideal but less different vehicles bring economies of scale and easier logistics. I would like to see a 30/40mm Boxer variant at least.
    2
  1207. It's an acceptance of reality. When it comes to someone like China we simply can't compete in money or men.
    2
  1208.  @crazychimp1324  that was for the politicians that campaigned for Brexit but didn't have plan for implementing it. And a lot of Brits agree with him.
    2
  1209.  @EneriGiilaan  Finland was taken by force and held often with a Swedish Nobility over a Finnish peasantry. That seems like an occupation.
    2
  1210. Back payments for what, the protection they didn't get?
    2
  1211.  @skip123davis  that's an old argument now, it was for fear we might get someone doing things like invading Ukraine.
    2
  1212.  @matjov  Your spending lots of money on this capacity that we have been able to create it in short order anyway. That money could otherwise be spent on normal hospitals which are struggling as it is.
    2
  1213.  @AndyH2023.  I think it will be basically because it isn't fixed yet, we have a Interim anti ship missile decision coming soon and a development project for the FC/ASW.
    2
  1214.  @JamesVDBosch  sure there is, it's actual combat performance.
    2
  1215. ​ @calimdonmorgul7206 nope some from Germany, and also there's a second UK site.
    2
  1216.  @ThatCarGuy  You can make an argument for Batch 2s, though I disagree. For Batch 1s like this it's just throwing money away.
    2
  1217.  @bellumgerere  it does, I've seen 10 minute videos with the same information.
    2
  1218. It a lot smaller and cheaper than reaper.
    2
  1219.  @magecraft2  definitely not a smooth take over with the F35 only just in the UK and the Typhoon just getting new weapons capability.
    2
  1220.  @magecraft2  it does, so against something like ISIS it isn't as much of an upgrade over a Tornado with targeting pod.
    2
  1221. Ukraine has already taken total Russian victory off the table with Russia retreating from around Kyiv and northern Ukraine.
    2
  1222. Of course we'd use the fighters and not say the helicopters for humanitarian relief. A what the hell is a guy on the back of truck doing to a ship a hundred miles off shore? You comment was basically "if we use this vessel the worst way possible its not very good".
    2
  1223.  @_._._._._._._._._._._._._.____  this seems like it strengthen the regime and is helping stabilise the nearby area? The idea that everything must have an underlying motive suggests you see the world in some kind of comic book black and white. Britain does self interested things but it also does humanitarian things.
    2
  1224. He suggesting 54 tonnes so not going shreadable instead a bit lighter.
    2
  1225. The USMC is one of four main branches of the US military, a country much bigger than the UK, it being bigger than the UK forces isn't particularly odd.
    2
  1226. This isn't factions, its government troops. Its also not at all unusual.
    2
  1227.  @johnwhittle.22  if you change the entire structure of Russia it has potential...
    2
  1228. Nuclear war is scary
    2
  1229.  @Albertkallal  great rice imagery, people don't really understand numbers instinctively.
    2
  1230. @Birdy Flying you think that there's a conspiarcy not just in the a US military including the pilots whose life depends on the F35, but also in the dozen other countries buying it and it fact in countries like Russia and China that are developing there own stealth jets? Your Serbia comment just shows there has been on 1 stealth jet downed in countless sorties.
    2
  1231. None of the USs forward deployed Nimitz have F35s and only a couple of the helicopter carriers.
    2
  1232.  @mac6899  Crimea wasn't always Russian, it was occupied by Russia, like the Baltics only the process of replacing the native population was further on. Russia aren't scared of a NATO invasion, a prospect impractical without nuclear weapons, impossible with them. They are scared of losing the ability to bully there neighbours.
    2
  1233.  @mac6899  If the Baltics need Russia let them decide. NATO didn't invade Lithuania, it was invited in, by a democratic government. You mean when hundred of thousands of Ukrainian protested on the streets the government changed?
    2
  1234. Normal ICBMs are still MAD.
    2
  1235. The RN are only getting 48, which is normal times is plenty as only one carrier will be at sea at once. But you gain a lot of extra capability from filling both carriers in an emergency. For this to be possible you need the two groups to train together and have F35B's. It also goes the other way if there isn't a good carrier location. Would you prefer us not to have that ability (in exchange for cheaper/more RAF planes) STOVL is useful for RAF (though maybe not worth the downsides) so they can use them from small/adhoc forward bases. Remember it's an offensive aircraft unlikely to be used often from the UK. The main raeson the USMC wanted STOVL was for this reason, LHA's being secondary.
    2
  1236.  Brian Coley  if we hadn't retired them before we would have by now, basically we'd just have a bit more debt.
    2
  1237. Of course it's sugarcoating. War is horrific, even in victory, but it can be necessary.
    2
  1238. Level Moscow?
    2
  1239.  @OffordDarcy  You could as easily say we represent the Commonwealth as France represents the EU. Neither is true we represent ourselves.
    2
  1240. I'm a bit worried that this guy was high up in our military, he seems to have totally misunderstood the risk. The risk is from Putin escalating, not NATO escalating, and the veneer of the UN will mean nothing to him.
    2
  1241.  @jeremyhannaford1306  not naming powerful beings is a common trope, Voldemort just being a recent version.
    2
  1242. You even mention a war in the problems but you can't see defence is an essential?
    2
  1243. That's nuclear war.
    2
  1244. QE is not long since a 6 month deployment and is currently in the US?
    2
  1245. BAE is the 30th largest company in Britain and the only giant defence in Britain. I don't see how it can corrupt the whole state?
    2
  1246. Russia is arming militants, we're arming the government?
    2
  1247. I hope it turns out top notch but the issues mean I'll wait to be convinced. Particularly as is has so little cross compatability.
    2
  1248. 400k miles, nice stat.
    2
  1249. It'd be an easy way to take out some of there jets. It.also wouldn't happen.
    2
  1250. Not sure how you can be faster than 25+, 25 sure, but the 25+ just means more than 25.
    2
  1251.  @sshep86  Missiles end up going out of date and you have to dispose of them. It's also useful to test fire them every now and again. If we were using dozens the cost would be an issue but an odd one isn't.
    2
  1252.  @whya2ndaccount  It's limited in ships that could do as good a job, likely just Albion class and Type 45s. But they want to be using PoW to continue training up the crew to be match fit.
    2
  1253. They don't carry 72 strike aircraft, they long since cut down from what they are capable of carrying and there hasn't been a Nimtiz actively deployed with any F35s yet.
    2
  1254. Basically the opposite of what this tour has showed seeing 40 nations and many significant exercises.
    2
  1255. The F22 was the most advanced jet in 2006 when exports were banned. As production was stopped years ago there is no point in rescinding that ban.
    2
  1256.  @mbukukanyau  oh so more than a decade later and for the majority of its jet fleet the US decided to.use a worse technology, but just for the fuselage...
    2
  1257. The body of the jet itself works as a wing plus the enclosed weapons help.
    2
  1258. The alternative to a big war is being quickly conquered.
    2
  1259.  @VanderlyndenJengold  E3s aren't a big issue compared with some gaps, NATO has it's own as well as individual allies. From what I've heard the gap will see the crews training on Wedgetails so they will up to speed as soon as received.
    2
  1260.  @rowanmaguire7890  No you don't understand. You are living with yesterday's tech.
    2
  1261.  @rowanmaguire7890  yep, an autonomous fibreglass ship.
    2
  1262.  @rowanmaguire7890  they aren't traveling around the world. They are travelling dozens of miles from there mothership or land base.
    2
  1263.  @SaxonSuccess  No, most things are member state owned. AWACs is an exception. NATO itself runs a fleet of 14 E-3s, it's on there website if you want to have a look.
    2
  1264.  @roguedrones  1921, the maximum extent of the British Empire, largest navy in the world. What do you need to be a superpower?
    2
  1265.  @roguedrones  total tangent! Why do you think I'd be a minority. Majority of London is British like me. Is it because I'm Yorkshire, it'd be a bit weird if the majority of London was Yorkshire.
    2
  1266.  @roguedrones  A tangent as it has nothing to do with British power a hundred year ago, the topic we were talking about. But on your point skin colour is irrelevant.
    2
  1267.  @gcarter1973  it's be interesting to compare, Russia vs the UK or US. WW2 you have Russia invading Poland and Finland. And then both sides defensively invading loads. You then have USSR fighting on the opposite side of most of the proxy war the US fought. As well as it using it troops to suppress Eastern Europe. Recent Russia, has Chechnya, Georgia, Eastern Ukraine.
    2
  1268. Namesake doesn't have to mean named after, it can just be the same name.
    2
  1269. The biggest box is availability. Thats why the F16 is more likely.
    2
  1270. Excepts its the opposite, a standing army/militia has nothing to do with size but professionalism.
    2
  1271. In the context of general strategy this is a back up to air superiority. At the point where the enemy are running SEAD missions we've probably already lost.
    2
  1272. They aren't the same as US rangers, just the same name. Rangers isn't just a US name and they in fact got it from the British forebears.
    2
  1273.  @craigross341  got you, my bad.
    2
  1274. No one is claiming the Chinese navy is stronger because it has more ships but it is another milestone showing it's progress. It's building at a rate of knots and the size quality is getting better. Shandong is commissioned and a third carrier on the way for example.
    2
  1275.  @iamafish928  agreed, smashing the Russian army and occupying Russia are two very different prospects.
    2
  1276. The reality is more subtle. Not made in China but partially made by allies and partially the UK. So the question is how much needs to be the UK.
    2
  1277.  @marcusaetius9309  what poppycock.
    2
  1278. Not carrier capable, not stealthy. Maybe they could compete for the Typhoons job, they simply can't do the F35s.
    2
  1279. All the first world countries are allies.
    2
  1280. You get much more capability spending the money on extra planes than from a catapult.
    2
  1281. The whole discussion is about what we'd do to help Europe. Our "little island" isn't threatened.
    2
  1282. @Drew Peacock cheap missiles can't hit moving targets hundreds of miles beyond the horizon, expensive ones can only with the right support which you disrupt.
    2
  1283.  @zzirSnipzz1  why do you want guns, do you think we do a lot of shore bombardment?
    2
  1284. Maybe not Chinooks but RFA Mounts Bay should be there.
    2
  1285.  @randommadness1021  the whole point of him being in Britain was that he didn't surrender.
    2
  1286.  @paulcox9875  they aren't a threat to our interests. But it's also how you deal will a friend compared to an opponent. You coerce a friend and confront an opponent.
    2
  1287.  @paulcox9875  which would also benefit us?
    2
  1288. Infantry has always been key and there's no sign of it changing. Everything you talk about is ultimately for supprting infantry, it's them who ultimately take and hold ground.
    2
  1289.  @kurousagi8155  agreed the Rafale will match up to anything Pakistan or China has for a couple of decades. And effort can be spent making it better, like their Brahmos developments.
    2
  1290. Except they aren't firing anyone.
    1
  1291.  @Joe-fe4xi  those that are near an airfield, have survived without intensive care but need it, and can't be serviced by a helicopter. I doubt there are any, but it would be the same as any other life threatening illness or injury.
    1
  1292.  @millennialtrucker6435  If it's something they should have already had and will use after covid then I'm glad it's been done.
    1
  1293.  @rowanmaguire7890  it's a supplement to an air force, rather than long range SAMs. Ballistic missile defence would be a useful addition if there is a capable enough system, I think that's a big if though.
    1
  1294. Not compared to rocket systems or missiles but a mix allows for different benefits.
    1
  1295. There are people that can do a job and those that can't. Whats your point about males and females?
    1
  1296. Soldiers lose wars as well. If your facing an equally well trained army how do you make the difference.
    1
  1297.  @JohnDoe-kd5hq  Tactics using intelligence, mobility, and fire power. Ie. Technology.
    1
  1298. The US ships with F35Bs are first and foremost for marines, no ramp gives extra helicopter space.
    1
  1299. How close is too close?
    1
  1300. ​ @Iauchmitschlauch The UK rejoined the program rather than build on license so export are possible.
    1
  1301.  @Iauchmitschlauch  they rejoined what else can I tell you, whether or not it's justified it happened.
    1
  1302. Russia pulled back from the north and all the troops there, so at very least they can get to those. But by essentially surrounded you mean not surrounded.
    1
  1303. It's based on what we can move quickly.
    1
  1304. If we still have the Tornado in hanger it might technically be true but I think we're going to sell them the the Germans for spare parts (they're keeping there's going another 5 years). But no we will have less jets.
    1
  1305. A fifth of a carrier, 1 SSBN, 1 SSN, 5 destroyers, 5 frigates. Scary.
    1
  1306. Extra weight put on smaller wars we actually fight rather than the potential big war (that might go nuclear anyway). You get more sorties out of two big rather than four small carriers but more redundancy with the small. Also chances are we'd only have got 3 smaller anyway.
    1
  1307. There's always a budget, even if it was huge, you should make the most out of it.
    1
  1308.  Lee Ellak  Do you think Chinese and Russian intelligence services are so incompetent they need to get there info from You tube?
    1
  1309. It also causes losses beyond comprehension. The British Empire came down because of the cost of two world wars.
    1
  1310.  @charlesbrightman4237  that just sounds like subs with extra steps? It might work but it's the same basic battle detection.
    1
  1311. @charlesbrightman4237  and that might be the problem, the cost of a sub to do a mines job.
    1
  1312. Falklands was only about 30,000 people.
    1
  1313. Ukraine isn't a big oil and gas country.
    1
  1314. We actually have more service personnel per population than China.
    1
  1315.  @1IbramGaunt  how about 4k soldiers and keeping our tanks?
    1
  1316. Tell that to Russia, they've admitted to retreats
    1
  1317.  @guillerbrady9261  Firstly, NATO mission, therefore the US will be involved, honestly Trump is irrelevant, Congress would declare war. Even without the US, NATO is 28 other countries. With armed forces easily outnumbering Russia. We would be leading, not fighting alone. And what did you learn from Iraq and Afganistan? That we can't occupy a country? We wouldn't be trying to do that. Thats what the Russian would be doing, who also found they couldn't do that in Afganistan. And lastly our armed forces are 140k+.
    1
  1318.  @kevinhorgan2770  I don't remember any complaints about the British in the conventional war part (And in Iraq we deployed c.40k troops), it was only in the occupation, which we wouldn't be doing. It was armed forces before, not army. It always seem the best choice anyway as the marines will be at the front of anything. Our max deployment now is 40-50k (not sure how much is army) but we have c. 10k deployed at the moment so 12k is a laugh.
    1
  1319. Not if they just kept fighting. We couldn't invade Russia in 2 weeks.
    1
  1320. Disgrace for what? Its one of the bigger donors.
    1
  1321.  @davidrobertsemail  Challengers were the first western tank annouced and they are still weeks off going. Not being first to guve stuff away doesn't make you a disgrace, it makes you slightly less great.
    1
  1322.  @ThePalaeontologist  100 British soldier might beat any 100 other, the point is they would be facing 500 US or 2,000 Chinese. CANZUK isn't ever going to be a country.
    1
  1323.  @irateindividual8086  tankers are assets.
    1
  1324.  @irateindividual8086  We weren't going along woth the US we were enforcing EU sanctions. We are sanctioning a leader in Syria that has been bombing his own civilians. That seems right to me.
    1
  1325.  @irateindividual8086  it's not that he was fighting the war, but the manner in which he was fighting it. But of course I wouldn't back Islamic extremists, but that's not all the opposition fighting Assad. That you try an reduce it to that suggests you know your wrong. Its pretty easy to see there is other opposition from the biggest area left not under Assad being the SDF.
    1
  1326.  @irateindividual8086  the difference is how you deal with a friendly government compared to an adversary. With Saudi Arabia we can encourage them to better targets because we're in the room. One of the weapons we sell them in the paveway iv bomb. It more accurate but with less explosives than the alternative, that reduces collateral damage. We don't have that option with Syria. So we use adversarial methods, like sanctions. As for gas the UN have supported the fact the Syrian government has used it, it not just a western claim. I don't see an issue with using when your winning, if you think its helpful it still is. It seems more useful as a weapon of terror for suppression than a battle winner to me.
    1
  1327.  @mightbite3578  your saying someone needs putting down, yet I'm the one without morals? I'm from Yorkshire, and am very well educated.
    1
  1328.  @mightbite3578  do you even know what you wittering on about?
    1
  1329. FFBNW means more but less well armed ships. It's generally a good plan for peace time as you can up arm much quicker than build new ships.
    1
  1330.  @Luflandebrigade31  We didn't lose the tank to the RPG-29.
    1
  1331.  @BritishFreedom  the longest kill is actually Challenger 1.
    1
  1332.  @Luflandebrigade31  the tank wasn't recovered it was driven away.
    1
  1333. ​ @andreaaltan3982 no they wouldn't. Even things considered worse like cluster munitions and land mines aren't crimes against humanity.
    1
  1334. It is called the South China sea for a reason, because its south of China, not because it's Chinas (they don't even call it that).
    1
  1335.  @NikhilChandra  I'm sure China does refer the the SCS as it backyard that doesn't give it any rights.
    1
  1336.  @NikhilChandra  ignoring the rules they signed up to in UNCLOS.
    1
  1337. Money. Although you might be able to run a plane longer it gets more expensive. Chances are buying an running E7s became cheaper than running E3s. The gap sounds like it because the crews are off trainng on the new aircraft.
    1
  1338. It may just be essentially a 5th gen jet, 5th+ maybe. In which case it will be more optimised for air to air and longer ranges than the F35. So still better than the F35 for its chosen role. But there has been time that is likely to improvements an 6th gen seems likely to be about about a networked system rather than a specific jet and that's the chance for it to shine
    1
  1339.  @stretfordender11  It isn't always. It is sometimes. Issues in Ukriane for example has nothing to do with Islam. Even Iraq, the root cause is much more Western interference, Islam is simply fighting back.
    1
  1340.  @stretfordender11  Urkaine isn't the threat, it's Russia. Who've actually killed someone in the UK, in Salisbury.
    1
  1341.  @californiadreamin8423  never said seriously.
    1
  1342.  @californiadreamin8423  so why did you say he did?
    1
  1343.  @californiadreamin8423  no, your lying. When you say someone said something they didn't, thats a lie. Its very clear cut.
    1
  1344.  @NickyKDChaleunphone  because it isn't needed, there's space see the Khareef class. But UAV wise containerised operation is quiet possible.
    1
  1345. ​ @PAllen74 a lot of what you've written is just untrue. We have enough type 45s, we have lots of multirole fighters, our second carrier is no more a helicopter carrier than the first as they use the same air wing as they were always supposed to do.
    1
  1346. ​@TheDrummingWarrior are you sure your talking about harriers, its not spec'd for F35Bs but thats a much bigger aircraft.
    1
  1347. By annoucing maorj spending rises?
    1
  1348. Will is all important but west isn't weak, it smashed the Taliban in weeks in 2001.using only airpower and special forces, what it's problem is is a short attention span. Thats the risk in Ukraine.
    1
  1349.  @niallrussell7184  fair point, too short if different to actually short. 20 years was a long time just not long enough to entrench democracy.
    1
  1350.  Ian Mclean  how do you get 33% and 37% makes it mostly British?
    1
  1351. It might actually be the most important part, the easiest battle is the one you don't have to fight.
    1
  1352.  @Benjd0  maybe he just accepts Britannia rules the waves so all waters are our waters.
    1
  1353. It's one of the most stable countries in the region.
    1
  1354. @Dave-us5fq  no they cover essentially the same role, there maybe some areas Hercules is better at but overall Atlas is better. Had it been retired in 2030 with Atlas in full flow there'd be no issue.
    1
  1355. @Dave-us5fq  SF insertion is a small part of Hercules role, one that Atlas will also be able to do, if less well.
    1
  1356. Asian leaders disagree.
    1
  1357.  @khooboobeng2184  True but there's no enslaving going on so why mention it.
    1
  1358. What do you think are kind is? We've fought all through our history, as do large parts of the animal kingdom. Nothing strange happening.
    1
  1359. NATO covers Europe and North America, which was why the Falklands was exempt. Basically because of Empires I guess it could be changed now
    1
  1360. On the otherisde it's a waste to use long range stand off munitions when you can use cheaper munitions from closer.
    1
  1361.  @barrysoetorro9123  You seemingly missed my point, you might be spending $1m extra per shot for a long range weapon. When you start getting into long term wars your better spending more on the platform than the munitions. And that ignoring the fact on countries with strategic depth you need to stealth just to get in range to use the long range weapon. Also on Russia, Himars changed the flow of the war, because actually hitting your target is a big advantage.
    1
  1362.  @barrysoetorro9123  You know Russia has been pushed back over recent months not advanced? You seem to be advocating for a Russian style that's failing?
    1
  1363.  @barrysoetorro9123  head ... sand ... yawn.
    1
  1364. Shouldn't do. But no one is cannon fodder in the British army any more.
    1
  1365. The decision process was the ships were built around the jets. So these were built with 36 jets in mind. So say you decide to split it as 3 x 24 in stead of 2 x 36. The problem is you need some looking after the fleet. So say 12 look after the fleet. That then means the 24 jet ship only attacks with 12 compared to the 36 ship with 24. So you are getting only half the power projection for 2/3 the price.
    1
  1366.  @MajorRoadAhead  is your point that you could fit 36 jets in a 45k tonnes ship? If so then you could but your not getting the most out of your jets. The Royal Navy thought was the wrong way round. You do after all spend less on the ship than the jets.
    1
  1367.  @MajorRoadAhead  not having all your planes available makes my pount even stronger. Lose 1/6 of your jets, the 24 does to 20, only 8 for offence, the 36 goes to 30, 18 for offence more than double. And lifetime idea is like US carriers, much longer than normal ships. We've never built anything this big before so our precedents aren't so useful.
    1
  1368.  @MajorRoadAhead  how does refuel frequency link to service life?
    1
  1369. ​ @Toddel1234567 that has Britain part of the design, even up to the prototype phase.
    1
  1370.  @Toddel1234567  Except it wasn't quick, it was 6 years including the design competition and up until the first prototypes.
    1
  1371.  @gustavmeyrink_2.0  1996-2003.
    1
  1372. The UK consistently spends far more on the British public than on defence, and that defence not some imagined war machine.
    1
  1373. Nothing has been released changing F35 numbers, what you heard was just speculation. There's a defence review going on, cutting should be looked at as option if only to confirm it's the wrong option.
    1
  1374.  @mwtrolle  1 Ford class is about 50% more than 2 QE class.
    1
  1375. ​ @vld1600 there are still tanks, artillery, drones, fighters, helicopters and personal ATGMs for destroying tanks.
    1
  1376.  @catlee8064  You say initial part of the conflict as if that some how negates the point, do you think we'll never have an initial part again? And I don't know the route but the obvious one would be over Pakistan not Iran, so again your making pointless points. I do know it happened.
    1
  1377. The US would be sucked into a wider war, better to make that clear-up front and try to prevent it happening.
    1
  1378.  Shaun Mclaren  Iraq was after Afganistan. And HMS Ark Royal was there.
    1
  1379.  @Joshua_N-A  It's about 10 now and basically all have been moving toward it since 2014.
    1
  1380. If he was destroyed by Russians sure, but from outside it would galvanize the country.
    1
  1381. Sure, operation shader, against ISIS.
    1
  1382. Lots if the F35 was built abroad, so for example it's called 15% is British built bit they aren't buying 15% so net the US might be importing
    1
  1383.  @alessiofe  the US didn't ban the export of the F15. It's not air superiority in general, just individual decisions based on the aircraft.
    1
  1384.  @charlesfisher3983  possibly, but the inclusion of SAMs that is problematic, I think Kaliningrad is closer than Finland but still a long way off the North Sea. Also they'd need refueling aircraft for fighters.
    1
  1385. Its designed aroubd 36 F35B and will normally 24 on an op, though it could fly more in surge conditions
    1
  1386. APS is part of the plan as revealed elsewhere, just not part of this contract.
    1
  1387. I agree with giving them MIGs but it would only have made a small difference.
    1
  1388.  @JCJW101  we can't know for certain of course but there were only a few available simple lack of sorties possible limits what they could have done.
    1
  1389. We've spent years bombing the hell out if this group we support? My ignorance is apparently not listening to quack theories on the internet.
    1
  1390. Russianhas a great long list of invading it neighbours. Recently Georgia and Ukraine.
    1
  1391.  @Temerator1  Your characterisation is a load of rubbish but even then it's not just when "defending its territory".
    1
  1392.  @buzzkitchen6606  Enough troops to do what? The only vaguely close threat is Russia, this is training troops fighting Russia.
    1
  1393. Boxer is troop transport, Ajax is recon. Plus tracks.
    1
  1394. We do work around the world that's about preventing war. Some of it is about fighting terrorism, though we work more from the perspective of training others to fight for themselves than fighting ourselves.
    1
  1395. In the 80s it was the USSR, Russia is showing it's own weakness currently.
    1
  1396. But they do help before that, and given that isn't going to happen we should be spending on computers.
    1
  1397. The Imperialist in this context is China. They are claiming territory not there's, bullying there neighbours, replacing natives in there territory.
    1
  1398.  @eymeeraosaka2954  Tibet or Xinjiang
    1
  1399.  @eymeeraosaka2954  the Falklands has never been Argentinian. We are united with the Republic of Ireland over Northern Ireland, it will return when it's people want to. Diego Garcia more dubious but very small in scale compared to China.
    1
  1400.  @eymeeraosaka2954  You don't speak for Asia. This was a diplomatic tour talking in 40 nations and multiple exercises WITH Asian nations.
    1
  1401.  @eymeeraosaka2954  The Falklands is self governing but chooses to stay an overseas territory, in large part because Argentina wants to annex it despite it never being part of Argentina. On Northern Ireland the whole point is less than half want to join the Republic, when it's more than half they will join. You know Turks don't come from Turkey? They are a step people. My whole point is China are acting like Britain once did. Han Chinese are moving into areas that weren't there's.
    1
  1402.  @eymeeraosaka2954  You speak for yourself, you don't speak for Asia.
    1
  1403.  @eymeeraosaka2954  the world certainly isn't behind the US starting a war with China, nor is the UK. What are you on about. As an actual example if what is actually going on, whilst on it's tour the UK reaffirmed it commit to the Five Powers agreement, two of which are Singapore and Malaysia.
    1
  1404.  @eymeeraosaka2954  Britain is fine economically, I'm not a fan of Brexit but the change is extremely close to very close. We are still working very closely with France, for example collaborating on Misisles following on from Meteor with the likes of Sea Venom and the up and coming FC/ASW. We understand we have differences but ultimately we are democracies that compared to China look like twins. Even with China we continue to trade, just with a more cautious approach.
    1
  1405. You doubt wrongly, as this video listed there a lots of helicopters that will fly from her.
    1
  1406.  @jimmymc10021  yes, it isn't at full strength yet. But that's not what you doubted.
    1
  1407.  Waterybint *  F35? No we haven't.
    1
  1408.  RE fan  urm, you know typhoons don't fly off carriers ...
    1
  1409. There's no insanity, we have limited numbers they can be doing other things if a mission doesn't require them.
    1
  1410.  @craigbeatty8565  During it lifetime it needs aircraft, for a particular mission it doesn't. Restaurants can't run command and control for a fleet.
    1
  1411. @Drew Peacock for a single job it doesn't need aircraft for!
    1
  1412. @Drew Peacock PoW has access to the same air wing as QE, they aren't carrier specific. Drones to supplement F35s seems good to me. It is something be looked at, we have our own program, but buying would also be an option.
    1
  1413. @Drew Peacock F35s are avaible as they are. Valkyrie isn't production aircraft. If you think you can define anything about its capability your wrong.
    1
  1414. Not really a question about the tank but the rest of the armed forces.
    1
  1415. They do share.
    1
  1416. Our grandkids money.
    1
  1417. We have jets in Romania.
    1
  1418. It isn't true, the last announce was funding for 74 and past the to be a future decision.
    1
  1419. Fek The First I agree but when you get to that few it stops being worth it. Plus late in life we might want to cannablise a few to keep the rest running.
    1
  1420. Fek The First As long as we get 90 B's I'm happy.
    1
  1421. No one has the same capability as the USAF but they aren't the competition. We can can act alone in a lot of situations and compared to the vast majority of countries we at still a big player.
    1
  1422.  @ghostwriter2031  every country except the US can can only act in a limited manner. We can handle basically any threat to the UK, because no one (except the US) can project an large force across distance at sea.
    1
  1423.  @Fyrd-Fareld  it highlights quite a few British donations.
    1
  1424.  @djamal5348  the US is mentioned as the largest donor by far. Turkey on the other hand has given very little, many of the TB2 were a pre war sale, other have been bought by donations from other countries or the Baykar company and not the Turkish government.
    1
  1425.  @Accidental_Luck  Ajax like Scimitar has the main gun. There were plenty of Spartans, Samson etc. in the CVR(T) group like there are Ares, Atlas, etc.
    1
  1426.  @Accidental_Luck  so you can go back to my first reply.
    1
  1427. What are you expecting it to look like?
    1
  1428. Half of the US complains about NATO, not the sign of a puppet.
    1
  1429. I love to see India in the channel, we could do some ops together like we have been doing in the Indian ocean.
    1
  1430. Just European NATO massively outspends, outmans and outtechs Russia.
    1
  1431.  @jacobschnberg5382  Your just showing your ignorance
    1
  1432. It hardly sent a fractions of what It has.
    1
  1433. Why? It's already going to be years til we can fill our carriers and you want to slow that down even further buying a mix.
    1
  1434.  @jamiewalker8131  our order rate is purely a financial question. Money for A's means less money for B's.
    1
  1435.  @Myst3ryM4nn  the C is the furthest behind and the most expensive if you include the launch gear, why would you buy it?
    1
  1436.  @Myst3ryM4nn  its not built for our carriers. When has range been an issue? It looks good on a stat sheet but in pratice? But yes the C has better range, the B has better launch rate and less wear on landing. B and C are a similar price. So you need an argument that means a dozen less Cs is better because you have to pay for cat and traps.
    1
  1437. It isn't leading in terms of dominating but being to first to step forward. An example of where we lead is the NATO JEF, smaller countries don't have the capability to do it themsleves but can contribute to make the whole stronger.
    1
  1438.  @1chish  we do have a good history with Italy and our current fleet is similar. That seems a great fit. I'm hoping Sweden will keep the costs in check so we can afford a good number of them.
    1
  1439.  @1chish  You have Leonardo working on the Gripen radar too.
    1
  1440.  @1chish  Dassault does have small amount of stealth experience from the nEUROn project. Also a lot of there problems come from not being allowed to lead and reportedly they are, in exchange for Germany leading on Tanks. The talk from Dassault suggests Airbus involvement is purely for the money.
    1
  1441.  @1chish  I don't want to work with France, I just think they will also make a capable jet.
    1
  1442.  @Sedna063  I think the making a jet alone thing is a red herring. It's important if you've relied on another country for a specific area but I don't see any major gap in team Tempest.
    1
  1443. Why would struggling against Ukraine make you think attacking NATO would be a good idea?
    1
  1444.  @АлексейИванов-ъ4х1н  That is an attack on NATO. An frankly about the most provocative thing you could get.
    1
  1445. The club that Ukraine wasn't part of?
    1
  1446. ​ @iamjames8200 China is still way behind the US in the military.
    1
  1447. Developing everything ourselves is a total waste of money. Jobs come from successful exports and thats about making sure what we do develop is class leading not developing everything. We are only looking at 100-200 guns.
    1
  1448. They'll fly from the most appropriate base, be it land or sea.
    1
  1449. Covering our air space is better done by planes, you can see a lot further from 40,000 feet. A few more for key strategic positions might be useful though.
    1
  1450.  @bobthebomb1596  I think a surprise SSGN strike has a good chance of hitting no matter what. The idea that we can be invulnerable is dangerous. I don't have any issue relying on AWACs cover from NATO, that what it's there for, the worry is if that cover is good enough.
    1
  1451.  @bobthebomb1596  I'm not sure Sampson and Aster adds that much over sky sabre other than cost as your standard attack would be low altitude cruise missiles. Could be wrong but I think you need classified intelligence to make the decision.
    1
  1452.  @panzerfaust1  The US still has the B61 which is a tactical nuke and is deployed to be dropped by various NATO members.
    1
  1453.  @AzaiReacts  the US isn't paying it for NATO, it's paying for the US.
    1
  1454. Your right we probably wouldn't accept it but we've also been clear we aren't going to fight even if Ukriane is invaded, nor do we have the troops near to do so.
    1
  1455.  @cyanoticspore6785  Ajax isn't filling the IFV role, its reconnaissance and variants.
    1
  1456.  @cyanoticspore6785  basically because the army is at the back of the queue for money (plus recently they've had some bad acquisition programs). The plan was to upgrade Warrior like we are doing with Challenger, but it was cut. So rather than one vehicle that can deliver and support troops it's just deliver or support. We might get a few more boxers but it won't make up the short fall.
    1
  1457. Its in the the Baltic states, a little cheaper than the Netherlands
    1
  1458. They are generally more complex so need a longer training regiment and there is the added danger of hitting a mistaken target, more than one airliner has been shot down by mistake.
    1
  1459.  @HingerlAlois  Yeah, civilian airplanes are avoiding the area. My point was more to illustrate that even supposedly trained crews have had issues, so it's not something you can rush training for.
    1
  1460.  @latch9781  They've sold them to lots of countries
    1
  1461.  Hammer 001  It is a bit of a technicality as both sets of will be trained to fly from land and sea and be based at Marham, but the official split is 48/90 As an example the video is talking about 617 squadron, which is an RAF squadron. So these first ones are RAF. This deployment is to an RAF base but the same squadron will be on Queen Elizabeth later on. The idea is they just fly from the where ever is best for the mission. We have to hope interservice rivalry doesn't get in the way.
    1
  1462.  Hammer 001  the weapons bay difference is small. Cruise missiles don't fit inside either. But you seem to be blanking the fact 617 is a RAF squadron and we'll only be getting F35B for the next few years at least. If it was all Navy why wouldn't they activate 809 first?
    1
  1463. Conqueroring Russia is historical hard, beating them not so much, so you have to leave them an out.
    1
  1464. Russia isn't a Superpower, it has a smaller economy than the UK.
    1
  1465.  @danielkrcmar5395  The £17bn blackhole was a 10 years one so less than half the increase is needed to fill it.
    1
  1466.  @danielkrcmar5395  how do you figure that? There was a £17bn blackhole in the ten year equipment plan, so that roughly £1.7bn a year and £4bn a year extra is being spent.
    1
  1467. There about 20 years old. Still have more legs but not new.
    1
  1468. batman they don't have the manfacturing processes written in the side of the plane. Also why would you want that?
    1
  1469.  @studinthemaking  Theres no point in going faster than your fleet plus America class is 20+knots
    1
  1470. China doesn't care about Russia. They are happy to use Russia for resources and to distract the west but they aren't going to war for them.
    1
  1471. Having a stronger navy is a good start, seeing your navy improve rather than diminish is a big moral boost.
    1
  1472.  @tanner1111  Much is the kit is the same between Iraq and Russia, the difference is that Quran comes with more will to fight.
    1
  1473. Pensions are included in NATO comparisons because that's what was agreed so all members do the same.
    1
  1474.  @TheRogueElement  without the US, Europe out techs, out mans and massively out spends Russia.
    1
  1475. Calum Spencer with hindsight the US is still struggling with EMALs and we were never going steam. The F35C is also behind the other two.
    1
  1476. Russia attack a Poland, NATO enters the war.
    1
  1477. It's odd for either side to lie about as it's obviously going to come out.
    1
  1478. Ooo. I do hope there's a thunderbird 4 module. And a mole.
    1
  1479. What should we have planned for? We haven't gone to war.
    1
  1480.  @jej3451  Harriers show some countries will buy others retiring kit but on specifics it's great example against the initial post. It's the RAF getting rid of old kit and the USAF wanting to run it, the opposite to the suggestion. The Harriers were also bought to support existing aircraft not as a new operation.
    1
  1481.  @a_huddz7866  B52 was one example, but see also F16, F15, A10. The USAF is happy to use old kit if it's still effective even when there is a better version available. So if the USAF is getting rid there is problem, this may well be a cost/benefit rather than obsolescence one but cost will only be be worse for a country buying without the existing expertise or maintenance set up.
    1
  1482. Lol, Russia has constantly spent more of its GDP on the military than even the US. And the US has spent only a small fraction of it's annual military budget on Ukraine.
    1
  1483.  @BatMan-oe2gh  where's the joke bit?
    1
  1484.  @BatMan-oe2gh  that made me chuckle at least.
    1
  1485. They aren't getting nuclear weapons.
    1
  1486. It's about having different environments, plenty of obstacles in the UK, not so many praires. We need to be ready for anything.
    1
  1487. The problem is stocks so low that there isn't time for production to get going.
    1
  1488. It actually makes sense to do a patch job now, there are new MBT programs in the works from the US and Europe but not soon enough. Working with Rheinmentall in particular sets us up well for the European one.
    1
  1489.  @Tim9999999991  yep, run for a decade and then pick up a replacement from a choice of next gen tanks.
    1
  1490. ​@maryginger4877 people do like to describe everything as a wunderweapon. Even officials get involved though they like the term game changer.
    1
  1491. @jimramsey8887  yeah, not ideal, but I think the issues have been more a case of improving capability than us not having something usable.
    1
  1492.  @brunol-p_g8800  we're talking about Merlin Crowsnest.
    1
  1493. @death_parade  No, the most frustrating thing about the delays is it was supposed to be the easy continuation and not something new and risky.
    1
  1494. I'd hate to be in your family if you think it's reasonable to shoot your brother for having a friend you don't like.
    1
  1495. It's about the highest level before nuclear weapons start being a major part of the calculations.
    1
  1496. These Chinese Navy is based on local defence. It is relying on it's air force for cover. Without out that a destroyer is of little use. Power projection is measured is subs and carriers, destroyers are simply carrier protection.
    1
  1497. A no fly zone risks nuclear war, that's why it's not being done. NATO is continuing to pride missiles of various types. I think something could be sorted with the MIGs, but how is important.
    1
  1498. Armed reconnaissance.
    1
  1499.  @catlee8064  updating the Warrior design and building new vehicles is going to be basically the same cost as Ajax. Boxer is a Mastiff replacement.
    1
  1500.  @stephencockett9959  that's evidence of there friendship, despite being in opposite sides they aren't attacking each other. And I don't think Isreal cares that much about Assad. They don't want Iran there, or a particular strong Syria.
    1
  1501. @kentucky fried Smiles are the outward sign, expats are the likely cause. But it weapons sales that confirms it to me. Russia uses Israeli drones.
    1
  1502. ​ @asb358 they have enquired about emals for drones, to supplement the F35Bs.
    1
  1503. The war a we've fought over the last 20 years have used tanks. They aren't the powerhouses of the past hence only 148 but are still useful.
    1
  1504. Ukraine aren't going to claim the air like NATO could, so they would be better with drones from 50 feet.
    1
  1505. We can produce better, the F15E is a great workhorse but it's not the best.
    1
  1506. It's not a direct replacement, it's more Boxer and Ajax together will cover the duties of transport and support. A dedicated IFV would be better but on a limited budget fewer vehicle types should mean more vehicles.
    1
  1507. No it replacing the CVR(T) ie. Scimitar. Most won't be personal carriers, though a few Ares are.
    1
  1508. They have the experience, so they know to attack now or wait til summer. No point in making it hard for themselves.
    1
  1509.  @LoremIpsum1970  other countries run there own operations but get training and ideas from the central point.
    1
  1510. The F35 was always a fighter for export.
    1
  1511.  @happyhap7207  whats your 12000 years earlier site?
    1
  1512. Its also what led to a lack of European wars during the cold war.
    1
  1513.  @Who.Knew-The.Salt.MustFlow  It's not about Ukraine being under the wests control, it's about it being under Ukrainian control.
    1
  1514.  @Who.Knew-The.Salt.MustFlow  Yes
    1
  1515. There is no mystery. It wasn't a military defeat, it was a political one. The west simply didn't care enough.
    1
  1516. Not sure it worth the risk at the moment when Ukrainians can pop over the border for training and we can provide intelligence remotely.
    1
  1517. Outnumbered by who? NATO jets vastly outnumber Russian ones.
    1
  1518. Bonface Murithi we continue you to develop it but it's not stealth and can't fly from carriers so was never an option for this role.
    1
  1519. How do you think that means it's a colony? Why do you think it mess sense to say contradictory things? Either the UK is a power controlling or it's irrelevant and weak. The two are contradictory. But the truth is it's neither, it's neither controlling nor weak, it's just a normal country.
    1
  1520.  @fredsas12  They are both multirole but they are still designed around a specialisation. Typhoon is a master interceptor and jack of other fields. F35 is a master strike aircraft and jack of other trades. Multirole means you have more aircraft doing to job you need at the time. They can pick the appropriate role.
    1
  1521.  @fredsas12  F35B isn't short range, it is shorter than a C but it's still 75% of its range. F14 was dropped because it was pointless, the F18 could do it's job as well as it along with being multirole.
    1
  1522. They are talking about an upgrade that hasn't happened yet?!
    1
  1523.  @nagmashot  lol, what video were you watching.
    1
  1524.  @nagmashot  why are you still talking about Challenger 2? This video is about Challenger 3. The first sentenece in this video, most lethal tanks Challenger 3.
    1
  1525. It doesn't need to go now. These will only start entering service in 15 years.
    1
  1526. Thanks, I hope Five powers is the basis for closer ties and views closer to issue are welcome.
    1
  1527. Better ships also = better protection it's a balance. Also MLRS is basically a better version of HIMARS, the difference is publicity.
    1
  1528.  @lynby6231  Practically, yeah both 120mm rifled, technically there different variants.
    1
  1529.  @drdelewded  a few years ago the top three threats to the US were rated as China, China and China. Hyperbole but the US has very much moved it's attention on.
    1
  1530.  @rat_king-  what are you babbling about?
    1
  1531.  @HeidiLandRover  Saving money is a great thing. Though you say you already knew you reply doesn't seem to follow. It's a joint force not an RAF force.
    1
  1532.  @kodiak64  it's the opposite. This is a defence Secretary that respects the traditions. She's a royal navy reservist, ships are female, so of course a ship of the sky is also female.
    1
  1533. She's been linked with quiet a few other navies but it depends on how much it would cost to get to there spec and whether the RN want bits of her.
    1
  1534. Yep nothing to do with Russian invading Ukraine, why are we even talking about it....
    1
  1535. So we would worry them then. We don't work in isolation. When we sent our carrier to the SCS we stopped at 40 countries and exercised with the Japan, the US, India, South Korea, Australia... Anything with do with respect to Russia is in the context of NATO.
    1
  1536.  @Mrstrangert392  Some did, India wasn't one of them.
    1
  1537. Rather than bullets think missiles, shells and bombs.
    1
  1538. Wondered the same, you'll have the stay aware when your in camo.
    1
  1539.  @Joshua_N-A  Japan has a bigger population and GDP than Germany.
    1
  1540. Yes, but the complexity is how much in what particular situation.
    1
  1541.  @zangrygrapes4571  so everyone but allies and China?
    1
  1542. Lol, what a joke, you think you need to get pushed into military support when your next to a giant country that invaded you?
    1
  1543. The F35 has been overpriced but it ain't a dud. It's being snapped up around the world.
    1
  1544. NATO isn't invading?
    1
  1545.  @henry-b3301  Where's the invasion? Are ypu saying soverign country choosing to join NATO is an invasion? If you make a promise in international diplomacy you put it in a treaty, anything else is less that worthless.
    1
  1546.  @henry-b3301  This isn't US expansion, it countries wanting NATO protection. The Baltics and Poland have been repeated invaded by Russia and came out of decades of Russian oppression. They don't have nuclear weapons or a massive army. And Russia has proved it willingness to intervene militarily in it's neighbours. And NATO didn't even station troops there until after Crimea and then only token forces of around a thousand each. It wasn't 100s of thousands of Americans on the streets Kiev in 2014, it was 100s of thousands Ukrianian, and it wasn't even for a move towards NATO, it was towards the EU. The UK wasn't threaten by Argentine claims it was the invasion (an actual invasion) that was the issue.
    1
  1547.  @Patient-Unknown  the bit at 4:45?
    1
  1548.  @Patient-Unknown  the silent service?
    1
  1549. How do you pronounce it?
    1
  1550. Renting is more flexible owning, it may well be worse but it is more flexible.
    1
  1551. In case your interested in understanding? Friendly and well governed is great, friendly and badly governed or unfriendly and well governed can be worked with, unfriendly and badly governed is a problem. There's no hypocracy just depth.
    1
  1552. Its a war between two countries that didn't sign up for it?
    1
  1553. @Batman Summer protesting against Trump is not protesting against America. He's an absolute bell end.
    1
  1554.  @markrl75  It was Cameron not May. Do you see why your not coming across as credible?
    1
  1555.  @markrl75  I'd spend a bit no more, but no more than 2.5%.
    1
  1556.  @markrl75  it's not creative accounting, it's the NATO agreed parameters. '81 is the height of the cold war, not something to compare to.
    1
  1557.  @markrl75  including pensions was at was agreed by NATO in a conversation that included the US. It makes sense to me, pensions are just part of the benefits like pay. We also meet the 20% spend on kit agreed by NATO. Why bring up a European defence union, we are in NATO where multinational fleets are common place.
    1
  1558.  @markrl75  France is one of our closest allies, of course we have bilateral agreements with them. That's the opposite of a European Defence union, it's about being decisive as a pair. We have whole variety of agreements but I haven't heard of anything specifc with Germany recently, in fact we've just pulled troops out. We're you referring to something specifc? We aren't cheating, we're using the agreed rules.
    1
  1559.  @VanderlyndenJengold  Feet and Stones are pretty common for a persons height and weight.
    1
  1560. Makes sense pensions are a labour cost like wages and its the NATO standard so when comparing its the same as others.
    1
  1561.  @TheBenj30  can't see anyone thinking 2010 SDSR was anything other than massive cuts.
    1
  1562. Planes and ships, we're an island. Tanks are just something heavy to transport.
    1
  1563.  @bandhsilvers1  battleship?
    1
  1564. There are lots of Russian troops in Ukraine to being going at for a long time yet.
    1
  1565.  @ape72patch1  by that point Russia's lost, and are just burning there own money.
    1
  1566. Russia is fighting it's fellow slavs and the ones that suffer the most are civilians, from areas high in Russian or Russian speaking people. Try to frame it as against the US all you want but they aren't fighting and dieing on either side.
    1
  1567. Different maintenance training, different spares, different upgrades. They are basically two different planes.
    1
  1568.  @Locutus494  Parts are only about 30% the same between the two aircraft.
    1
  1569. @Blob B that how it's starts, and why they thought they could do 3 in 1. But say because the fuelisage is wider the wings are slightly different where they attach, the space taken by the lift fan means a smaller fuel tank and weapons bay, engine parts must be adjusted to attach the lift system. Then when testing the adjustments you need to make are slightly different.
    1
  1570. We only have a few frigates/ destroyers to far for it it be a issue
    1
  1571. We're in Romania, he could mean the Balkans.
    1
  1572.  @rat_king-  rifles are legal in the UK. The type of rifle a citizen needs has no relevance to the military.
    1
  1573.  @marcusaetius9309  If your talking about Sebia and Kososvo rather than the full Yugoslavia I can at least see where your coming from.
    1
  1574.  @frankrenda2519  lol, why would struggling against Ukraine make you think Russia had a hope in hell against NATO?
    1
  1575. There offensive will be stopped by mud before the Russians arrive.
    1
  1576. Offering peace means nothing, it depends on the terms.
    1
  1577. Shooting terrorists hasn't got rid of them and cost plenty, might as well try ask nicely while making money.
    1
  1578. Who is going to bring non nuclear war to us?
    1
  1579.  @azr2.0  that seems a bit of a contradiction, BAE have a monopoly but the UK buy a it's kit? Neither is really true but both have some small merit.
    1
  1580. When?
    1
  1581. The British Empire never maintained a large army, it relied on it's gadgets. Now we are just the UK we don't need a huge force. We need to be able to deploy and sustain that force at speed.
    1
  1582.  Somarik Green  a coup by putting half a million normal Ukrainians on the streets of Kiev?
    1
  1583. Basically flying at an unsustainable sortie rate. Your not keeping up with maintenance but putting more jets in the air for a key time.
    1
  1584. Defence gets multiple times the money that foreign aid gets and can often do the same work. Carrot and stick.
    1
  1585. Still in use.
    1
  1586. There's no after the war, we are learning from them now. That said, lessons have to be taken with a pinch of salt as we would fight quiet differently.
    1
  1587. @Svannuta  no I think expanding an existing industry can be done in a couple of years.
    1
  1588.  @你不认识我-f3x  which?
    1
  1589. Roger Rabbit Britain is the saviour of the US. A Europe united under Soviet or Nazis control would have won the cold war.
    1
  1590. Not to put boots on the ground?
    1
  1591. You know killing enemy combatants in war isn't a war crime?
    1
  1592. Simple, we'd use much more fighting than we are sending.
    1
  1593. Where is a statement about autonomy in that quote?
    1
  1594.  @dean1039  We give much more to our own than others. You can never solve the home problem so you'd never give to others.
    1
  1595.  @dean1039  only 2% of our spending goes on foreign aid, that doesn't seem high to me. Homelessness could be better, and I'd spend more on it, but you won't get rid of it, it's too much about mental health and addiction issues.
    1
  1596.  @yfelwulf  the F35B doesn't have a gun, nor is it the USN version. Clutter is just a case of getting used to the new system. The helmet weight would be a problem but from what I remember it was only for smaller pilots and even that had been fixed.
    1
  1597.  @mclarenm1  we didn't have a large standing army in the days of empire.
    1
  1598. New F35s fly over to the UK with refueling aircraft, they don't need picking up.
    1
  1599.  @splatoonistproductions5345  so there aren't specific QE and PoW F35s, they will fly from either as appropriate, or from land as they are shared with the RAF. Currently we only have twenty odd, so though they have flown from PoW it's not been common as QE has been deployed. One thing to note which might be relevant is there are specific test versions in the US with extra instrumentation so the carriers may head over to take advantage of them. Technically 3 of those are ours but in practice it's just a communal pool.
    1
  1600.  @splatoonistproductions5345  It is a choice, partly its about money but it also about continually buying jets so you don't get all of them getting old at the same time and on the production side you want to be building constantly not building loads and then none. We aren't simply buying F35s we are part of the production, the lift fan for example is built by Rolls Royce.
    1
  1601. It says "win when it really matters". You fail during training so you win when it's real.
    1
  1602.  @danielkrcmar5395  your not intending to make mistakes, your pushing yourself. The whole point is failing shouldn't be seen as horrible, it a normal part of aiming high.
    1
  1603. The UK isn't under threat of invasion. This isn't about defending the UK but the UK defending other countries.
    1
  1604.  @lospolloshermanosfamily2986  its not about thinking of an answer its getting enough people trained and equipped.
    1
  1605. We aren't defending the rich countries, we are defending the poor, and we are defending them along side the likes of the Dutch and French.
    1
  1606. Those being retired will likely be cannibalised for parts to keep the upgraded ones going given they've been out of production for decades. I think they will also be concerned about ammo stocks as they don't use commonly used rounds.
    1
  1607.  @paulrevere2379  yes they do.
    1
  1608. Lol, at very least it would be an MI6 channel. It's the British forces channel.
    1
  1609.  @DaRovmeister  what's rust streaks got to do with the integrity of the vessel?
    1
  1610. More like 20m and Waterloo was when we were at war.
    1
  1611.  @johnallen7807  You prepare for war but you don't keep war time strength during peace time. Particularly when your an island whose neighbours are allies. Putin is showing the folly of empty numbers and lack of allies.
    1
  1612.  @johnallen7807  France is very clearly our ally. I know soldier don't just appear but there is no one capable of invading for them to need to just appear.
    1
  1613.  @johnallen7807  Not sure what point you were making there, you seem to be repeating France is an ally and even when they disagreed with command specifics they remained an ally?
    1
  1614.  @Mmjk_12  We do have F35s?
    1
  1615.  @Mmjk_12  because there's so many T50 and J20s around?
    1
  1616.  @richardfinnigan7458  what the pretending? QEs trip across the world had Dutch and US ships. But it can deploy alone on smaller scale, like we did with Sierra Leone.
    1
  1617.  @richardfinnigan7458  bit of a tangent but some rationalisation would make sense. However you need to replace the word "able" with "willing". Democratic powers have only supplied Ukraine with a small fraction of there own kit and often old stuff at that.
    1
  1618. We've long accepted we're middle weight. The question is how to be middle weight.
    1
  1619.  @vertie2090  Hardware that can be afforded by Syria. Ie. Not the most capable or in quantity. A2AD is about the whole, not just individual systems but if those systems are improved the whole is much harder to crack.
    1
  1620.  @vertie2090  as a rule I don't believe a word that comes out of Russia's mouth, but air defence is a speciality of there's so I wouldn't be complacent.
    1
  1621.  @vertie2090  one of there own surveillance aircraft as well, Russia kit, used by Syria.
    1
  1622. By copy do you just mean same general purpose?
    1
  1623.  @1chish  2010 had PoW going straight to extended readiness, F35Cs (and less) and no maritime patrol jet. Just the indecision on catapult question cost a hundred million.
    1
  1624.  @K1lostream  I don't think our response would matter to him, we wouldnt start a nuclear war over either and thats what it would be at that point. Chinas reaction might.
    1
  1625. Legality is irrelevant.
    1
  1626. Ukraine shows what happen to poor tanks, poorly supported and isn't a generally conclusion. Tanks have always been destroyable the question is whether they are still useful. Fundamentally protected mobile fire power is, maybe it will get lighter and less expensive, on the other hand APS may see them more formidable again.
    1
  1627.  @robh4671  leading doesn't mean provide all the troops. NATO works via working together.
    1
  1628.  @EnglishScripter  the UK is only buying F35Bs, they are run jointly by the airforce and navy.
    1
  1629.  @EnglishScripter  F35s are great but A gives little over B, especially when the RAF future is Tempest.
    1
  1630.  @TheMrBennjay  as a missile is only an offensive capability when fired, what's your point. You won't explain because you can't, a carrier is a ship built for war. A warship. The F35 program has issues, but the question isn't if, but how many. We already have 17 jets.
    1
  1631.  @TheMrBennjay  I know what a carrier strike group is. That was my whole point, the other vessels are there to support the carrier. If the carriers offence was weak why would you spend all those resources supporting it?
    1
  1632. Any Russian aircraft are met by Typhoons, they know they would be downed in any attack. Russians do the same to the US. Russians protection is peace, not strength.
    1
  1633. It might be because the advantage isn't there yet. It's an experimental technology, if they can't perfect it won't be an advantage.
    1
  1634. Russia couldn't afford a carrier fleet and didn't even have the shipyards (previous being built in Ukraine). It was never an option. And the laughabality of Russian might is on full show in Ukraine. China is a future power, Russia is in its death throws.
    1
  1635. To an extent this is true, there should be a greater burden on the aggressor as there is, say with the use of violence when someone has broken into your house.
    1
  1636.  @carlb4741  No, it's because of Putin. At least talk about the actual belligerents. The war is going on because Russia and Ukriane can't agree, and as its Ukraine that's being attacked the problem is Russia.
    1
  1637.  @carlb4741  It's nothing of the sort. NATO didn't need eastern Europe, but Eastern Europe needed NATO. This war is Putin thinking Russia should control it's neighbours when they should control themselves. The US isn't fighting this war, even the aid it's giving is only a small fraction of the US budget. And Ukraine has already won it's independence do it been worth the support and could win more.
    1
  1638.  @МаняТалдыкина  I study history, I know more than nothing. I can also see a WAR when its upfront of me.
    1
  1639. Phalanx is good against drones attacking the ship, the problem is they were attacking different ships.
    1
  1640. This isn't a US war.
    1
  1641. No. European nations like the UK have armies.
    1
  1642.  @AussieStandsWithRussia  what's your point, it didn't leave Europe?
    1
  1643.  @AussieStandsWithRussia  European countries are active in European defence. Poland and Romania are the destination, there whole armed forces are there. France, Spain, Italy do send troops. Czechoslovakia doesn't exist and Sweden isn't part of NATO.
    1
  1644.  @AussieStandsWithRussia  Again they are all voicing there concern! The US isn't representing Europe it's adding it's voice to the chorus.
    1
  1645. The US armed forces as pretty skint, they have massive amounts of money but they do massive amounts of things.
    1
  1646. Saying a carrier should be capable without it's air wing is like saying a destroyer should be capable without it's missiles or a soldier without a gun.
    1
  1647.  @admiralpicard2010  That's just saying if you don't use a system properly it has a flaw. Of course. If you point a gun backwards it might shoot you.
    1
  1648.  @verdebusterAP  Nah, his point was a carrier should be capable without it's airwing, that different to your point.
    1
  1649. Definitely, though they might often be neutral they see a common issue in China.
    1
  1650. Everything rusts fast at sea, where there's moving parts any protection, like paint, will be worn away.
    1
  1651. Learn what civil war means. Our is still the war that killed the largest percentage of our population, same with the US. Your talking about a little squabble by comparison.
    1
  1652. Russia's lost various wars, learn your own history, this isn't Russia being invading where it can use it's strategic depth and has the moral authority.
    1
  1653. At least get your scare mongering right. It'd be the Yuan not the Rouble, Russia is a basket case.
    1
  1654. Poland has consistently had a smaller and less well equipped army than Germany.
    1
  1655. The F35B has a decent range much longer than the harrier. It doesn't have problem with load, that the point of carrier size and ski jump. 2 x 65k carrier is more than all but a couple of countries that is impressive. Ski jump are more recent than catapults.
    1
  1656.  @leneanderthalien  the F35B can take of from QE with full fuel, internal and external weapons. The F35B does have a smaller fuel load than the F35C and a full load of 2000lb bombs is too heavy but the UK don't use them anyway.
    1
  1657. What makes you think drones are worse for civilians than any other weapon?
    1
  1658. History like a few Europeans conquering vast areas of the world?
    1
  1659. A modern F16 is full of F35 tech while being cheaper to sustain, it's still selling around the world as well as being the work horse of the USAF.
    1
  1660. The body of your comment seems completely at odds with the fact you are on Russia's side? Russia is attacking it's brother?
    1
  1661.  @ВладОрлов-ш1о  You know Zelensky is a Russian speaking Jew and got votes from heavily Russian area as well as more Ukrianian ones?
    1
  1662. I've heard only appreciative comments by Estonia about us defending them.
    1
  1663.  @PeterHanson-nz6wu  I take it your not from the UK because the war Russia started in the Donbass was widely reported.
    1
  1664.  @PeterHanson-nz6wu  why would he be?
    1
  1665. Money has won plenty of wars. It isn't enough on it's own but it backing a nation fighting for it home. Russia had plenty of people in 1917 when it folded.
    1
  1666. It not a secret we don't have enough F35Bs yet, 2023 is when we are looking at being up to speed. The reason we don't have jets is money, and your answer is buy hundreds of jets?
    1
  1667. When kits retired it sold, pretty standard.
    1
  1668. What suggests they are loosing?
    1
  1669. You know drones are piloted so can question orders all the same? Also what drone do you think we have that is pulling more than 9G?
    1
  1670. What showed she had no idea?
    1
  1671. Not in operations since 2015. But regardless they aren't flying the f35B.
    1
  1672. The only way war starts is Russia invading, this media changes nothing.
    1
  1673.  @charlieharper2529  what's that got to do with the Falklands.
    1
  1674.  @charlieharper2529  yes, Russia Annexed Crimea because it was Ukrainian, as you say because Khrushchev gave it to them, they recognised it as Ukrainian before 2014. The UK didn't annex the Falklands, they repelled an invader.
    1
  1675.  @myopicthunder  it's the use of force to achieve that change that's the problem. Breaking the norms that had lasted basically since WW2. And although that is an issue. The issue of relevance now isn't Crimea, it's Eastern Ukraine and Russia trying to undermine the Ukraine working as a viable state.
    1
  1676.  @myopicthunder  because I dont recognise your descriprion of it being with US and EU support, rather than just a pro EU part of the population.
    1
  1677.  @caldooo  What's incorrect, I said it was British the Argentinians invaded?
    1
  1678. The choice of STOVL came from the Royal Navy. The short lived change to CATOBAR was politician wasting money.
    1
  1679. They aren't working out politics, it's a military invasion of a sovereign nation.
    1
  1680. Just one tank, with a helicopter, shuttle, jeep and truck. To form Bruticus
    1
  1681. You don't follow defence if you think the last change was pensions over a decade ago.
    1
  1682. It was a problem they fixed on the F35.
    1
  1683. Of course they didn't spend on NATO when they weren't in it, now they are they will.
    1
  1684. Regardless of whether the UK should have gone for catapults the F35B is great for the countries that otherwise would never have had fixed wing carriers and greatly expands US capabilities through USMC ships.
    1
  1685.  @JammyDodger45  the B is inferior but not far inferior. Running the same stealth, sensors and networking that makes the F35 impressive. And it's interopable with Italy and USMC ships, as well as Joan and South Korea to come maybe more.
    1
  1686.  @JammyDodger45  you didn't say anything of substance there. Of course being worse isn't a plus, I said the F35B is inferior. And carrier or not the substance they fly F35Bs.
    1
  1687. Navy ships generally have advanced SAM systems, and frankly the Russian Navy isn't very important in this conflict.
    1
  1688. Practically you can trying stop countries acting poorly by persuasion or opposition. Which you use basically depends on on friendly your relations are.
    1
  1689. Manned aircraft can already destroy tanks, where's the change with drones?
    1
  1690. So WW2 didn't stop Nazis, it only bankrupted us? And Iraq and Afganistan were very much us following the US not leading.
    1
  1691. The decision been made on Trident.
    1
  1692. It is specifically a precision weapon that will cause less civilian deaths than alternatives.
    1
  1693. The UK is deployed across eastern Europe and supplying Ukraine, it's pulling with the US.
    1
  1694.  @bandhsilvers1  yeah, they took an unarmed ship, great show of military prowess.
    1
  1695.  @bandhsilvers1  you know the ship they actual took was Swedish, just flagged British? And how does that change them being unarmed anyway?
    1
  1696.  @bandhsilvers1  you said the oil was British, for that the relevant point is who owns the ship. This video is about a capability Iran can't even dream of, that doesn't look like weakness to me. And no I don't know that about my government.
    1
  1697.  @17thefuzz  them mentioning it makes you complaining they haven't sound even more stupid. And they didn't mention the 30 or so other countries that haven't signed up. Rather than a reasonable point you simply what to have a dig at the US.
    1
  1698.  @17thefuzz  The US certainly should sign up. Having a rant about about a 50 year old war in this video however would be ridiculous.
    1
  1699.  @17thefuzz  on a video about Vietnam sure, but not one about Ukraine.
    1
  1700. The complete opposite. If we are only defending ourselves we would spend much less. We have to decide how much we are willing to spend defending others and act according to our capabilities.
    1
  1701.  @yoyo-lf3ld  The answer is rarely either/or but both. Artillery has advantages in cost and persistence. Its also usable when you don't have air superiority.
    1
  1702.  @yoyo-lf3ld  That is war, and war we actually fight. Even in a bigger fight you have areas that are less intense. This is light artillery so for example you can sling in under a helicopter to get it somewhere quick or hard to reach. An autoloader would add a lot of extra weight.
    1
  1703. Wishful thinking and paranoia? Your contradicting yourself. It's about identify flash points before they happen so you can avoid a WW3.
    1
  1704. How is wanting to avoid the end of civilisation cowardlyness?
    1
  1705.  @sphex1425  there was just a review on HS2 that said it was justified and I don't think any major parties are cancelling it. It not a political football.
    1
  1706. Russia's next system the s500, is just an improved Soviet s300. Anything further on would be classified so not on a public video.
    1
  1707. The artilllery has to hit soldiers and not blocks of flats.
    1
  1708. There is basically no clear difference between a cruiser and a destroyer.
    1
  1709.  @zinjanthropus322  the UN is too ineffectual to take such actions. If you have a complaint at the UN is should be that it pretents there's an international justice, rather just countries power politics.
    1
  1710. Labour policy seemed like everything else they say something you want but it's the paying for its that's the problem. Else where it's about unsustainable borrowing. But for the forces he's not increasing spending. He'll give better benefits, because he'll happily strip our war fighting capability.
    1
  1711. Commonality with basically all western tanks.
    1
  1712.  @jedilordlog8543  no, but the MOD is currently looking into a less powerful catapult to fly drones along side the F35B.
    1
  1713.  @TheBooban  a combination of crowsnest and F35s own networked sensors still leave it with good awareness if worse than with Hawkeye. It is a compromise but France took the other route and have 1 carrier, I prefer our way. 2 QEs have more capacity than 4 Invincibles and even then your unlikely to get 4 as there are a lot of cost per ship like sensors, communications and control.
    1
  1714. QE is installed with extra power generation to be able to use lasers. You don't need nuclear.
    1
  1715. A lack of good commanders seems one of the major Russian failing. But realistically the deterrent isn't so much about the actual firepower but the certainty the whole of NATO will be drawn in.
    1
  1716. I believe it about being closer to the Ukrainian than the Russian. You'll see it spelt (Kyiv too).
    1
  1717. Nope, even if none US countries have better aircraft coming (which is debatable) they don't have them in numbers yet.
    1
  1718. That is pretty much Russia is doing, if piecemeal. It might have a recession but no collapse. It also being advocated by plenty of NATO themselves.
    1
  1719. It is expensive. They're supposed to be for £2m tanks. But then what's the cost of a soldier?
    1
  1720. Nearly the whole of Europe was against Hilter so dumb argument but Russia is wrong because of its actions not because lots if people say it is.
    1
  1721. Its been used in action. More than just in service.
    1
  1722. You know the UK is in no way threatened, when we talk about our military we are talking about wars thousands if miles from the homeland.
    1
  1723. Sea viper and ceptor from the Type 45 and 23 respectively. Themselves they just have the phalanx fail safe.
    1
  1724. It's not, they also mention NLAW in this video.
    1
  1725.  @Horizon344  terrorists have always had causes, the problem is the methods.
    1
  1726.  @extremistcontent1337 Maybe WW1 with the US and China play the British and Germans but nukes have killed global conflict. In terms of others Russia's just massively cut back, in line with oil prices and the rest of Europe is slowly moving towards the 2% we've spent consistently.
    1
  1727.  @Anthony-lg4dy  the warriors were built to work with challengers, I can't see the advantage of scrapping them while we still have challenger.
    1
  1728. There's no chance this will end in unconditional surrender, that would require a massive invasion of Russia. Also actual NATO members are a completely different prospect for Russia and wouldn't follow.
    1
  1729.  @edroth7612  but it's not. Russia has shown it incompetence, the idea it could fight NATO is laughable.
    1
  1730. £242bn on kit not total.
    1
  1731.  @samuel10125  that isn't a big military, they spend 1% to our 2%.
    1
  1732.  @samuel10125  there military is very heavily subject to the US. They have aegis destroyers and F15s. You seem like you wanted more independence from America?
    1
  1733. The politcal parties followed the public will, Generals having be asking for more as long as I've known.
    1
  1734. That means its not a world war, supplying arms is unusual in a conflict.
    1
  1735. MAD has never gone away.
    1
  1736. The point is the line is deep with mines backed by artillery so you can't manoeuvre?
    1
  1737.  @Dr.D00p  wouldn't surprise me either. I think the phrase hunting near the carrier group may be more apt than being part of the carrier group for SSNs.
    1
  1738. It's no longer a day by day war, may be not even a week by week but a month by month war.
    1
  1739.  @gilbert7794  Napoleon and Hitler were fighting another country at the time. Britain.
    1
  1740. It's pretty clear it has already changed the outcome. Negotiations would be great but what is agreed is based on the situation on the ground.
    1
  1741. They are bought for both. The balance is slightly more RAF, even if both will fly from land or sea.
    1
  1742.  @asakurayoh3909  nuclear isn't required at all, but it is helpful for steam catapults and makes emals power requirements a doddle.
    1
  1743.  @asakurayoh3909  they are but the US is only just getting to grips after a long development. I think they'd be unlikely to sell to India with its close Russian military ties.
    1
  1744. He didn't say alone, just ourselves, ie. Directly unlike in Ukraine currently.
    1
  1745. Because doing things differently would be not being in that area.
    1
  1746. This is about Challenger 3?
    1
  1747. You need both. Ukraine thought a conventional military was unimportant.
    1
  1748. A reasonable tactic if we were trying to win a war but we are trying not to fight one.
    1
  1749. ​ @K_-_-_-_K CV90 and ASCOD were both in service vehicles neither did the job but both could be developed. That was the competition.
    1
  1750. What have they said that would be in anyway difficult to find out?
    1
  1751.  @SeanHendy  you didn't answer my question? The jist of this video was coming up with tactics, not the tactics.
    1
  1752.  @SeanHendy  so you can't answer my question? They don't give out specifics.
    1
  1753.  @SeanHendy  you just wrote that you've answered my question but you can't answer my question.
    1
  1754.  @SeanHendy  just did. You didn't say anywhere what they've said that would be in anyway difficult to find out.
    1
  1755.  @Retrosicotte  the French army is a chunk bigger, its a continental army. But it's pretty irrelevant power wise.
    1
  1756. In essence it was, 2 carriers was about cover rather deploying 2 at once.
    1
  1757.  @mikesmith-wk7vy  Do you think the STOVL variant doesn't have an internal weapons bay?
    1
  1758.  @mikesmith-wk7vy  the RAF typical internal load is 2 AMRAAM and 2 Paveway IV. They use the F35B.
    1
  1759.  @mikesmith-wk7vy  or you just have no idea what you talking about.
    1
  1760.  @mikesmith-wk7vy  I can't look up something that isn't true.
    1
  1761. 120mm is the same as basically all western tanks. The Russian 125mm isn't anything new.
    1
  1762.  @TheHolyActivist  your right it's not revolutionary, just up to the best around and maybe a little better depending on the engine, targeting etc. I think we'll end up buying one if the next gen tanks but they are looking at 20 years for FOC and with a gradually introduction you might need another 10 years for all next gen.
    1
  1763. Bleeding an opponent until they give up is a common strategy that doesn't involve taking it to the enemy.
    1
  1764.  @ravik007ggn  it's certainly not a vulnerable baggage train with gurkhas there.
    1
  1765. The heavier gun will be on Ajax. But yes the strike brigades are focused on speed rather than power. They will of course be supported from the air.
    1
  1766.  @clangerbasher  I think thats the point, they aren't fighting vehicles, they're troop transport.
    1
  1767.  @clangerbasher  cheaper but less well protected? Something like the Mastiff, the vehicle this is replacing.
    1
  1768.  @clangerbasher  4? But I'm going by the fact this video said it has better protection.
    1
  1769.  @clangerbasher  If you can give me there STANAG scores, you can make a point. All I could find was Boxers at 4, I couldn't find Mastiffs. What we do have is the British Army telling us a reason for buying it is it's better protected.
    1
  1770.  @clangerbasher  We got onto protection because it's a lower level vehicle with too much protection not a higher one with too little firepower.
    1
  1771.  @clangerbasher  Yes, but from your posts it seemed you thought it was lightly armed because you thought it was an infantry fighting vehicle. For the British it isn't. It's a battlefield taxi. Expensive for that, but better protected than the cheaper vehicles.
    1
  1772.  @clangerbasher  you literally wrote "Boxer is a fighting vehicle". How is that my lack of comprehension?
    1
  1773. Do you actually think it doesn't help? That expert around the world have failed to grasp something and you know better?
    1
  1774. Canada and Germany lead groups in Latvia and Lithuania, NATO is looking at a new French led group in Romania.
    1
  1775.  @brentsummers7377  The only reason there'd be US aircraft on board is because we were fighting together. We'd agree strategy because that's what you have to do fighting with allies. There no loss there. And there's a lot of gain in a defensive sense having a full air wing. You appear to be under the impression we don't have air craft. We already have 18 F35 and have order 17 more. That will continue to grow. In less than a decade we will easily be able to deploy the full 36. But even before that just 12 F35 and a complement of helicopters allows a whole range of operation we couldn't do without it.
    1
  1776.  @aquilatempestate9527  nothing to do with "correctness", it's reality.
    1
  1777.  @fourlamb1  nope, I wouldn't let all the scummy people in. I would let some none scummy people in.
    1
  1778. Not always, WW1 for example just saw Russia lose.
    1
  1779. Why are you making Russia invading Ukraine about the US. It isn't, it's about Russia feeling entitled to attack its neighbours thats what we are against.
    1
  1780.  @razorx6905  fun story but Russia isn't killing Americans it's killing Ukrainians (and Russians).
    1
  1781. This is more a video covering to less well covered countries, my experience is Poland's contribution is second only to the US in publicity, precisely because they've been fast and strong in there commitment.
    1
  1782.  @allegedly8931  yeah max weight is about twice the empty weight. So could likely lift one but not have enough fuel to get far.
    1
  1783. Your not even following the Russian narrative as they've complained about the supply of weapons.
    1
  1784. It won't be neutralised but it may be lessened and so our capabilities will lessen but plane development doesn't stop. These post in 10 years time will be talking abut the eurofighter replacement.
    1
  1785. It had a burst pipe, a bad one, but its not a long term issue.
    1
  1786.  @constantinvaldor3742  it started it's sea trials in 2017. That ain't just out of the shop.
    1
  1787.  @constantinvaldor3742  This is the second time its visiting the US. It's a first in class, they take a while to make sure everything works properly.
    1
  1788.  @trevorhart545  the key word there is target. It's not a requirement it's an aim. And all the rhetoric put out by NATO is about moving towards it, which Germany has been doing over the last couple of years.
    1
  1789. I'm curious why? Not saying your wrong but we're fundamentally a professional expeditionary military?
    1
  1790. From what i heard the maintenance costs were starting to spike. Not through age, but flight hours.
    1
  1791. There is more risk from a lack of perceived unity than from a bad position. A wholesale invasion of NATO is suicide and won't be done, believing you can peal of the Baltics is much more plausible, and so a more likely route to war (which will kill many times the troops we have in Estonia).
    1
  1792. You can be sure of that, your looking at hundreds of kg warheads to do significant damage to her.
    1
  1793. @Blob B there are times when two dudes in a rowing boat might be able to get within a few hundred yards. Like in a friendly harbour.
    1
  1794.  @alisonhilll4317  This is a video about one taking off? What's RAAR?
    1
  1795.  @umu8934  Canada would be a no as they need a new fighter before it would be ready. New Zealand don't fly any fighters. Australia is unlikely for development as they are a one fighter air force and that the F35 for a while.
    1
  1796. Presumably shielding, she is in her nineties. Nothing like Andrew.
    1
  1797.  @jfpaisley2281  You say hiding as if it's something wrong, it's the responsible thing I'd hope any great grand parent would be doing. Money for the Queen comes from the crown estates. And your naive if you think we are getting rid of the Monarchy any time soon.
    1
  1798. It would be good, wean you off Russian and into a partner for future projects.
    1
  1799. Look it up where? Who'd know better than the RAF?
    1
  1800.  @staytactical1045  the type 45 was joint project that split, the development on PAAMS was joint.
    1
  1801.  @staytactical1045  we did split because of differences but after much of the work was done together. The CMS and missiles are the same as the horizon class. Those were developed together.
    1
  1802.  @californiadreamin8423  You didn't make your point very well because I have no idea what it was?
    1
  1803.  @californiadreamin8423  Did some one post we should build more that I missed?
    1
  1804.  @californiadreamin8423  if there's a post I can't see that you can, fair enough.
    1
  1805. The present government has been increasing spending since the last election.
    1
  1806. I like the idea it makes updates easier to integrate.
    1
  1807. It's generally thought attacks are launched from inside Russia.
    1
  1808.  @ashleyradwell709  Estonia couldn't be held against a full scale attack, it would need to be retaken. It can be held against little green men though.
    1
  1809. @bulthaosen1169  2 carriers means 1 at a time regardless of the rest.
    1
  1810. @bulthaosen1169  then your wrong, using double standards in your counting. Our carrier escort is 2 45s and 2 23s. We don't just have 2 sets of that we have 3 with extra frigates. Practically they aren't available but neither is a second carrier, if your claiming a second carrier then you can claim the extra escorts.
    1
  1811. Russia has a new tank design, what it's not doing a producing it in numbers.
    1
  1812. It was a joint project we left and rejoined.
    1
  1813.  @zhufortheimpaler4041  it was at the prototype stage before we left.
    1
  1814.  @zhufortheimpaler4041  in 1996 it was a French Germany project. The UK didn't just join as a customer, and was part for 6 years, not a short time.
    1
  1815.  @zhufortheimpaler4041  the British company GKN was part of the design team that won.
    1
  1816.  @zhufortheimpaler4041  design work, thats what being part of the design team is, but also when part of Alvis it built Boxer prototypes. Later ownership is simply a reflection of the UK leaving the project.
    1
  1817.  @zhufortheimpaler4041  As I said GKN won not Alvis, Alvis just took over GKN after.
    1
  1818.  @edouardmontfort7816  They definitely work on responsibilities, but I think it will come down the physical areas, so you see the UK led Joint expeditionary force in the north.
    1
  1819. What does Russia getting serious entail?
    1
  1820.  @garwhittaker3743  it's still about 5 years until we get the absolute minimum 48 F35B. 10 years til we get the almost certain 90ish. There will always be speculation about the F35A until we get beyond that. point. But the plans are all F35B.
    1
  1821. We are at the forefront, not being dragged along.
    1
  1822.  @authenticmax6350  defence companies don't make exceptional profits and are generally publicly traded so anyone can get in on it. Individual system may have high profit margins but thats because of the high level of risk R+D comes to nothing.
    1
  1823.  @authenticmax6350  the US has updated the F16 decades, but after a while you need a new base. The F35 is that base, and will be proved over the coming decades.
    1
  1824. It wasn't neutrality being offered but doing what Russia told them.
    1
  1825. And 15k tonnes lighter.
    1
  1826.  Alex Mercer  not rotating your radar just means you have to put it lower down and they only have arrestor cables because they don't have access to a STOVL aircraft.
    1
  1827.  @MostCommentsAreFake-ud8by  I'm now imagining a Russian with a confused look as to why there's suddenly dozens of postman in a combat area.
    1
  1828. They specifically don't want this war. They are showing its a bad idea.
    1
  1829. Learning pretty high, that there won't be other issues, less so.
    1
  1830.  Gaius Wyrden  what lost allies, the ones we still have in NATO?
    1
  1831.  @dovidell  you don't have to be a prophet to do better than say the army's recent record. Spending large sums on warrior upgrade to cancel without result, leaving the Boxer program only to rejoin on worse terms and Ajax a program we may have to cancel after billions spent because it injures our own soldiers.
    1
  1832. Production is long underway, thats part of the problem.
    1
  1833.  @photoisca7386  no precision guided aid bombs from the F35s?
    1
  1834.  @hounslowparks2469  I wonder how they'll run it with the American amphibs. QE seems a better platform to be flying from so do you think they'll move over if there's spare room on her?
    1
  1835.  @hounslowparks2469  I think you missed "aid" part of my sentence. I was imagining medical supplies deployed by F35.
    1
  1836. Fundamentally it's a stealth sensor hub (and STOVL for the B), that's the fundamentals that have seen it being bought across the world. It has plenty of flaws, they just aren't fundamental.
    1
  1837. @@JimCarner Simple, they are being bought. The 800 flaws are a total red herring. The few major flaws are important, but nothing back breaking from the details I've read.
    1
  1838. How do you target it hundreds of miles over the horizon?
    1
  1839.  @johnthatcher2349  over the horizon radars exist but detection is different to targeting, they use a much longer wave length. But the very essence of militrary technology is that its a race between attack and defence. Anti missile technology is also advancing.
    1
  1840.  @qiyuxuan9437  if your using aircraft that's what carrier are designed to fight. That wouldn't be a flaw in the concept of carriers, just your jets nor being good enough.
    1
  1841.  @qiyuxuan9437  what a very long distance. At 200 miles a plane should have already been engaged by the carriers jets. And if your launching blind your very open to decoys, disruption or just no longer being where you expect.
    1
  1842.  @qiyuxuan9437  ships maybe bigger, but they are harder to identity against the background of the sea rather than open air. Missile radar are very short range.
    1
  1843. A bit late, F35 won the Finnish competition. It just advertising Finlands NATO integration.
    1
  1844.  @dellawrence4323  why? They were limited in capability and needing expensive upgrades. And we fought the same wars as the US anyway.
    1
  1845.  @FallenPhoenix86  I stand corrected, cheers.
    1
  1846. So this video is about a hollowed out force despite spending over 2% of GDP, your numbers basically look like doubling so that 5+% of GDP.
    1
  1847.  @fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617  You know we literally have a foreign aid budget? But anyway we spend about a quarter of our defence budget on equipment which is actually quiet high we aren't scurrying away massive sums.
    1
  1848. In democracies you need to give some information, so you choose what is unimportant. In this case though I think the signal to Russia is important.
    1
  1849. Austin Njagi independence from the British wasn't was achieved by force. How didn't the UK give them up?
    1
  1850. Denis Nyokabi There are lots of training grounds in the UK. But for different environments we have overseas training grounds. Kenya provides a rugged, arid environment that we don't have at home.
    1
  1851. This is specifically for Covid suffers, there going to be plenty of virus around.
    1
  1852. This is Estonia not Ukraine.
    1
  1853. It was seen as a war perpetuated by Russia.
    1
  1854. Apaches cost more and aren't as persistent. Armed forces have different tools with different advantages.
    1
  1855.  @luciussander8217  not sure what that means?
    1
  1856. Basically what you see being upgraded is an issue that needs fixing in Challenger 2.
    1
  1857. How are they targeting it when it's hundreds of miles over the horizon?
    1
  1858. F35's will be filling up the Carriers first so this means the RAF can still be bombing in the mean time. F35s are best at ground attack though long term it's take that role.
    1
  1859. The C isn't that impressive, it's heavier unloaded, further behind in development and less supported than the B. The extra range is nice but I don't see the extra payload as a big factor as it compromises stealth. Add the that CATOBAR has parts that can break and stop the whole fleet and a lower sortie rate and I'd go STOVL even without the cost difference.
    1
  1860. Adrian Wainer. The UK didn't decide on the carrier and add the planes. It conceived the best plane and designed an aircraft carrier to facilitate it.
    1
  1861.  @andrewleonard475  so much wrong with that comment but the bit that stood out is the internet bit. Do you really think the F35 needs a constant internet connection to Lockheed to fly? How stupid do you think professional armed forces personnel are?
    1
  1862.  @mike3308  what about Cricket then? I kind of thought it was just the captain so not a good example. Hockey?
    1
  1863.  @MMG008  American football is not proper contact sport. Pads contact pads, men don't contact men.
    1
  1864.  @MMG008  Football is the only sport I played where I saw someone gain an extra join between the knee and ankle, the brake was that bad. That was contact.
    1
  1865.  @StryderK  How does something much lighter than a car, going slower hit with the same force?
    1
  1866. A defensive misisle system in an allied country?
    1
  1867. It's the same belief as governments and major companies. That's hardly a delusion.
    1
  1868.  @jonwoo8217  the various governments and companies involved believe it's going to be built. Whether it is or not, it's not delusional to believe it will be built.
    1
  1869.  @jonwoo8217  why, various large scale projects have happened, others haven't happened. How does that make it certain not to happen?
    1
  1870. It's designed take one but it will be a different contract likely nearer the time it's ready.
    1
  1871. If we not then we are certainly allied to a 'big boy'. But who else are putting carrier groups at the other side of the world?
    1
  1872. It based on today being considered a low risk time period, so the point when the force comes together will be in a few years and will always be in a few years. More future potential for less present day. On sentry itself NATO runs about a dozen as well as individual NATO running more, its a pretty low risk area.
    1
  1873. Experience tells don't do something when it's hard, do it when it's easy. Ie. invade when it's frozen or dried up, not when it's mud season.
    1
  1874. The aim is neither, it's sufficient strength that attacking it is sucicide. That is the case at present.
    1
  1875. Ben chose to leave.
    1
  1876. Russia needs all the weapons in can get to fight this war.
    1
  1877.  @rohitb5834  Your carriers are STOBAR and your looking for a replacement aircraft and you admit your behind on subs. How can you claim to be well ahead?
    1
  1878.  @marcd5196  STOBAR is what you do when you don't have the tech for STOVL. Claiming a 1000 ton ship is a major warship is laughable.
    1
  1879.  @marcd5196  lol, don't have expertise for an arrestor wire?! Never mind the UK used to use half a century ago it's not as if they couldn't just ask the US.
    1
  1880. If Russia don't invade there is no problem, if they do Russia is the problem.
    1
  1881. Neither. An acceptable peace. Surrender is the quickest peace, I wouldn't want that for my country so I wouldn't expect that from Ukrainians.
    1
  1882. Lol, no. NATO forces are vastly larger and more powerful than Ukraine. They'd have utterly wreaked any Russian attack in a couple of weeks but it would be relevant if we were to push back into Russia with there shear size.
    1
  1883. What trident do you think we have? We are on the minimum 4 subs for the perpetual deterrent. We have limited missiles and warheads. Just enough to ensure it can't make sense to attack us.
    1
  1884.  @emmy9345  a major war would kill millions conventionally for nuclear war to be a deterrent it has to be a step up. Also our warheads aren't that big, only 100kt, compare 50,000kt as the biggest. You also have to be certain they can't be stopped, a few warheads could be taken out by missile defences.
    1
  1885. Tanks are heavy to transport and mass formations are no longer the central battle plan.
    1
  1886. But you'd get less of them.
    1
  1887. Lol, the French took the brunt of the fight in west in the first couple of years of WW1, while the British took time to get up to speed (never mind the US).
    1
  1888. It's been a long time since we bought off the shelf.
    1
  1889. This is an incomplete run down, the full plan involves new armour that dstl have been working on and an APS.
    1
  1890. Where's the profit in giving weapons?
    1
  1891.  Hammerschlägen M  the fatness is more about the STOVL, see the sleeker F22.
    1
  1892.  @para7843  why do you judge it as the US using our carrier rather than the UK using there jets? Why aren't they our dog? In truth it's neither, we're partners.
    1
  1893.  @para7843  the US buys 15% of the F35 parts from us, that's more than we spend on ours. The F35 is a net export for the UK. I would be very unhappy if we gave up carrier capability, I get the same impression from navy people. The most similar navy to us, France has carrier capability. Why do you think we are building them for the US?
    1
  1894. Why all the unwavering support for a guy who's compromised the integrity of the national security council?
    1
  1895. @kriskcar he was sacked for it, a strong move for a notoriously weak prime minister. Against a generally loyal minister. He admits speaking to the journalist the same day. No other members are coming out to defend him. And if it was comments claiming his innocence that would be one thing, but they are ones that just don't seem to care.
    1
  1896. The F35 is a jet the UK helps build.
    1
  1897. What really matters more that preserving our way of life?
    1
  1898. Or not
    1
  1899. The Ukrainian aren't losing, thats very different to winning. The country is wrecked by this invasion parts off the east are likely lost, but they may get to decide there own future.
    1
  1900. Not agreeing with something is different to not having a say. Do you vote, are you able to protest? That's where you have a say.
    1
  1901. When was there no threat from Russia? It went straight from USSR occupation to Chechnya, Transnistra, Georgia and Crimea.
    1
  1902. Talk to Putin.
    1
  1903.  @jawarakf  what a dumb comment. First we don't need to reverse engineer we have tech transfer. But also we have already spend billions on the F35 development and billions more on jets we aren't going to throw that away not using them.
    1
  1904.  @jawarakf  wow, you talk so much rubbish. The secret formula to what, the materials being used by F35 partners to make the jet? And given partners make parts of the US jets how would the export version be worse. Not to mention part of the appeal is bejng able to share logistics networks. And what would be stolen from the F4, it not like it's a delta wing, and the Tornado, a more advanced plane had been built in the interim.
    1
  1905. NATO wasn't fighting, they're no difference in strength or weakness unless that changes l.
    1
  1906.  @MichaelKng-fk5jk  you know we are standing with central Europe? I don't don't like Boris but he hasn't changed his position, support NATO, we like Ukraine but won't fight for them. What strength do you suppose other than war?
    1
  1907. The limiting factor in this type of protracted war isn't machine numbers but ammo numbers.
    1
  1908. His point was alcoholism was endemic in the military rather than in the general population, particularly from a few years back.
    1
  1909.  @matthewbaynham6286  something else your ignorant of.
    1
  1910. Ajax isn't an IFV
    1
  1911.  @SodaPrezsing  Ajax itself is reconnaissance (it doesn't carry troops), there are some other variants that carry a few but they don't have the 40mm and are for specialist like engineers or Command and Control.
    1
  1912.  @SodaPrezsing  It is a family but there isn't a standard IFV variant, Ajax doesn't carry dismounts, Ares, Athena, Apollo, Argus and Atlas don't have the main gun.
    1
  1913.  @SodaPrezsing  It's been an awful project with lots of problems but a replacement wouldn't just mean buying in an IFV because that isn't it's role. It would likely mean another development. CV90 was the original competition and needed development like ASCOD did to get to Ajax.
    1
  1914. Because of the size of the upgrade including things as fundamental as the main gun.
    1
  1915.  @jimmehjiimmeehh9748  it's £5m per tank worth of upgrades. Challenger 1 -> 2 was pretty much doing the same thing but better. ie. you have a new gun but it's gone from 120mm rifled to 120 rifled. There seems more change from 2 -> 3 with all the electronics, gun, engine upgrade. Frankly if it was new build it wouldn't be a Challenger it would be a Champion or something.
    1
  1916.  @jimmehjiimmeehh9748  It wasn't a conversion, it was buying new tanks. So half the cost of a new tanks worth of upgrades and you said it wasn't a major upgrade?
    1
  1917.  @jimmehjiimmeehh9748  can't see that I did but honestly this conversation is boring, about the minutia of a naming convention.
    1
  1918.  @jimmehjiimmeehh9748  That wasn't a brain fart. I've been using cost to show it's a major upgrade not that it's the same as the change to 2. It clearly isn't the same thing, it's an upgrade not new build, but an upgrade large enough that a clear name is useful.
    1
  1919. That would just lead to the end of the UN, the reason the permenant members exist is because they won't subject themselves to t be whims of smaller nations.
    1
  1920.  @tedviens1  Ukraine isn't in NATO? NATO is there to defend NATO.
    1
  1921.  @tedviens1  it can chose to do more but that it done by consensus among its members. It is clearly to think of nations acting than NATO. And in this case I think a more ad hoc coalition is more likely even if NATO members would be it's core.
    1
  1922.  @tedviens1  it isn't a failure when that isn't what NATO is for, it's a defensive alliance. But anyway whats the problem with just acting outside NATO?
    1
  1923.  @tedviens1  What you don't seem to be getting is these organisations aren't soverign powers. One NATO members objecting changes little, you just get 29 members acting instead of 30. The power of NATO is in the individual countries not the organisation. The changes your suggesting aren't small. As I said with the UN without the veto countries would leave, the US, Russia and China for certain, likely UK and France as too as well ones with strong links like Israel or Belarus.
    1
  1924.  @Derpaherpa123  A carrier strike group is many ships, a carrier is one. The US Navy is vast but thats nothing like your first post was saying. You were comparing to 1 us carrier. Which is why a pointed out how dumb your statement was.
    1
  1925.  @Derpaherpa123  no that isn't dumb but you said we needed 10 more QE to match 1 US carrier, which is dumb.
    1
  1926.  @dingdong475  the officer skew towards posh people starts at the application level. A much higher percentage of public school students apply. I'd put this down to if you don't have to worry about financial security you can care about other things.
    1
  1927. Russia is a future Chinese client state. A broken Russia is fine for China.
    1
  1928.  @miker7243  the government is still commited to 0.5% above inflation increases. Potential cuts in some areas are about freeing money for others.
    1
  1929.  @miker7243  I don't know what they will be cutting and neither do you. They haven't even decided never mind told the public. But if the experts decide for greater cyber capability for example I will accept to there greater knowledge.
    1
  1930.  @miker7243  rather than saying what you just decided to be cryptic. But as I said decisions haven't been made so what you think you know is rumour.
    1
  1931. I think the altitude would be the more important factor but it also seems more for the marines than true naval missions.
    1
  1932. It's also got gas turbines, plenty of power.
    1
  1933.  @YeeLeeHaw  in what sense not controlling what they've seized? And they are continuing to advance only slowly.
    1
  1934. Op Shader started in 2014.
    1
  1935. Russia would lose by using nukes on NATO, as there is no winning a nuclear war. The UK has spent a few billion on Ukraine, it routinely runs a deficit 10s of billions, the money spent on Ukraine is nothing.
    1
  1936. Almost certainly not, it's an exercise in proving it's value.
    1
  1937. Gurkhas aren't British citizens
    1
  1938.  @mrsushihut  the majority of it is just friends bitching about friends.
    1
  1939.  @mrsushihut  I'm sorry to hear that, may be I'm wrong. I know we hate Trump, but I didn't think it would extend to personal interactions.
    1
  1940.  @mrsushihut  I'm more of a Tolkien and Iain M Banks person myself. York has to be top of the list if your a tourist. But yeah, big cities are just big cities which ever country they are in.
    1
  1941. We're are still years off it being in active service, something like ASROC would be a quick integration and torpedo carrying drones are something that are advancing quickly.
    1
  1942. Do you think Putin needs sources that aren't just public knowledge but openly talked about like this?
    1
  1943.  @gladiator22666  what point? You were talking like there was something under dispute?
    1
  1944. MAD never went away. Russia can commit suicide by nuking Europe but thats all. Also how does arming an invaded country give the invader any rights at all?
    1
  1945. Where are the well trained and equipped Russians?
    1
  1946. We also aren't sending ground forces to Ukraine?
    1
  1947. I'm not sure if I've ever heard someone official saying infantry wouldn't be needed, only that less would be needed.
    1
  1948. SEAD
    1
  1949.  @razony  the biggest thing that is wrong there is your only counting US deaths and not the many thousands of Afghans that died fighting on the US side. But then on the other side Russia are still on the initial invasion part which the US had done in weeks.
    1
  1950. Most of the countries listed at the start weren't covered.
    1
  1951.  @brothermaynard3200  you tube is a short format.
    1
  1952.  @amoslukyaa5792  some unnamed time, an unnamed person said something. Convincing.
    1
  1953.  @amoslukyaa5792  I wasn't judging your statement, I was judging how badly you supported it. But even European NATO out numbers and and out spends Russia so I'm pretty sceptical about your statement too.
    1
  1954.  @Lary-xg2un  aye, was looking it up while posting. My post was more that a guy with an AK47 isn't the threat (Puma would be massive over kill).
    1
  1955.  @rayjames6096  Not sure your point, we aren't buying Eurofighters?
    1
  1956.  @rayjames6096  It was supposed to be something like £50m for an F35B. I don't know how you can be talking about the F35 without knowing it's cost more than planned?
    1
  1957.  @alasdairmmorrison74  both words seem to have the same meaning but they haven't announced a contract yet if that's what you mean. Either way what the guy said was a lie as 138 wasn't an order but a plan and 48 wasn't a plan but the current order.
    1
  1958. Gangster capitalism, quiet different to communism.
    1
  1959. It's not a defence force, it very much set up for expeditionary warfare, being small doesn't change that.
    1
  1960. Likely very. Even if it was vulnerable against a top tier enemy we don't tend to fight them.
    1
  1961. They levelled Mariopol how is that not destroying everything.
    1
  1962. Yes, but the role has changed to things like training.
    1
  1963.  @FallenPhoenix86  4>2 so happy days.
    1
  1964.  VIPICCB6  we need 2 destroyers for escort.
    1
  1965.  @PepRex  from 20% of the world population to less than 1%. You cut cloth according to your situation. But where do you get 12 ships?
    1
  1966. It is designed for one, just not part of this contract.
    1
  1967. 2 Albion + 3 Bay class gives the UK more capacity, though missing the helicopter element.
    1
  1968. Where do you come up with lazy?
    1
  1969. What you've missed there is Putin is also happy to use force. See Ukraine, Georgia, Syria, Chechnya. So although you need to counter the miss information, you also need the conventional military
    1
  1970.  @markojovanovic1750  that's just M.A.D.
    1
  1971. Should be better than a current day Leopard 2 but still in the same ball park, maybe on about a future 2A9 level or something.
    1
  1972. I think the problem is we do too much of the opposite. Blaming the previous when we should be fixing issues.
    1
  1973. @Blob B the F35s are for the joint RAF/FAA Lightning force. They will fly from land or sea as appropriate.
    1
  1974. Damn sure she will come to Malaysia, to show so solidarity with the Five Powers.
    1
  1975. Russia said it wasn't in Crimea while it was annexing it. Nothing they say is credible. They may well not invade but at the very least they have set up so they could invade at any moment.
    1
  1976.  @TomTheGamer913  600 what? They going for 340 Bs, but thousands in total.
    1
  1977.  @clydeceniza2521  The Philippines?
    1
  1978. Royals don't decide the names of ships.
    1
  1979. All over the place, but this is a British channel and US being much bigger than others sends more.
    1
  1980. He doesn't say NATO isn't allied against Russia, he says they aren't at war. He doesn't say NATO should provide all its might just continue to support Ukraine. The core interests of Russia that NATO threaten is it's ability to interfere in it's neighbours, that not a core interest that should be respected. And Putin has shown no signs of compromise so there is no point in a negotiating table.
    1
  1981.  @eternaldawn2673  your evidence is a larger country beating a smaller one and in the absence of air cover.
    1
  1982. Ukrainians won't stop regardless of weapons, they are fighting for there country as I would do. The Russian military being ineffective (because of weapons) might bring them to the table.
    1
  1983. That would be a lot of tokens you'd have to save up.
    1
  1984. War is war but avoiding civilian casualties is standard. And mines are further than that because they persist and kill and maim during peacetime, when war isn't war.
    1
  1985. We didn't fight this war nor did a country with a similar set up to tell us we were wrong. There has been signs that advanced tech like drones has been effective.
    1
  1986. The problem is very real. Engaging with local female populations. Whether job is useful is another question.
    1
  1987. That would mean attacking a NATO?
    1
  1988. Low grade means they are going to be worse at fighting, a kid could kill a trained soldier but they aren't going to the vast majority of the time.
    1
  1989. Essential the same as aircraft have been doing for decades.
    1
  1990. You did hear that. This isn't a good interview. The idea shipping Abrams is the issue is also bunk.
    1
  1991. It's not to end it at any cost, that is done simply with surrender.
    1
  1992. Nepal isn't actually part of the commonwealth.
    1
  1993. They aren't looking to escalate the situation.
    1
  1994. Didn't watch the video then, where it says they've been used in Afganistan for years?
    1
  1995. You don't gain much for a lot of extra cost. Assuming the Indian ocean stays India's priority it doesn't make sense.
    1
  1996.  @damienspectre4231  Decent Replenishment at Sea and conventional carrier have no issue staying operational. When your relatively close to home that not difficult to achieve at all. Getting a good support fleet is going to do a lot more for your navy than nuclear power on your carriers. And India is still sorting out it's SSBN fleet, walk before you run, and don't waste money on flash rather than substance.
    1
  1997. @Shubhabrata banerjee Indias like half coal electric generation, plenty to aim at first.
    1
  1998. Not expecting, but you prepare for the worst.
    1
  1999.  @springbok4015  China is definitely becoming a super power and may already be one, but its not alone like the US has been for a couple decades.
    1
  2000.  @sih1095  the decision to ban F22 exports was already a debated one, and that was in the context of the UK not interested, it could quiet possibly have been overturned with a bit of political pressure. But then production was stopped and that ended any future questions.
    1
  2001.  @sih1095  Japan isn't the UK. As I mentioned earlier, the US works with the UK on top secret tech like nuclear subs. The UK has F35 tech transfer as the only tier 1 partner.
    1
  2002.  @mossadagent9582  enjoy your mindless baiting.
    1
  2003.  @news_internationale2035  what about it? A place not covered by NATO didn't get a NATO response.
    1
  2004.  @news_internationale2035  yep, but NATO covers Europe and North America only.
    1
  2005.  @news_internationale2035  it wouldn't be covered by article 5.
    1
  2006.  @news_internationale2035  why would that matter?
    1
  2007. Russia aren't denying they are being pushed back.
    1
  2008. Russia has already given up on the whole of Ukraine and are only looking at the East and South.
    1
  2009. What do you think has actually changed, there's still NATO exercises and deployments all over the place? This very video is about more NATO.
    1
  2010.  @mmmoroi  ha, Trumps gone in November.
    1
  2011.  @mmmoroi  and he'd still win.
    1
  2012.  @eclipsegfxable  it's what the majority off the US is doing.
    1
  2013.  @a39tortoise40  It will be Boxer covering the role more than Ajax which only transports specialist personnel.
    1
  2014. France has more of a Blue water navy than Japan.
    1
  2015.  @davidwright4891  In total it will be thousands with the helicopters and all the support crew. For F35B pilots I read an article a few years ago that had it about even but slightly more RAF, say 55%/45%.
    1
  2016. It's not absurd, you just have to make sure the females are physically up to it.
    1
  2017. Yep, lots, though it varies, including some giving more substantial kit like Slovakia transferring it's S300 missile system.
    1
  2018. French making more of its own kit is a industrial plus but it means it misses out of some of the best kit. Like it's not getting a 5th gen jet.
    1
  2019.  @fabs8498  who do you think preferred the Rafale? Also your price claim is just wrong.
    1
  2020.  @LaVictoireEstLaVie  Even the Chinese don't believe it's the most advanced aircraft. That doesn't stop it being a great stepping stone for them.
    1
  2021. In the same sense we are a target from an ICBM.
    1
  2022. Ukriane is fighting for its homeland, Russia isn't. It a huge difference in morale, were it Ukriane in Russia the reverse would be true.
    1
  2023.  @dereklemons5037  I disagree that the professional force is gone but thats by the by. Not all conscripts are equal, not volunteering doesn't mean you don't believe in the cause, only that you don't believe enough to volunteer.
    1
  2024. The US is big and rich it isn't surprising it would be more than everyone else combined.
    1
  2025.  @SCscoutguy  they looking at the next order of 26 on top the the current 48 order. They've always avoiding saying a final number.
    1
  2026. Not so useful without SEAD missions.
    1
  2027. Always, like Typhoons and Tornados. Even on the F35 it was a project partner and helps build them.
    1
  2028. Being a long way from any front line. If you start resisting when it's at your borders your civilian suffer.
    1
  2029. There might be a small niche for air combat if it cheap enough but I think the budget option for ground targets has pretty much gone to drones now.
    1
  2030.  @Justineexy  They aren't though, when USS Carl Vincent next goes out it will be the first operational deployment of the F35C.
    1
  2031.  @Justineexy  5 times this numbers? We a talking about an individual carrier group not the US Navy. The US in only planning on 2 F35 squadrons per carrier as the fly along side Super Hornets.
    1
  2032. Nor is Russia being attacked so basically no similarities at all.
    1
  2033.  @AyOuB.God-soldier  how's it the same?
    1
  2034.  @AyOuB.God-soldier  That whole story is utter tripe. But how do you think Russia is being incited today, do you think saying they are planning to invade means they have to invade? And your whole conclusion is that they want a war with Russia, you say that while pointing out there massive nuclear arsenal, how does that make any sense in your head?
    1
  2035. Landing actually saves fuel, because a landing is certain they don't have to keep any spare for if they didn't catch the arrestor wire.
    1
  2036. That says it all, Russia will nuke the people it says it's fighting for.
    1
  2037. Russia held part of North Ukraine and has now retreated.
    1
  2038.  @bubbajones6907  Your basically saying someone shouldn't chose something they can't have? Technically true but pointless to point out.
    1
  2039. Why would we do that when we can pick them off with a Meteor from afar?
    1
  2040. How many casualties will Russians take? An occupied country will take a lot for freedom.
    1
  2041. It's just some ideas, and cheap ones at that. It's nor the main life extension scheme.
    1
  2042. Damaged not destroyed
    1
  2043. The military want more money, standard. Our budget is only small compared to the US and China, its huge compare to 90% of the world.
    1
  2044. The Challenger III means we will actual do the upgrade rather than talking about it.
    1
  2045.  @jamiegray6931  Yeah seems good, 148 was more than the 100-120 I expected
    1
  2046.  @leary4  so our government isn't an apologist for Putin, that seems to be bit you don't understand.
    1
  2047. Created by Russia and we aren't fighting so altogether untrue.
    1
  2048. Fought Germany when invaded it's neighbour? Not seeing the similarity?
    1
  2049.  @kylehines3185  why would you need to mention it, it was Nazi Germany Britain was fighting?
    1
  2050.  @ragingclue842  the trade deal with the EU.
    1
  2051. Russians maybe, but the Russian government isn't.
    1
  2052.  @honglidauk  funny.
    1
  2053. We're spending more, how is that a cost cutting measure?
    1
  2054.  @MW-3002  we would, but there is no likely army size when we wouldn't be.
    1
  2055.  @latinman1736  short fall of 17bn over 10 year equipment year, with an extra 16bn over 4 years coming in. Ie. both covering the deficit and adding about 2bn more a year more.
    1
  2056. You can't collide at speed safely intentionally .
    1
  2057. Which side?
    1
  2058. That just shows what media your watching there is a whole array of support coming from various NATO members.
    1
  2059.  @chriswagner5177  that's not how ours will be made. Production was negotiated a year ago, it'll be over half British.
    1
  2060. Your looking at 20 years for the next gen tanks and even then you'll still have old ones for years after.
    1
  2061. It an argument about ammunition per soldier/kit rather than total so adding countries doesn't help.
    1
  2062. Why would Europe want Russian missiles, they make there own.
    1
  2063. @TheGoat Ben Wallace confirmed we we aren't getting rid of all tanks but not if numbers would be reduced.
    1
  2064. I remember looking at the need for more artillery pre Ukraine, now we've got less and its importance has been emphasised I think it is the top priority.
    1
  2065. Not the case, this Ukraine wanting to take a path Russia doesn't like.
    1
  2066.  @zipz8423  why not, they are designed for a life that involves two generations of aircraft. How can you be confident of what's happens decades into the future?
    1
  2067.  @zipz8423  that wasn't what I was saying. We are of course using the F35B for the next couple of decades. But the ship is designed for 50 years so there will be a jet after the F35B.
    1
  2068.  @fredsas12  you've kind of answered you own question. The UK is financial capable of thrust vectoring but is choosing not to make, so it doesn't want it. Though it seems like a nice idea the energy loss isn't worth it.
    1
  2069. The lid for the lift fan intake. Pulls air in and sends in down for the short take offs and verticle landings.
    1
  2070. There roots are neo Nazi and they are older than the current president it would be odd for them not to have any neo Nazi still in there ranks. The question isn't if there are any but whether it defines them anymore.
    1
  2071. You definitely get MALE drones, but I'm not sure that what you meant. (Medium altitude long endurance)
    1
  2072. I think 148 will come from the reality that the tanks are long out of production and aging so some will need to be cannibalised to keep the rest going. Ultimately Challenger 3 is a stop gap upgrade. That said we're seeing in Ukraine it's longer range systems that are more needed.
    1
  2073. If that happened Taiwan would be first. But the US isn't running low.
    1
  2074. There are quiet a few Russians writing stories.
    1
  2075.  @timmurphy5541  have 96% of the jets and ships?
    1
  2076. French carrier? Why do you think a system you have to reset is better than just saying go to the jets? F35B isn't rejected in anyway. The USMC have dozens.
    1
  2077. This video noted other NATO members spending more. The countries we overtook were Russia and Saudi Arabia.
    1
  2078.  @haveyougotthetimeple  I think it's the subject matter. It's entirely speculative and an area that's not spectacular to begin with. If it was exciting you'd know it was propaganda not information.
    1
  2079. Because it isn't about Germany. Where it's about Russia it about countries further East actually bordering Russia but it's also about forward basing for other issues like actions in the Middle East.
    1
  2080.  @kennyfenny8435  There are, but the infrastructure is already set up in Germany and the countries development level and culture is similar. And it isn't only the middle east, just also. Although it's less, Italy and UK also have significant deployments. A gradual shift away makes sense, like if a base needs a major upgrade but when it makes sense for the US tax payer not as a politcal statement.
    1
  2081. The invasion was a certainty after 9/11, it's the aftermath that is the question.
    1
  2082. Some tanks are useful in the force mix, but I agree we aren't a continental power they aren't a priority. And even on the land side it's artillery that seems to have been highlighted in Ukraine.
    1
  2083. We buy some American kit, nothing new or surprising about that.
    1
  2084.  @davidpickens8800  To keep Russian off balance. It stops the Russian acting with impunity knowing they can be attacked, ie. your ground attack aircraft need fighter support for all missions. It's also key that it in collaboration with ground based system.
    1
  2085.  @davidpickens8800  if Ukraine can restrict Russia to only stand off weapons that would be a success but I've heard no suggestion that's the case for all of Ukraine, maybe for western Ukraine.
    1
  2086.  @davidpickens8800  I not sure what point you're trying to make? Ukraine aren't stopping the Russia air force they are reducing it's impact.
    1
  2087.  @davidpickens8800  but your not. Your pointing out the Russian air force is still operating, which no one is disputing, that doesn't mean the Ukrainian air force isn't having an impact.
    1
  2088.  @davidpickens8800  Ukraine don't have air superiority or anything close. As I said earlier how they having an impact is by stopping Russia from acting with impunity. Like you mentioned earlier they are have to use stand off munitions like cruise missiles in the west. Weaker assets like attack helicopters are vulnerable. This is a small, old air force, success isn't dominating, it surviving and continuing to fight.
    1
  2089. The opposite, it's supporting a united front against a Russia that would happily divide and conquer.
    1
  2090. $40bn is over a future period not already given, and the UK has given more than $750m, last time I looked we'd given more as a % of our economy. Also we aren't in danger from Russia either.
    1
  2091.  @john_in_phoenix  it wouldn't really be depending on others, tanks aren't needing for defending the UK, they're needed for defending our allies. Supplying a different mix to allies defence is perfectly respectable.
    1
  2092.  @john_in_phoenix  not sure your point? Britain was made safe with fighters not tanks in 1940. Not sure how you can see an equivalent to Crimea with Britain.
    1
  2093. Don't be thinking that. Unless you've got serious military training it shouldn't even be a consideration.
    1
  2094. The RAF only kept the Typhoon gun because the it balanced the ballast. Guns are a relic.
    1
  2095. How's NATO keeping germany down? And Britain passed it's hegemony to the US peacefully, not a great example.
    1
  2096.  @sweenie58  So your example of how Germany is kept down is something that hasn't happened? US troops are in Germany because it's a nice stepping stone. It certainly isn't to repress Germany who they constiently want to boost there armed forces.
    1
  2097.  @sweenie58  it nothing like putting a gun to there head. For it to happen Russia would have to invade Ukraine at which point Germany itself has said it will impose harsh sanctions. As they are aimed at Russia not Germany.
    1
  2098. They're keen of the "T"'s. I could see Thunder replacing the Lightnings when the time comes.
    1
  2099.  @jyotirmayamohanty5723  you do know ERA is the opposite of what you need against a Swarm of RPGs? It explodes and then it useless.
    1
  2100.  @jyotirmayamohanty5723  quite possible the T90 will have dozens ERA bricks. But the point of ERA is it's reaction, making it better against the first hit but worse later.
    1
  2101.  @hathawayrose2183  That would be an act of war, resisted by force.
    1
  2102.  @hathawayrose2183  we are talking about British ships not US ones, so start is nonsense. And inflatable boats and warships, two very different things.
    1
  2103. Perfectly, Russia are the ones that invaded.
    1
  2104. She has a air wing and an escort group, how does that make her defenceless?
    1
  2105.  @tommiatkins3443  If your discussing a carrier without her escort you have no idea what your taking about. Also jets are quiet capable of shooting down missiles.
    1
  2106.  @tommiatkins3443  only 3 of the type 45s are in long term maintenance. Frigates have AAW capability.
    1
  2107. Paul Martin carriers?
    1
  2108. We live in a Democracy not a Bankocracy.
    1
  2109. It's meant as lesser quality not lower rank.
    1
  2110. The fact that we have a carrier group 10000 km away is a pretty classic Global power thing. Power deployed globally.
    1
  2111. Europe doesn't control Ukraine.
    1
  2112. Not for what we wanted, 4 would give you more spread but a low sortie rate.
    1
  2113. Maybe, but not in the near future.
    1
  2114. It happened all throughout the cold war.
    1
  2115.  @TheLastCrumb.  It depends on the specific missile your talking about but chances are your wrong on both accounts. There's nothing intrinsically unstoppable about hypersonic missiles (though they will certainly be difficult to stop) and the ability to circumnavigate will generally be a waste of resources.
    1
  2116.  @olivergoodridgeify  I agree with you on that, I don't like to see these asset gaps. I want to see things properly costed. A program without delays and well costed is a cost saving program, just I will take something retired early to keep a program going til it's finished.
    1
  2117. Not really, if we wanted more (it would be need being an island) there a loads of choice so you'd have to have a massive united front against us at which point we'd just rebuild the industry.
    1
  2118.  @californiadreamin8423  what did I say thats wrong, the lack of substance on your reply suggests you dont know?
    1
  2119.  @californiadreamin8423  I wasn't saying we'd build them, I was saying we could buy them abroad, but there's lots of countries that build tanks so no one would have us over a barrel. But if we had to we'd likely expand the RBLS spot at Telford. Steel is an even bigger market than tanks, but we do still produce some steel in Scunthorpe and Port Talbot.
    1
  2120. It's a fair argument for having a small force, like we have. But that forces still needs to be able to react to the unexpected and hollowing out risks that. Also things like not maintaining infrastructure isn't actually saving money but pushing cost down the line.
    1
  2121. We spend a lot more on health than defence.
    1
  2122. You know the only sizeable EMP is a nuke?
    1
  2123. People wanting views said that, the government said otherwise.
    1
  2124.  @charlieharper2529  at least get your percentages right it about 60% Russian
    1
  2125. We have allies, that brings us the numbers. But also it depends where your talking about. The numbers Russia or China can get to the UK is very different to what they have at home.
    1
  2126. The US doesn't want to escalate. But there is also the practicality. the actually hit was at the end of long period ad they showed other passes. The last one just went wrong.
    1
  2127. What PLAN strike group? And what friendly countries would they be visiting?
    1
  2128. Don Koh Brimstone will be soon enough for when F35 is being used. Storm shadow is another matter. I wonder if the F35 will get that type of capability ever?
    1
  2129. It might be under the name Spear 3 but it's basically brimstone.
    1
  2130. Ukraine should be whole. Putin is responsible for the many Ukrainian and Russian deaths.
    1
  2131. It's certainly a warship, but that certainly isn't the end of, our warships do other work.
    1
  2132. Eastern neighbours like the Dutch that are part of this fleet.
    1
  2133. These aren't new or untested, so no.
    1
  2134.  @chrisroberts313  yes, they fought in both battle and small scale skirmishes.
    1
  2135. They act funnily to war then, various countries do this including us previously.
    1
  2136. Just because they don't VTO, doesn't mean the can't STO from less than the full length if the carrier. Ie see them take of from an American class without out a ramp, or from near the end of QE.
    1
  2137.  @hans2406  I think you misunderstood. Assembly AND over half the parts build. I think the main part we won't build is the engine.
    1
  2138.  @generalstack6540  Though a jet is much more influential than a tank ,10 certainly wouldn't. But then America hasn't said it will send any, it's the Dutch and Danish, there retiring fleet could provide 50. And the whole point of looking to the F16 specifically is there are lots around to build up to a credible force.
    1
  2139. @zallyzally2698  I didn't say they would, nor did i see everyone saying Russians would be swept away by Leopards. But keep laughing at your failure of comprehension.
    1
  2140. Yep, that's what you need to stop other tools of death.
    1
  2141. All Russian nuclear weapons have been built not to use, there has been no change to MAD.
    1
  2142.  @simonchilli2088  we've plenty of none NATO deployments too, Caribbean, Middle East, Africa. If we were pulling back from the world in general leaving NATO would fit but otherwise we'd be doing NATO style deployments but worse supported. We were for example already working with Sweden and Finland before they started joining.
    1
  2143. Who's at war?
    1
  2144.  @Albertkallal  80% does look a lot like f16 pilots chose the F35 but the F15 pilots didn't.
    1
  2145.  @Albertkallal  I only read your break down which had 5 out 26 F15 pilots. But there's 5 missing to make 31.
    1
  2146.  Putin Did It  F35/F22 can happily see SU57 BVR because it's stealth is crap.
    1
  2147. Why are you writing this on the announcement of what's actually happening?
    1
  2148. Collaborations allow us to spend less on development ourselves yet have more in total spend on development. That is particularly true for something complex yet niche like the STOVL F35B.
    1
  2149. Nukes have no problem destroying tank, modern armour is built with EMP resistance.
    1
  2150. Doesn't look like, there was an alternative RR engine, but the US cut the funding on it.
    1
  2151. Ajax is a CVR(T) replacement.
    1
  2152. They don't have arresting hooks for carriers, the hooks that they have are much more lightweight than those needed for carriers.
    1
  2153. Is Zelensky doing Russia bidding, because he's one of Johnson's biggest fans.
    1
  2154. What are you scared of, because China has long had ICBMs capable of attacking the US?
    1
  2155. The designed to take a missile hit or 2. And used so as not to be hit.
    1
  2156. They also have DAS, helmet targeting and lock on after launch missiles.
    1
  2157. Aren't going to turn around and change the fighter for these carriers whether we can or not. But if we are going to we could also refit the carriers to use catapults.
    1
  2158. I dont understand. The Rafale looks like a Typhoon with an fat face and the refuel pipe isn't ideal. Can you explain the appeal?
    1
  2159. I'd be funny to add up all these stories, you'd have Ukraine with negative forces still stopping Russia advancing.
    1
  2160.  @MrErnestsKarlsons  You guys always seem to talk about the conflict like its still February. The entrenched part was either dealt with or took half years of attacks and is still fighting. Pick one? Either Russian can't break it or they are failing based on recent defences.
    1
  2161. It is gradual, they come out in blocks. We already have some planned weapons (an adapted meteor and spear III) not yet included.
    1
  2162. Why hung up on APC and IFV, when they said it was neither, it was a mechanized infantry vehicle.
    1
  2163. The UK supports the UN but it isn't an organisation thats relevant against Russian aggression.
    1
  2164.  @JeewakaKarunaratne  EU leaders very much support NATO. NATO is voluntary and works by consensus. Iraq for example wasn't a NATO operation just an ad hoc coalition including some of the same countries as NATO as countries like France didn't agree. No cost due to a comedian, any Ukraine president should defend his country, there has been a massive cost due Putin, due to Russian. invading.
    1
  2165. NATO isn't the US. Frankly what your saying is wrong, but even if it were true your describing the US not NATO.
    1
  2166.  @JeewakaKarunaratne  saying it has influence means nothing, it's a member of course it has influence but it doesn't control it. And your describing things as being NATO that aren't, like Iraq.
    1
  2167. This is ours, Australia are building there own, we sold the design and know how not the finished ships.
    1
  2168. These as short range systems, not ones that can be operated from other countries.
    1
  2169. Sky sabre
    1
  2170. DAG058 by cost we will make more than 3x the amount of F35 we will buy.
    1
  2171.  @bobthebomb1596  what obligations? 2% is a target for 2023, it was meant to be worked towards not done immediately.
    1
  2172.  @bobthebomb1596  what are you on about, it was agreed in 2006? And who are talking about in the cold war?
    1
  2173.  @sovietred7371  Maskirovka
    1
  2174.  Dave Klonpenberg  by voting?
    1
  2175.  Dave Klonpenberg  it will not change anything because we are essentially getting the government we want. Or more accurately we are getting the average of the governments we want. You may have a majority not liking the government but ask what they want instead and you get people pulling in opposite directions.
    1
  2176.  @sovietred7371  militaries sure, however with Russia it's there government.
    1
  2177.  Dave Klonpenberg  that's a good example to illustrate my point. Tommy Robinson is a very fringe figure. His ideas are never going to be enacted, not because of rotten government but because they don't have the support.
    1
  2178.  Dave Klonpenberg  there were procedural issues with that case, but it happened at all because he was already serving a suspended sentence. And he is facing a retrial, he hasn't be exonerated. That is after a number of other criminal conviction. The best you can say is he's only bad, not awful, as an individual. I don't know much about his politics because he is an irrelevance that honestly I'm giving to much time to typing. He seems generally anti Muslim and has a far right background of the likes of the BNP. I think you are making my point. You think there is a problem because someone like him isn't mainstream. When someone like him isn't mainstream because he has no mainstream appeal.
    1
  2179.  Dave Klonpenberg  Incompetence is very hard to have a political policy about. Everyone thinks it's bad. Institutional racism in the police was bad, so you try to correct it. Over race based sensitivity is bad too. Unfortunately police are human, and thus flawed. But I think you are also suggesting a general problem with Muslims. That will always remain fringe because the vast majority aren't a problem. Extremists and messed up people are a problem but that's also true of everyone.
    1
  2180.  @robharris8844U  I would guess it has to do with Boxer production and staggering the work along with staggering the spending.
    1
  2181.  @robharris8844U  More likely to be about keeping what we have than a lack of them. If we add Challenger too soon then it will be ending when Ajax and Boxer do and suddenly they'll be no work.
    1
  2182. NATO without the US still massively out spends Russia.
    1
  2183. The F35 is a compromise jet pulled between variants and the UK will have experience with it and many more years of development. It'll be pretty easy for the UK to exceed it.
    1
  2184. No, NATO is about preventing war.
    1
  2185. They joined before the war for money, but not for this fight. Poorly equipment, supplied and supported they need more than money.
    1
  2186.  @TT-hd3zi  it doesn't depend in that we don't have a long range SAM system for it to be back up to. More generally the longer range SAMs may have utility against ballistic missiles but also have issues with cruise missile due to them low flying, and given the extra cost they are likely a worse option than something like sky sabre.
    1
  2187.  @TT-hd3zi  I really don't see it adding much. Unconstrained by budget sure, it's not worthless, but I think there are higher priorities.
    1
  2188.  @brightguy1969  what war are they testing for? The equipment story of Afganistan is you needed specific kit for that type of war so testing for another type is pointless.
    1
  2189.  @brightguy1969  what are you basing that on? You don't prove any capability against a soft target like a village. Or are you just saying that weapons buyers are so sadistic they just want to see death?
    1
  2190. UK is spending not profiting. Ukraine is fighting regardless.
    1
  2191.  @Nigfis  So you replied to a comment about the UK with a US act? But the lend lease act, like the WW2 version, will cost the US.
    1
  2192. You just said forget war, look at competitions.
    1
  2193. You know China and Russia are both permanent UN security council members?
    1
  2194.  @nicolasbocchino3761  US F18 can't land in it, but USMC F35Bs can, along with Italian or Japanese, or other nations that are looking at the F35B. And those can't just land on any ship as the downward thrust will ruin the deck. Cross decking may be higher without catapults. With the size of the run way and the ski jump take off weight restrictions aren't that relevant.
    1
  2195.  @nicolasbocchino3761  spending money for support of an air craft your not actually going to use seems a bigger mistake. If the F35B fails the carrier will need a massive overhaul, spend the money then. But that would also leave all the US's amphibious carriers without a jet and the more than a hundred F35Bs they have as useless, not going to happen.
    1
  2196.  @nicolasbocchino3761  The US might have multiple options, other countries won't, as is normal. Invincibles only flew Harriers.
    1
  2197. Don Koh last I heard meteor is a long way off c. 2023 as the missile itself needs adjusting.
    1
  2198. I curious, do you think if a war starts you magic up an armed force? Also whats the no protection from bombers?
    1
  2199. There was a person in that floating vest?
    1
  2200. They might be destroyed but they wont be taken. Russia are grinding slowly with artilllery not making fast manoeuvres that could capture one.
    1
  2201. Its a compilation.
    1
  2202.  @bobsilentjay7169  the elite aren't some mythical cabal, loads don't want war and even those all about profit may lose from wars as war industries take money from there own industries.
    1
  2203. Replacing Scimitar in the Reconnaissance role.
    1
  2204. Existing tank crews are traveling to other countries for training, the tanks are being supplied with spares as well as logistical support. The missing point isn't so much the support side, it's the fact these tanks are still weeks or months away from actually fighting.
    1
  2205. Battle of Basra
    1
  2206.  @lorenzogcapra  one major battle, a variety of other fights over the years in Iraq.
    1
  2207. @@o.r.4460 damaged not lost. The 1 loss was from friendly fire in 2003, still Basra though.
    1
  2208. @@o.r.4460 While never to be taken lightly a driver being disabled isn't the loss of the tank. And the tank retuned to base.
    1
  2209. 2 of the 3 mentioned are all good for offence.
    1
  2210. Foxhound
    1
  2211. Lots of small places is inefficient and you have less access to specialists.
    1
  2212.  @Robertsmith001  we expressed concern, our experts decided our plan.
    1
  2213.  @72marshflower15  Your talking like the US sites back and doesn't get involved in the wars it fights? Also when has a non US NATO member been attacked?
    1
  2214.  @LondonsFinestSon  We are a nation of 65m and can deploy a carrier group across the world. That's something to be proud of not ashamed.
    1
  2215.  @SVsX-bm7ci  its reasonable to call a FREMM a destroyer, it is a very capable ship but in this video it went with the British classification so air warfare is destroyer, sub or general purpose is a frigate. Either way you get France with 15 frontline fighting ships, less than the UKs 17 (which will go back to 19 with the ordered vessels).
    1
  2216. Except it's US wars like Afganistan that the EU and Britain are paying for.
    1
  2217.  @head_space597  sort yourself out, hundreds have died.
    1
  2218.  @head_space597  "You sent 50 troops and payed nothing well done."
    1
  2219.  @head_space597  You don't have a point. The only country that's called on NATO is the US. And you have have the audacity to disregard when those allies answered in blood and treasure. Go do one.
    1
  2220. It would be a lot easier to do that if Russia didn't do things like annex Ukraine.
    1
  2221. It's primarily a UN deployment.
    1
  2222.  @robharris8844U  other nations are doing it, we are part of a much larger force. And it's about Mali, not France.
    1
  2223. We've had decades of spending less, that dividend, and there is no threat to the UK itself.
    1
  2224. It something like 2/3rds of the world's oceans, there's a whole lot of variety.
    1
  2225. They aren't wringing there hands, they are standing back from nuclear war.
    1
  2226.  @Shrimping  there is no worse than a nuclear war. And its well established that nuclear wepoans change the field, there needs no further example.
    1
  2227. Not at all. The last time Labour was in power it was a Scottish PM. There are Scottish and Welsh tory MPs and the DUP backed up May. Scotland got an independence referendum and chose to stay. On defence the personnel is drawn from across the union and kit it build across the union, like the carriers in Scotland, Ajax in Wales and NLAW in Northern Ireland. How's that just England?
    1
  2228.  @mysurlytrucker7510  You appear to have failed to distinguish to difference between Scotland and the SNP.
    1
  2229.  @mysurlytrucker7510  That still wouldn't mean the SNP was Scotland. But the last general election it was only 45% SNP, that ain't most.
    1
  2230. The F22 is limited in numbers but those numbers are still higher than SU35s. You say the rest is made up of old types but end the sentence mentioning F35 which the US has hundreds of. And even then saying there from the 70s misses various upgrades they have.
    1
  2231. Behind India who have 20x our population!
    1
  2232. China would get a client state instead.
    1
  2233. This is a review that's come with increased spending.
    1
  2234.  @phuktard  I'm not pro returning land. Estonians are in Estonia, there's nothing to return. I am pro self determination. Like in Ireland, the good Friday agreement. When there is a majority in Northern Ireland to leave the UK they can. Scotland just had an independence referendum.
    1
  2235.  @wheresfekkesh7375  I thought some of the maritime nations like the Dutch or the Danish might be keen, or the Swedes who own the British flagged ship that was taken.
    1
  2236. I don't think it's west that's the problem for Russia, it's China. They're the one stealing its traditional arms sales and client nations.
    1
  2237. The carrier flys 5th gen fighters. Support is just about economy.
    1
  2238. The F35 also has the advantage of sensors, networking, EW... but the fact your talking about dog fights suggest your not really interested in modern fighters.
    1
  2239.  UK Revolution  China is more likely to quietly take back it's former territory in eastern Russia than join it fighting NSTO
    1
  2240. Cheaper labour and legacy Soviet stock give it numbers. Whether it is capable is an entirely different story.
    1
  2241. I'm expecting more of a F35/Typhoon cross, thats 5+ rather than 6th gen. I think the drones that will fly with it as part of the overall GCAP will be a bigger change.
    1
  2242. I think sending the second makes it political rather than purely the Navy doing it's job. But then it is a political issue so not sure if that makes in OTT.
    1
  2243. Japan started the war knowing they'd likely lose.
    1
  2244. Seems like we don't have many of these considering how cheap they are compared to a manned jet.
    1
  2245.  @marksmith8732  They might be coming, but they are another big step on to Reapers. Optionally manned is the first step, you don't want to risk making all your defences vulnerable to disruption.
    1
  2246. Paranoia. It may be slightly worse than the post Cold war glow but weapons development is a continuous thing.
    1
  2247. Collective defence mean quality and quantity.
    1
  2248. The second cold war is starting, but that's not WW3.
    1
  2249. The current Russian government is there enemy, the only question is how best to deal with it.
    1
  2250.  @charlieharper2529  what are you on a about?
    1
  2251. The T31 is 5.7k tonnes, that's isn't a glorified corvette.
    1
  2252.  @danjones4432  Scimitars are reconnaissance vehicles not IFVs. They will be replaced by Ajax.
    1
  2253.  @markcooke5270  it looks like the FC/ASW won't be added to the Type 45, with 6 of these 11 being the Type 45s.
    1
  2254. They can't, the forces would want much more money. The vast majority of government spending is on helping people, only about 5% on the military.
    1
  2255. The US contribution has already been covered in other videos
    1
  2256. The British armies choice was based on more than just the best tank. Most notably cost.
    1
  2257.  @LeeTillbury  Challenger 3 is an upgrade rather than blank sheet tank design. It's not necessarily what the British army think is the best tank, just the best they can get for the cost.
    1
  2258.  @LeeTillbury  no one said they weren't great, just not the best. Upgrading is undeniable cheaper than a new design would be.
    1
  2259. Our lack of ammunition is less a comment on what we've given away and more one on a couple of decades of underfunding and and not focusing on peer warfare.
    1
  2260.  @danielkrcmar5395  How are you dumbfounded, it's common place to help without a treaty. And there is a clear aggressor in Russia.
    1
  2261. Because Russia is mired in Ukraine and the UK is a long way from Russia.
    1
  2262.  @marcusaetius9309  Russia has plenty of other fleets and given they've lost there flagship and a landing ship I'd expect reinforcements would have been likely rather just an option.
    1
  2263.  @marcusaetius9309  they rule against Ukraine, no else actually fighting
    1
  2264.  @steveosborne2297  the unused tanks will be cannibalised for parts for those upgraded.
    1
  2265.  @steveosborne2297  it's just normal practise for older kit.
    1
  2266.  @BlowBubbbles  practically you need 3, but 4 makes it absolutely certain. But the carriers aren't designed to be permanently at sea, just to be available to go in short order.
    1
  2267. The UN doesn't have any control over NATO?
    1
  2268.  @andrewgordon235  No, completely different organisations.
    1
  2269.  @MatthewMakesAU  no that's what it actual has on board, not what it can take. Also no F35Cs in CVW8.
    1
  2270. Jack Stephens it's stopped production and wasn't available for export when it was still being made.
    1
  2271. It's almost like you choose the president by voting rather than going to rallies.
    1
  2272.  @stephencockett9959  who did what? The US public elect Biden by voting for him?
    1
  2273. How do you figure. Any prospect of invasion ended in the battle of Britain before Russia entered the war.
    1
  2274. The day he wants to commit suicide. Russia has struggled with Ukraine.
    1
  2275. I think they only have older kit in large numbers so an operation this size will be majority old kit regardless of choice.
    1
  2276. North Korea know they can't attack but that is why they developed nukes, the South Korean conventional army had opened a gap in quality.
    1
  2277. Would you not fight for your country?
    1
  2278. They were always in Syria with naval base before the conflict, but I believe they have a permanent airbase too now.
    1
  2279. Winter not so much but Autumn it will slow in the mud.
    1
  2280.  @uropepe  If the UK crashes in the worse possible way and we lose 20% of our GDP we'd still be spending £30bn a year. That might cover petrol...
    1
  2281. They pull from the same pot, keeping more old means building less new.
    1
  2282.  @thomasgriffiths3001  I not sure if you do understand given you've just added another area of spending in troops.
    1
  2283. Air power has always been central to western doctrine not Russian. Russian jets have performed poorly but that doesn't speak to western ones. For example stealth, now decades old for the US, is designed to operate in heavy anti aircraft environments. Russia doesn't have stealth jets in any quantity.
    1
  2284. He got more funds and yet it shrunk. That's trend isn't going change.
    1
  2285. @splatoonistproductions5345  no its just the long term fact kit is increasingly complex and expensive, and areas increasing in importance like space and cyber are less manpower intensive. But on the cup front, the cup was emptying rather than filling with recruitment not matching leavers so a smaller cup was just accepting reality.
    1
  2286.  @meme4one  it's run independently of the MoD, but it is run by people that care about the British armed forces. So it will include criticism of of the MoD but will generally be pro Britain.
    1
  2287. @meme4one  if you've ever watched the BBC you'll know it spends plenty of time criticising the government.
    1
  2288. This is a very different story.
    1
  2289. With force you can choose not to use it, without your subject to others whims.
    1
  2290. Estonia's our lead (British). Kaliningrad would be swept up by the big guy in Poland (the US).
    1
  2291. They have to arm, transport and support them at the front. That limits numbers. Of course there isn't anything stopping more once the first lot are done.
    1
  2292.  @msquinn225  why's it a nuclear age? Most of the US fleet is diesel and the UK has had nuclear vessels (subs) for over half a century, its nothing new. Nuclear isn't efficient for our carriers.
    1
  2293. It's sending in the ships whose job this kind of thing is.
    1
  2294. Why won't RBSL exist?
    1
  2295.  @jackdransfield2230  after production there will be support contracts. And while I agree the UK doing things alone doesn't make much sense it continues to want industrial participation. RBSL would seem perfect if the UK chooses the European MGCS as it's next tank.
    1
  2296.  @jackdransfield2230  land kit isn't too bright but we have some navy designs doing well and Tempest seems to be well commited.
    1
  2297. We aren't going to use our conventional military at home, theres no issue in doing both.
    1
  2298. There is a point about expanding the capabilities of boxer, I think this will mean giving it IFV capabilities.
    1
  2299.  @phatkid6811  we've built the ships and already have more than a squadrons worth of F35, not really an IF any more.
    1
  2300. This isn't to do with oil?
    1
  2301.  @drudru5992  You'd have to be subsidising oil (or more importantly gas) for the rest of the world?
    1
  2302.  @drudru5992  OPEC could act, the likes of the US and Canada can't produce it cheap enough and so it would need to be subsidised.
    1
  2303. The basis of what your military defends is our freedom of speech and choice. I think Cornyn is awful but he should be voiced here. Criticise Corbyn and his policies. Don't criticise a platform for giving normal political representation.
    1
  2304. It not just the UK and US other european countries are sending kit too.
    1
  2305. Not really, there's a variety of countries that manufacture in the UK.
    1
  2306. Basically because we don't want enough for that. Setting up a production line for a few years and then having people out of work is bad practice.
    1
  2307. 2
    1
  2308. Why would anything suggest they would just give up? At most they would look to negotiate a peace.
    1
  2309. @robertkubrick3738  that how wars end. Maybe Putin doesn't care young Russian dieing but he should at least care about his oligarchs being able to enjoy there money instead of spending it on a war.
    1
  2310. Maybe not democracy but peace makes money.
    1
  2311. It's the same story but where's the fallacy. More advanced > more expensive > less numbers.
    1
  2312. Are you saying Russia isn't in Ukraine?
    1
  2313. A big part is continual work load, they could employ more people to do it in half the time but then they would have no work for them to half the time. That time also includes all the testing etc. that is worse for a first of class.
    1
  2314. Though the on going war is now an issue originally Ukraine wasn't allowed to join for things like quality of democracy, levels of corruption, state of there armed forces etc. Issues Finlnad doesn't have. Also donated weapons don't incure debt.
    1
  2315. Thats a lot less than a tank or other armoured vehicle.
    1
  2316.  @oldgreggscreamybaileys6618  if you mean both sides your right and it's all to the good, less casualties.
    1
  2317. False flags. Whether or not it's true it's pretty easy to understand why they'd do it.
    1
  2318.  @desydukuk291  We obviously aren't. Do you no understand the part of intelligence in warfare?
    1
  2319. Dolphins look like fish but didn't steal from fish. Stealth means they are going to look a bit a like.
    1
  2320. Part of it being here is because we have ships, and so it has partners to exercise with.
    1
  2321. Damaged not destroyed
    1
  2322.  @kimjonglongdong3158  I think the idea with Sweden is we may not end up agreeing on the final jet but we can use a lot of of the same systems. Think of a Gripen but with the Typhoon engine, radar, Pirate, networking etc. Ideally we have one jet but even with two we can share a lot.
    1
  2323. Why do you separate the Baltics and Poland? Both are NATO members.
    1
  2324.  @leary4  I think you've got it wrong. With the Baltics in NATO and the EU it would be a completely different prospect to Georgia and the Ukraine. These were nations making there first moves towards the west (Georgia to NATO and Ukraine the EU) so Russia could act before a close relationship was formed. Adding in the perminantly stationed NATO troops in tgge Baltic it wou mean NATO is automatically involved and so Putin has no prospect success. Finland's relationship is a cold war legacy when the Warsaw pact was on a par with NATO. Realistically any offensive action by Russia against Norway would likely bring in Sweden and then Finland.
    1
  2325.  @leary4  you think some vague sense of debt from a coalition that also involved Mongolia and Kazakhstan compares to a concrete treaty and troops on the ground deployed for defence and rather than training? The Baltics are safe because they are guaranteed by NATO. Otherwise they would be subject to the whims of Russia as much as Belarus is. The largest exercise by NATO was just held in Norway. Clearly with a Russian invasion in mind, and it involved Sweden and Finland. I'm not sure what you mean by Sweden not being a country?
    1
  2326.  @leary4  How are the Baltics unaffiliated when they are in NATO and the EU and have NATO troops perminantly stationed there?
    1
  2327.  @leary4  The permanent presence isn't to win the fight, it's to ensure countries are automatically involved in the fight. I know Article 5 will be upheld by the UK. The US fought the gulf war without a treaty, they fought the Iraq war without an invasion, I find the idea you think the US will be so unwilling to fight unlikely. What do you have against Macedonia now?
    1
  2328. The only major Chinese target is Taiwan, and that is a completely different war (amphibious).
    1
  2329. It acts neither regionally nor purely defensively so that isn't an accurate description.
    1
  2330.  @Justineexy  Nothing wrong with France reacting, they can help if anything untoward happens.
    1
  2331. The invasion has shown Russian incompetence and more generally the weakness of armour. Not sure why that would cause us to reevaluate?
    1
  2332.  @maquettemusic1623  It is doctrinal failing but there failing showing the importance of proper logistical and infantry support over numbers, which is much more of the British set up. And thats without bringing in airpower which NATO has always had at the fore. Where Ukraine are struggling is with artillery and and air strikes, not things armour is well suited against. And the whole war is one we aren't fighting directly, it is an example of where training and soft power are what are being used not a massed ground force.
    1
  2333. @Jim Carner The review already included increasing the range of MLRS and acquiring new artillery to replace the AS90.
    1
  2334. @Jim Carner how can me explaining why we aren't revaluating lead to you saying we are?
    1
  2335. @Jim Carner That was part of the defence review, not reevaluation.
    1
  2336. @Jim Carner Because you seemlingly don't understand English. Specifically the "re" part. Reevaluating means you took an decision and now your thinking that it might be wrong. The decision in the defence review was to update one system and replace another, that currently looks like exactly to right decision. AS90 is old kit, replacing old kit is what happens all the time. And the point in this case is that is what they were already planning on doing in the defence review.
    1
  2337. @Jim Carner It's only patronising if you understood in the first place.
    1
  2338. You can fight in winter, Russia started the war in winter.
    1
  2339.  @ykdickybill  Russia isn't communist, it's now an oligarchy. Doing business is one thing but we shouldn't be good mates.
    1
  2340. Tanks are less important not obsolete. Hence 2/3rds of what we had.
    1
  2341. Not fighting does make it hard to succeed.
    1
  2342. NATO is hiding behind NATO?
    1
  2343.  @puffin51  Japan lost the war 07/12/41.
    1
  2344. The video specifically says it was because Russia broke the treaty?
    1
  2345. A single laser shot is much cheaper.
    1
  2346.  @catsupchutney  better for experts to make that decision based on research and experimentation.
    1
  2347.  @catsupchutney  though I'm not sure how your imagining smoke working on something going fast enough to hit a jet.
    1
  2348. France and Germany are supplying Ukraine weapons, don't make stupid comments.
    1
  2349.  @ExiledGypsy  Your calling not helping enough collaboration with the otherside. That is utterly dumb. Even not doing anything wouldn't be collaboration but they are helping as you describe. But as to why they dont give more the obvious answer you've blanked is because it isn't free and there militaries have limited supplies to begin with. How much of your own wealth do you give away to help other people?
    1
  2350.  @squirepraggerstope3591  I hope you enjoy ranting about nothing.
    1
  2351. It basically forward defence. Our island has been relatively untouched over the years because we fight away from home. Helping someone else fight means even our troops aren't at risk.
    1
  2352. @14ALL41OK Putin can commit suicide any time he wants, nothing has changed on that regard. Nuclear threats by Putin against the UK are hollow.
    1
  2353. The 80s was the cold war, that isn't a level of forces to emulate.
    1
  2354.  @amanaujla3  We faced the Soviet Union with then Warsaw Pact, now many of them are one our side. That was so much more dangerous than Russia is now. China still existed, but like now its on the other side of the world, it's influence need checking more than it's hard power. It's laughable you include Iran on the same level.
    1
  2355.  @barrysorento3572  what's being involved in European affairs got to do with the length of Afganistan. That's a US war in Asia. Only your not fighting alone, but with allies. And the 2nd amendment hasn't been relevant for defence in a century. No one is invading past your massive Navy and Air force. Quarter them in size and they are still the most powerful in the world. What make the EU the 4th Reich, is it the vetos all the small countries have or the 12% of the vote Germany has in the parliament?
    1
  2356.  @barrysorento3572  1) You entered WW1 because your merchant ships were being sunk by German subs, being isolationist is one thing, letting someone else walk all over you us another. Also the allies likely still would have won only later so Hitler might well have happened anyway. 2) Less Americans dead, less financial burden because it's split with allies. 3) You missed my point complete. You are to powerful for 2nd amendment to be relevant. But the idea you want to be a guerrilla is dumb, 10x plus guerrillas have died is wars like Vietnam and Afganistan. 4) They are appointed by the elected heads of states, so indirectly elected. But even if you go with unelected 1 in 28 is German. How does that make it a Reich?
    1
  2357. Drones have been useful but this is an artillery war. That said there is only so much the US can learn as theres is a air power doctrine.
    1
  2358.  @unbearifiedbear1885  she's built with extra power generation specifically with the likes of EMALs in mind. And we even changed plan for a couple of years in 2010 to using it. It won't happen with this generation of aircraft as we are well into the F35B.
    1
  2359. There regular army is about 120k mostly conscripts, conscription does mean they have a large potential reserve though.
    1
  2360. Same place, waiting for an upgrade. Different role.
    1
  2361.  @samuel10125  It's not quite as old as the 50s, just the 80s. The plan is to continue using Warrior, along side Challenger II, with an upgraded gun. The two being designed to work together. Ajax and Boxer are coming in for the strike brigades, roughly speaking replacing Scimitar and Mastiff. There are for the quickest response. Note Ajax itself is an Armed reconnaissance vehicle rather than a troop transport, though there is a troop varient (Ares).
    1
  2362.  @samuel10125  You may have been thinking of the FV432, Warrior was build to replace it but we still have them.
    1
  2363.  @samuel10125  still a few years of service yet but yes no longer any upgrade and to be retired once Boxer is in place.
    1
  2364. Planes only join when needed, and even then are kept under deck when not flying.
    1
  2365. This is a much bigger and more capable system, you can't expect one for one.
    1
  2366.  @TT-hd3zi  sure, that's why we are buying a bigger and more capable system.
    1
  2367.  @campdw  Looking into it a bit it seems we dropped down to 24 Rapier units around 2004 and the plan is 24 Sky Sabre, so we are actually going 1:1 but it must be pulling resources from somewhere else.
    1
  2368.  @English.Andy1  interference as well, disruption is a real issue with drones.
    1
  2369. Why do you think that?
    1
  2370. What ship would that be then?
    1
  2371.  @ryancoulson9448  what ship has China built in 6 months thats bigger than this?
    1
  2372. I'm not sure what a cheap drone will do, an expensive drone with air to air missiles might do some work but only if the Apache worked in isolation and not backed by an air force.
    1
  2373. You seem to be saying start a nuclear war to avoid a nuclear war?
    1
  2374.  @Mic_Glow  I deterrent is also useless if the other side just thinks your lying. And further it undermines when it's a more reasonable bluff.
    1
  2375. We don't want them.
    1
  2376.  @turkey0165  Britain was never on it's knees, the flow of goods to the UK was never interrupted and the vast majority of months we produced more ships than were sunk without the US. That said I am very grateful for US help, less dead is always good. Britain has the wealth to operate a 5000 man carrier if it really wanted but it would be a total waste. We can run two with less crew and and they aren't obsolete.
    1
  2377.  @ThatCarGuy  I doesn't help the UK in the slightest, it's a pile of scrap metal and radioactivity we'd never run.
    1
  2378.  @rayjames6096  They are built to be able to be refit for catapults, in the mean time they'd be helicopter carriers, so no, not scrap. And to do that you'd alienate an ally and stop F35 production for a few years as the UK build 15% of each.
    1
  2379.  @rayjames6096  it has enough spare power for emals.
    1
  2380.  @rayjames6096  the gas turbines don't power the propellers, they are surge power for when you want the propellers to go faster, ie all the turbine power can be used EMALs. Also EMALs doesn't work from direct power, you charge up storage and the storage powers the Emals.
    1
  2381.  @rayjames6096  stopping sales to the UK is never going to happen so it's moot. But the US couldn't stop Turkish production for a couple of years and the UK is much more crucial so if it stop it's parts supply F35 productions stops until new lines can be set up, thats not a quick process, though obvious it will happen eventually.
    1
  2382.  @rayjames6096  Its not what I say, it's the British government plans, QE/PoW are designed to be able to take Emals, and it was even plan between 2010-2012.
    1
  2383.  @rayjames6096  look up the integrated electric propulsion of the QE class because you clearly have no idea what your talking about.
    1
  2384.  @rayjames6096  You doubt the general point of Diesel/Gas set ups. Gas turbines are inefficient so can't be run all the time but they produce a lot more power so allow higher top speeds when needed.
    1
  2385. @Drew Peacock the requirement for EMALs is variable, as I mentioned earlier they don't run direct from the power supply. You store up power (I think basically on a fly wheel) so less power is more a case of slower reuse than unuseabilty. It also depends on the number of launchers.
    1
  2386. @Drew Peacock my claims comes from the ships being designed to be able to and planned to have them for two years. But asking for numbers when I just explained why it doesn't make sense just makes you look dumb.
    1
  2387. @Drew Peacock you clearly haven't understood what I've written. Whats the power requirement to build up 500 MJ of energy? It could 1 or 1 million, it depends on how long your going to take.
    1
  2388. Be part of an alliance.
    1
  2389.  @iangodfrey4518  too small for what? We are not at risk ourselves, the other wars are a choice, and a choice you'd have us do less.
    1
  2390.  @jayneryan6395  that's before the B2 was even introduced. It just shows how little "in development" means.
    1
  2391. Corrine Tsang that doesn't sound like a fighter, bomber maybe?
    1
  2392. A lot of the new features of Tempest will be future upgrades for the F35. Its doubtful a 2040 Tempest would justify a generational step claim compared to a 2040 F35.
    1
  2393.  @oculosprudentium8486  48 sea ceptor cells, 24 MK41.
    1
  2394.  @1chish  yeah, Great Britain does at least have the same multinational feel as the UK.
    1
  2395. Nukes require a response in kind, chemical weapons don't. Also it's general training.
    1
  2396.  @mrratchet  the problem isn't the parties lack of interest, it's the people's lack of interest. I care about our military and I'd only pay for the better conditions and not the larger size.
    1
  2397. @timetowaste Britain would lose capability. Production is part of defence, along with today's equipment.
    1
  2398.  @glennridsdale577  The Typhoon for the Indian competition included some upgrades. AESA radar was one but I think there were others.
    1
  2399.  @realistic658  Aye, the Jocks are some of our best, Coldstream guards and the like.
    1
  2400. Why, Russia is poor, it military will need rebuilding along with any territory they take, any militray aid Russia can send will be limited.
    1
  2401.  @MrEsphoenix  Ajax isn't a warrior upgrade, it based on the Spanish/Austrian ASCOD.
    1
  2402.  @MrEsphoenix  I may have misunderstood you, apologies if you meant CV90 from the start for the Warrior upgrade rather than Ajax.
    1
  2403. Billions added to ten of billions already. But thats no money.
    1
  2404.  @davidrobertsemail  we might do with high interest rates at the moment, that's a comment on how much debt we are in rather defence. If anything it suggests we should spend less on defence to pay down our debt.
    1
  2405.  @davidrobertsemail  Your point wasn't clear because you said something plainly false, that there's no money for defence. And I didn't get we should spend less from the video I got it from your debt comment.
    1
  2406. The 4th man is another person to help maintain the tank. Its not something the British army are bothered about getting rid of.
    1
  2407. ​@davidrobertsemail one will have 24/36 jets depending on the conflict, the other will take over as needed.
    1
  2408. But it wouldn't just succeed in destroying Russia but the US too.
    1
  2409. How do you think that works, we send an envoy and Russia goes oh I didn't think of that? Russia chose to invade it 0nky by being stopped militarily that they have reason to come to the peace table.
    1
  2410.  @sladehelicoptersgaming3148  I have no idea why you think there have been no peace envoys, there have been actual peace talks in Turkey, they are just no where near agreement. But then your dates suggest you don't know what your talking about and your generally attitude marks you as a Russian apologist not someone pro peace.
    1
  2411. GDP was generally growing until Covid.
    1
  2412. What can it do?
    1
  2413. No, we have two part empty carriers. Empty is a joke, part empty is effectively just a smaller carrier, still very useful.
    1
  2414. NZ have been anti nuclear since the 80s.
    1
  2415. Gary Mcatear long before your time. We'll end up with a couple of hundred between Typhoons and Lightning IIs.
    1
  2416. The give away was you included old, ie. stuff that doesn't need testing. And it's basically just old or at least well eatabliahed thats being sent.
    1
  2417.  @niajall6327  it may change but so far it seems like what being sent is older kit. Added to that there aren't embedded forces that would normally report back on effectiveness.
    1
  2418. No so surprising given the difference in size, pop, gdp etc between the two countries.
    1
  2419.  @user-lp7wo7og4x  you weren't comparing with India or China. But GDP is always relevant. The US still has massively greater GDP than India or you'd see India with a building program like China's.
    1
  2420.  @user-lp7wo7og4x  % spent certainly has an effect so you have the US with more powerful carriers, but where we started this was you saying the US has about 7x the carriers as the UK, when it has about 7x the GDP as well it makes perfect sense. and that certainly has more effect than than spending less than 2x the %. On China while it has a similar GDP now that's only recent, when you are talking about carrier up to 50 years old, you need to look at the historic levels too.
    1
  2421.  @verdebusterAP  Nah, QEs are dedicated fighter carriers with significantly more capacity than US LHAs, they aren't either LHA or CVNs they are there own thing.
    1
  2422. I love ugly war machines, you know they're built for a purpose.
    1
  2423. Radar 2 is looking at significant abilities beyond a basic AESA so it won't just be a catch up but also a push forward. Only a few Russian fighters have AESA, not there whole fleet.
    1
  2424. You think a country with a $15tr economy doesn't have even a moderate spy agency?
    1
  2425. Sanders was the extreme left, Biden is mainstream.
    1
  2426.  @robh4671  70 years occupied half of Europe!
    1
  2427. Protect in what way? They aren't going to shoot them.
    1
  2428. I've seen various reports on Armata capabilities.
    1
  2429. It's not the soviet system, it's the current one.
    1
  2430. The two is one is showing itself with QE having covered any duties. We were only looking for one available. It will get various refits and rebuilds over it's planned 50 year life.
    1
  2431. Why Russia? Russia doesn't offer a genuine alternative like the USSR. China maybe some one you could use as a power broker, not Russia.
    1
  2432. @Stavros S. man power is a pretty poor indicator of the capability of an army. A better trained, equipped and motivated force can easily overcome superior numbers. Ie. Iraq in 2003 had superior numbers but stood no chance.
    1
  2433.  @RomanHistoryFan476AD  no it didn't. The Iraqi army was bigger than the invasion force. And if you include reserves it was multiple times bigger.
    1
  2434.  @TheHypernaught  The point of a deal would be better trading relations. Also why would the result of a second referendum be less valid the first? The only difference would be the second is the current opinion not the past opinion.
    1
  2435. @Mike JJJ there might have a few more facts, at least the "all benefits, none of the pitfalls option is gone". But I'd guess the main change is a few more old people aren't with us, and a few more young people can vote.
    1
  2436. Sweden and Italy are already involved so Europe certainly isn't out. The Netherlands has shown interest. May be Japan too.
    1
  2437. The exact from of tanks might change but something armoured on the ground and with a decent gun to support troops isn't going away.
    1
  2438. Kosovo?
    1
  2439. They are grouped as the Baltics due to there Soviet history and small size but I hope they get the show there individuality. That said I could see Latvia and Lithuania also looking to the Nordic countries as they are good role models for anyone.
    1
  2440.  @mahabharat4985  both were US led campaigns, they set policy. Unless you are trying to say everything would have been fine with a US invasion but the UK messed it up?
    1
  2441. Shed loads.
    1
  2442. I agree Tridents more powerful, but you can't say take away it jets and it's useless, thats its point. Take away tridents missiles and it's useless. (Though neither is true, a helicopter carrier and a torpedo sub both have uses)
    1
  2443.  @Makeyourselfbig  well you entirely missed the point and went off on a rant. If you take away the defining element of an object its not going to be good at what it designed for. Why are you even talking about it? As for carriers in the Royal Navy they they give us power projection. This may not be against the strongest nations, there Trident is keeping the peace but there's 193 nations, take away the 5-10 actually capabke navies and you still have 183 nations they're useful against.
    1
  2444. They looked at it, it would have cost roughly twice as much.
    1
  2445. When it's not fighting its good practice with the helicopters.
    1
  2446. The size makes it less vulnerable rather than more as it can take more damage. While expensive in the abstract it's cheap for what it is.
    1
  2447. Where have we been pushing Russia borders? Russia complains about us being in neighbouring soveign countries by invitation as if they have the right to dominate them.
    1
  2448.  @ThunderAppeal  No I don't know. That's why I asked. I like to expand my perspectives as tend to talk to like minded people in real life. And the idea that Russia could deliver an ass whooping that didn't lead to nuclear war isn't credible.
    1
  2449.  @ThunderAppeal  I'm not sure if bringing about the end of the world qualify as an ass whooping...
    1
  2450. Nah, we'll wait until Ford is properly up and running. Any Nimitz would work for now though.
    1
  2451.  @janko6608  By other countries standard the 250K extra you call up in war and that get refresher training are your reserve. While its worth acknowledging all adult men have been through training it's not the same.
    1
  2452.  @kk-gr3ly  The 900k figure is just everyone under 50 (and older is some cases) that's served and not just those that are actively maintaining there skills. Those wouldn't be considered reserves in other countries.
    1
  2453.  @ThaiSoup39  No, the claim is the referendum was a farce so we don't know.
    1
  2454.  @studentaviator3756  Ajax doesn't have the troop space, it is no longer ASCOD. Even Ares which does carry some troops only carries 4 and it drops the 40mm.
    1
  2455. Russia can commit suicide and start nuclear war. Other than that spreading the war would only harm Russia.
    1
  2456. Russia is a future Chinese client state not a friend. Russian weakness is no great problem for China. And weapons sent are barely scratching the surface of the US military (The one that actually matters for Taiwan) and may even be boosting there industry generally with sales to Europe.
    1
  2457. gladfly cost is a real thing. The government is sticking to 2% so anything spent in one place gets taken from another. Better to get the F35s faster than hold on to an out of date platform.
    1
  2458. You know European countries are also sending weapons? Slovakia even sent an S300 system, a much more substantial piece of kit.
    1
  2459. Long term that's the case, short term they are often being trained out of country by people who know the systems.
    1
  2460. The only thing this suggest is tanks are good for propaganda. There's no fighting so it says nothing about if they are useful in war or not.
    1
  2461.  @dnmurphy48  they are worse, thats why there's this video, due to there persistence. Worse can be justified, but it has to be justified.
    1
  2462.  @alexanderrose1556  Yeah, France is the country I usually compare to due similar economy and population. Just wanted to point out how big a difference in area there is.
    1
  2463. That was only if we won the new build part too, we didn't.
    1
  2464. They haven't been a superpower since the USSR collapsed.
    1
  2465. No chance of it being over by then, either way.
    1
  2466. The same WW3 as every year? Recruitment adds normal practice for a professional army.
    1
  2467. Tech has always been essential, the bonus of NATO is it also has the numbers due to its size and wealth.
    1
  2468.  @rileyernst9086  Not sure how you can say France is pretty good and the UK is pathetic when the UK has consistently out spent France?
    1
  2469. Russia wanted Biden's polls boosted?
    1
  2470.  @BRH0587  Thanks for that explanation. I think this kind of thing needs more publicity, it's too easy to look at a basic salary and not at the situation you will be in after say 4 or 12 years.
    1
  2471. Who's WW3 with, Russia that is stuck in Ukraine? Also we have 2 carriers to always have one available not to deploy both.
    1
  2472. £10bn for F35s
    1
  2473. Did you say you don't want them except you do want them?
    1
  2474. India is a good country to compare against having a similar spend and a reasonable focus on the navy.
    1
  2475. The US is impossible to invade, US schools aren't.
    1
  2476. Iraq, and peackeeping.
    1
  2477. No war will break out by Putin invading.
    1
  2478. Yep, the multi role support ships should look more bay class like, less capable but cheaper. The worry is that though cheaper we don't get more.
    1
  2479. @TheBooban  what you've seen in Ukraine is occasionally ships be sunk not the wholesale destruction of there fleet. Similarly on land you see successful attacks but not there use with impuntity. But amphibious assaults are risky, in a major conflict, it is more the threat requiring defence resources be spread away from front lines rather than there actual use.
    1
  2480. @mrm6783  your right that the bay class isn't the answer either, something new is required, but cheaper and less crew than the albion class.
    1
  2481. ​@fToo They only did that after a long time and when lines had become static.
    1
  2482. Refueling with a tanker is generally a better way to increase range.
    1
  2483. Our allies feel threatened, and it's very clear why given there size and Russia's willingness to invade neighbours. Why Russia with it's massive nuclear stockpile and army feel threaten by a few thousand troops is much less understandable?
    1
  2484.  @tonywilson9950  I presume your pushing an agenda. Your next to a massive military power with a history of occupying your country and a present of intervening in it neighbours and you think it needs NATO escalation for you to feel threatened?
    1
  2485. It's doesn't, like when the EU puts tariffs on the US goods in response to the US doing it on theirs.
    1
  2486.  @MattCellaneous  tell that to Harley Davidson. And NATO has nothing to do with trade, so if your taking trade you need to talk EU.
    1
  2487. Except it only country actually fighting is Ukraine and the kit sent doesn't even come to a years spending by Dutch, never mind Russia.
    1
  2488. You know they invaded months ago?
    1
  2489.  @nodisalsi  if that's even true it's only as a launch platform that could be replaced by various alternatives.
    1
  2490. The F35 would be a great choice to bomb dams if that's what we did nowadays. Bomber is as much part of it's role as fighter, and in practice bombing will be much more common.
    1
  2491. This is NATO, we aren't leaving NATO?
    1
  2492. King of the pennies fighter are pretty loud, it might be difficult to hear.
    1
  2493. Yes
    1
  2494. Why would Putin be at that table?
    1
  2495. It's a Joint Lightning force so the pilots are both RAF and FAA (Fleet Air Arm - Navy flyers).
    1
  2496. Your talking like a single year of less than a 10% of NATO spending is actually a lot (not that that's actually been sent from what I've seen).
    1
  2497. ICBM defence is just false security. There aren't any with a high enough success rate that we wouldn't be levelled anyway.
    1
  2498. NATO are allies, Ukriane isn't. The UK have been clear though we support them we won't fight for Ukraine. Where is the hypocrisy?
    1
  2499. Not quite the original, there's been a few.
    1
  2500. The biggest is likely intelligence. Satellites over head, AWACS near the border and spy networks crunching the data.
    1
  2501. More of a reflection on the differences. The difficulty of the RM requirements mean there are very few women.
    1
  2502. She was a GP type 23 so a type 31. When is more of a question depending which you class as replacing which but we won't be going back up in numbers until the late 2020s at the earliest.
    1
  2503. Where was the lack of fighter aircraft in the withdrawal?
    1
  2504. Mines cover remote triggered as well as proximity devises.
    1
  2505.  @mirzahamzabaig5667  so they spend trllions for a billion dollar industry that can be grown else where anyway?
    1
  2506.  @mirzahamzabaig5667  why, there value isn't that much, and they can't be monopolised?
    1
  2507.  @mirzahamzabaig5667  there may well plenty of bad reasons for being in Afganistan but I just can't see money being one.
    1
  2508. 2 carriers means we have one always available, France doesn't, CDG was recently refueling for 18 months so practically no carrier was available.
    1
  2509.  @thegto8535  the obvious point is more jets are coming, we've long ordered 48 and are now discussing the next tranche. PoW is having some issues but that is exactly why you have 2, so you still have one while the other is being maintained (be it routine or exceptional).
    1
  2510. France is part of NATO.
    1
  2511. Britain doesn't want to be a Superpower, but it's budget is nothing like a third world country, it's one of the worlds largest. We don't do much by ourselves, Ajax is based on a Spanish/Austrian design, Challenger 3 is working with German company. Basically you couldn't have said much more that wrong.
    1
  2512. Apart from the men in it, the tanks it works with, air support and artillery. Other that that, yes tanks are a problem.
    1
  2513. You think you could get an F4 with the latest electronics for £3m?
    1
  2514. Belt and Road? No chance. Europe is it's own power block, not Chinese vassals.
    1
  2515.  @pparker768  it certainly isn't a win win situation with countries like Sri Lanka already being compromised by debt. It's a power play. China is trying to take advance of weak European economies like Italy and Greece. And while the US is far from perfect, it isn't an authoritarian regime. But as a said in my first post europe doesn't have to choose either it can be it's own power block.
    1
  2516.  @charlieharper2529  Western Democracy is representative Democracy, you don't have referendums on everything you elect politicians to make decisions.
    1
  2517. Ajax itself doesn't take troops, Ares only takes 4 and I believe drops the 40mm.
    1
  2518. You know the UK spends billions on aid each year including hundreds of millions to countries like Ethiopia and Nigeria. It also helps train various African militaries and did act to end the Sierra Leone civil war.
    1
  2519. The RFA, often over looked, really pushes the Royal Navy past the Marine Nationale.
    1
  2520.  @abejunkies  The rest of NATO easily out mans and massively out monies Russia.
    1
  2521.  @abejunkies  I just said two facts, how is that jingoism?
    1
  2522.  @abejunkies  they aren't things in dispute?
    1
  2523.  @geraldryan8562  the US don't use nuclear for 45k tonne ships only there 100k. 11 carriers and there refits allows for a constant work load constant we wouldn't get. Even then it's debateable whether there choice is pride or practicality. 70% of the French electric generation is nuclear, giving both better access to expertise and a powerful lobby. Even then it mean France has one carrier not two.
    1
  2524.  @geraldryan8562  also we have our own oil, we don't have our own uranium.
    1
  2525.  @geraldryan8562  what homework, USS America is 45k tonne, and conventional.
    1
  2526.  @geraldryan8562  yes we do what?
    1
  2527. Why would you think that, there are ads every year?
    1
  2528. There are lots of poor Indians. There's over a billion people in India so combined they can do large projects like a carrier but they are still a shed load poorer on average.
    1
  2529.  @Sonia_Godfray_Hindu  That is no way contradicts what I said. Getting richer doesn't mean not still poor. India has a similar nominal GDP to the UK, India has 20x as many people.
    1
  2530. Hypersonic Mach 3? Do you know what hypersonic is?
    1
  2531.  @ConstantineJoseph  It's possible with Typhoon DNA and improved engines though I doubt it. But that sounds more like an incremental improvement. The loyal wingmen this video talks about sound like more of a step change to justify the 6th gen title.
    1
  2532. Main point, they didn't want an IFV. It's a CVR(T) replacement not a Warrior replacement, reconnaissance rather than troop transport.
    1
  2533. It may be the wrong word to use be essentially a brand but you can supplement GPS with local signals.
    1
  2534. The work is primarily being done in Telford.
    1
  2535. It is an argument that I have thought about quite a few times. I would instinctively say I would always value a human life over an animal. But from that animals would never get any help as you could always help humans instead. But then you would have much fewer species which I'm also not comfortable with. I think it probably comes down to a small benefit to many people can out way a large benefit to a few. As an extinction deprives all future generations of the enrichment it brings that "many people" is vast.
    1
  2536.  @nickluther263  The earth hasn't deemed the Rhino, for example, unnecessary? And the impact of species preservation is inconsequential to global warming.
    1
  2537.  @nickluther263  The reason that natural selection has the "natural" is to distiguise it from human. But if you want to include humans then conservation is part of natural selection too.
    1
  2538. You seem to be suggesting Ukraine should make it easy for Russia to defeat them?
    1
  2539.  @samcam8284  why not tell them to line up nicely while you at it, wear some nice bright jackets and take it turn to fire volleys. Eegit
    1
  2540. It isn't a warrior replacement it's a CVRT replacement.
    1
  2541.  @forfun5238  what's a few salvos because a carrier group has over a hundred missiles designed to shoot them down? Also there range is shorter than an f35s, never mind missiles fired from F35s.
    1
  2542.  @forfun5238  urm... we are talking a carrier group, it has eyes in the sky, so your horizon talk is a bit irrelevant.
    1
  2543.  @forfun5238  that just sound like a tactically issue, ie use your awacs as a tall mast rather than a high altitude asset.?
    1
  2544. If your comparing with the USMC, then ramp gives extra lift but it takes up space. If your talking STOVL rather than the ramp, there's a variety of pros and cons. For major resaons start with the fact it worked in the Falklands, Cats are more complex and expensive, and Emals wasn't ready at the time.
    1
  2545. Russia failed at a quick victory but they are occupying more territory including most of the land route to Crimea.
    1
  2546.  @derealovesurvival7549  the quote your paraphrasing is exactly the arguement for a just war. Should we not defend ourselves against people ignoring the ban because there is never a reason for war? Should we try stop genocide by speaking loudly?
    1
  2547.  @derealovesurvival7549  what is unreasonable about my argument? Your lurch to Satanism suggests you might not be very reasonable.
    1
  2548. You can happily buy domestic production on Amazon and Chinese ones locally.
    1
  2549.  @FlukeCarving  just did, found a large selection of goods made in the US.
    1
  2550.  @FlukeCarving  I agree more about local independent shops.
    1
  2551. Russia has already pulled back from regime change.
    1
  2552. Last time Britain fought Russia it won the Crimean war.
    1
  2553.  @SuperBigwinston  You said Russia gets attacks and wins, I was simply saying that was wrong. You are also talking about a different Russia to the historical one.
    1
  2554. Russia hasn't been belligerent by massed numbers. Little green men in Ukraine, air support in Syria. China isn't someone we'd fight on land.
    1
  2555. In what sense, its served well and is continuing to do so.
    1
  2556.  @goodputin4324  it's job, policing our sky's. Also that of other NATO members and most recently flying hundreds of sorties in operation Shader.
    1
  2557. interceptor1986 at worse differently capable. Do you think the Typhoon has anywhere near the ground attack sensors or the obvious can it fly from a carrier?
    1
  2558. It's not a straight forward question. 160 (or maybe 156) is the amount bought, but some of the older ones are now used for parts and other aren't front line aircraft.
    1
  2559.  @gamerinthehousepower1671  beginning of 2019 was 102 Frontline, 40 sustainment. But more are being brought to Frontline per SDSR 2015.
    1
  2560.  @gamerinthehousepower1671  it's not ideal at the moment with the Tornado retired and the F35 still low on numbers. But it is what it is. We are still deployed in the Baltic, Romania and flying missions against ISIS as well as at home l.
    1
  2561.  @gamerinthehousepower1671  142 total. The frontline 102 is basically active, the sustainment 40 is roughly the reserve. With a dozen or so having been cannablised to make the total bought.
    1
  2562. In WW2 tanks could be taken out from the air.
    1
  2563. Weird opinion on wives, never mind the UK-US relationship.
    1
  2564. The British army regularly fight?
    1
  2565. Lol, NATO isn't fighting or declared war. But even if it was it would be defending Ukraine. What a dumb post.
    1
  2566. The West got bored in Afganistan, nothing to do with capability, everything to do with political will.
    1
  2567. What's to see? It's no surprise if you spend more you get more.
    1
  2568.  @garagenigel  not really it has a bigger army, smaller navy.
    1
  2569.  @garagenigel  why do you think they can do more than us?
    1
  2570. Not actually met anyone that does support Ukraine.
    1
  2571.  @agorbogytr13  Leeds
    1
  2572.  @tedteddington6223  the context is Russia is the only country with nuclear weapons actually fighting this war.
    1
  2573.  @tedteddington6223  he talks of nuclear weapons, which are so many steps from NATOs current status so as to be ridiculous. In essence he just lies, incessantly.
    1
  2574.  Pigmen Ukraine  why the unrelated comment?
    1
  2575.  PIGMEN UKRAINE  there is no high ground not to take in Ukraine . The situation is very simple. Russia felt they have the right to dictate to Ukraine, that is not so.
    1
  2576.  PIGMEN UKRAINE  fun story, but even if you believe that you know it's an argument to support Ukraine.
    1
  2577. It's an island and hard to invade. Plus of course in the world strongest military alliance.
    1
  2578. You probably want to start your comment with something true to be taken seriously. Did you mean NATO rather than the UN?
    1
  2579.  @streaky81  the Tory manifesto commited to keeping the 0.7%
    1
  2580.  @streaky81  why doubt it? Are you just projecting what you want?
    1
  2581.  @streaky81  Maybe if the economy tanks. But with it being in there manifesto and the law putting it in place was agreed cross party I can't see where the pressure comes from. Indian aid is already being phased out. What I can see is the Foreign Office getting a much better hold on the budget so it being used more as a diplomatic tool.
    1
  2582. Truss is the favourite and she's pushing for 3% spending.
    1
  2583. This kind of comment was stupid before Ukraine, now it's ridiculous.
    1
  2584. Urm, you know this isn't the BBC right? This war is a tragedy, hence the training.
    1
  2585.  @TheMacdaddy1976  How do you get your information, the man down the pub? someone you don't know on the internet with no accountability?
    1
  2586.  @meme4one  by antagonising Russia you mean not letting Russia run rough shod over all it neighbours? We'd certainly still be doing that. But even Putin isn't stupid enough to invade NATO itself. Not letting Ukraine in was down to its problems with corruption and governance. It's post Soviet past isn't too dissimilar to Russia's, but Russia's gone deeper and Ukraine tried to pull out.
    1
  2587. There isn't any lack of scale going on, though maybe some restraint.
    1
  2588. I don't think you understand the word "every".
    1
  2589. Or seeing them could just not matter. There is no suggestion that the war will be fought by the West.
    1
  2590. To survey the harbour to help it get back to normal sooner.
    1
  2591. Wars make money for who? Defence companies, sure but that isn't most people even the rich. Wars cost money which means more tax.
    1
  2592.  @Ma1efcent  some do, all pay tax
    1
  2593.  @Mmjk_12  but we stopped all attempts in there tracks. If we hadn't then you could complain at the EU.
    1
  2594.  @Mmjk_12  wheres the European army if we haven't stopped it?
    1
  2595. Why do you think it obvious? The enemy close is weaker and most people are poorer.
    1
  2596.  @iamthecaptainnow546  what's the threat?
    1
  2597.  @iamthecaptainnow546  what... is...the...threat? Do you think the Russia that is failing in Ukraine is a threat to NATO, never mind a NATO member off the coast behind an array of the countries?
    1
  2598. Ukraine wouldn't own the sky's from a few MIGs.
    1
  2599.  @robjulian2955  the Ukraine already has jets, and the Russian air force still exists and has many more jets than a squadron. It would be helpful for Ukraine to have more jets but they aren't going to suddenly gain air superiority.
    1
  2600.  @robjulian2955  How would it open the door to thousands? This is Poland's whole MIG29 fleet, they are being discussed because Ukraine has pilots trained on that type of jet but they only a limited number.
    1
  2601.  @1chish  Which at this point is more of a result of the prior government than this. As we shouldn't praise them when something like type 26 comes in we also need to give them time to sort out what has gone before, most clear on recruitment. I do think totally getting rid of both Albion class was a mistake, but it isn't enough to damn there overall strategy yet.
    1
  2602. @adrianrichards247  No, I'm not assuming anything, I'm waiting to see.
    1
  2603. @1chish  yep, look at those points. It's not tragic it just bad, and other major economies are also doing badly.
    1
  2604. @1chish  it's doesn't say if the economy is doing good or bad. You do well in an exam by getting an A, not by getting a higher grade than your mate that's failing. If we were talking about how well Sunak managed the economy, you can argue he did well because the situation was bad, but we are just talking about how good the economy was, and it was not thriving.
    1
  2605. Historically no, but compared to its immediate predecessors perhaps. Basically the end of the cold war gave a bump to its development otherwise it would have come into service a bit earlier.
    1
  2606. Any 1st world country? Say Norway?
    1
  2607. The EU doesn't need our military because the EU isn't a military organisation. NATO might need our military, we aren't leaving that.
    1
  2608. The absolute opposite, the type 23s have already served too long. We should be building new ships not trying to stretch out old ones.
    1
  2609. Are you in the 90s?
    1
  2610.  @GGG19872  being named the 83 makes a 26 variant unlikely as it suggets a larger ship.
    1
  2611.  @GGG19872  the Australia government website has there dimensions as the same as the UKs 26s and the full load displacement at 8.8k tonnes.
    1
  2612. The Navy and Airforce as always.
    1
  2613. Yemen is a civil war where both sides have outside backers. An invasion if Oman is a would be a completely different prospect.
    1
  2614.  @WollongongWacko  what part is wrong, I'm pretty confident of each part of what I said?
    1
  2615. This is upgrading the Challenger 2.
    1
  2616. Russia hasn't even stopped selling to countries supplying weapons, nether mind destroying them.
    1
  2617. Either NATO is right that Ukriane is fighting a just war, or NATO is using Ukriane. Either way why wouldn't NATO be happy?
    1
  2618.  @cannedgoose3259  When we are in the EU, trade deals are negotiated EU wide.
    1
  2619. Huh?
    1
  2620. Of course Tempest will have optional external hard points.
    1
  2621.  @zipz8423  No, the defence review was a budget increase and more than promised in the 2019 election. There were some troop number cuts but that wasn't my post.
    1
  2622.  @zipz8423  as I said, no they didn't, stop lying.
    1
  2623.  @zipz8423  Do you actually read what your replying to? The budget went up. If your talking about redundancies that would be troop number not budget.
    1
  2624. Two baskets
    1
  2625.  @donaldmikulec4332  they won't be at sea at the same time much. But the whole of eggs in one basket is you don't have a backup, and we have one.
    1
  2626.  @bubby8825  I doubt our army was in the top 10 in 1743. Allies, banking and the Navy still saw us succeed.
    1
  2627.  @sebjones1566  A contract has been signed on Boxer, can't see it being cancelled.
    1
  2628. Not really, Britain defence is being an island surrounded by friendly countries. The defence of eastern NATO might be spelt USA.
    1
  2629.  @nick123nak6  no, we, the UK, are against all cluster munitions usage.
    1
  2630. The important part is understanding what we can do and not volunteering to do more that.
    1
  2631. How are the destroyers obsolete? They may be the best AAW destroyers in the world, if not they are certainly high up. And they are soon to be joined by possibly the best ASW frigates.
    1
  2632.  @okcantbelieveit294  We can put out a very capable carrier defence force, it might not be as good as Americans by raw numbers but the fact we have specialist means in some ways it will be better, for example a Type 26 will be a better sub hunter than an Arleigh Burke. What is the best? Especially for a destroyer, where a cruiser is likely better. Our destroyers can't do everything the best but they are excelllent at the job they were designed for. We have just chosen a Type 31 and cut steel on the second Type 26. It's going as planned. Those numbers are designed for a carrier group with 4 escorts. Note the US has 91 escorts for 11 carriers, we have 19 for 2, that actually puts us 1 ahead per carrier. The penny counters have been winning for a while but they had reason, the end of the Cold war was a very good reason to shrink our forces. All this might change in the future. But at the moment we've got an improving navy, enjoy it.
    1
  2633.  @gj8550  It's important to do both. And certainly for defence it should be continuous.
    1
  2634. @UCZrVIfR9qfdc7J7Hqs7MWMw It's defending our allies and trade routes. But more generally if you're defending at your borders your people are getting hurt and your not doing a good job.
    1
  2635.  @gj8550  As I said, if it's at your borders you've done something wrong.
    1
  2636.  @royalnavyrulebritannia5717  China is a country that has 20x our population and already 5x our GDP. It is simply not a country we will be close to in size.
    1
  2637.  @henryvagincourt4502  Monmouth has gone but Montrose is still hard at work in the Middle East.
    1
  2638. You take to comparison of Hitler in WW2 with very different land invasions rather than, you know, the US!
    1
  2639. Overstating it. Challenger 2 needs some updates but it's getting them with 3 but regardless it's still in the top tier of tanks.
    1
  2640.  @johnallen7807  they are a variety of reasons but it comes down to massive extra cost for little extra gain.
    1
  2641.  @johnallen7807  it nothing to do with long-term planning. Nuclear is more expensive throughout it's lifetime and that's without the substantial decommissioning costs.
    1
  2642.  @johnallen7807  the point I was making was about nuclear, as that was what we were talking about, it is a lot more expensive regardless. Long term planning is of course crucial in general, but ship building the good long term plan isn't speed it consistent work flow. Slowing down the carrier construction added cost, but on the other hand with nuclear subs building too fast added a lot of cost because we finished one set before we started on the next leaving a gap and so a loss of staff and expertise that had to be rebuilt.
    1
  2643.  @johnallen7807  the US runs 100k tonne carriers on nuclear, but 45k tonne helicopter carriers conventionally. The bigger the ship the more nuclear makes sense. But a key difference is the scale of the US operation, 11 carriers means with building and refits they have a continuous workload load for there shipyard, we would have create the building expertise and then lose it in the next decade without work and have to build it up again.
    1
  2644.  @johnallen7807  2 has already skewed the fleet with too much carrier compared to escorts, 3 makes no sense. Nuclear subs are a different subject, they have a big advantage to justify the cost. The whole point is nuclear carriers aren't that much better to justify the cost.
    1
  2645.  @johnallen7807  your point about escorts is one against nuclear carriers, if we had more money it would be spent on escorts not a marginal carrier upgrade. My point with the US carrier tonnage is we don't know what they'd use for carrier our size, only for there 100k tonne, 4000 crew behemoths, ships we aren't going to build. You can use sub reactors in a carrier, France does. But you get the CDG situation where it has been out for two 18 month periods already it's 20 year life.
    1
  2646.  @johnallen7807  the total cost would have been a lot more, the extra ships would be a lot cheaper, maybe even half the price but that is still a lot. And build cost is the lesser concern, running cost end up as significantly more over the life time. With the carriers the situation is even more extreme as you have the air wing as well (which is more than the ship itself) plus escorts.
    1
  2647. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. It is true. You don't get anything from the broad strokes you have to look at the detail.
    1
  2648. No, it's simply Russia are the ones in the wrong.
    1
  2649. Why do we have to now? The only recent occurrence is Russia showing it's incompetence.
    1
  2650. The end is pretty clear, an independent Ukraine.
    1
  2651. 4++ was always a joke but i think it might die to cheaper Mig29 variants rather than better jets.
    1
  2652. We aren't alone.
    1
  2653. Why do you think the SU35 is successful or combat proven?
    1
  2654.  @Mood_keki  oh, your just going with blind Russian claims, also aircraft means little, helicopters are aircraft and are no test of a fighter. Even then it would be new Russian fighters large numbers vs old Russian fighters in small numbers.
    1
  2655. Depends what you mean by world power, it operates across the world but at a small scale, that should continue.
    1
  2656. random thoughts Yep, a few thousand are on peacekeeper or humanitarian work. How are you going to use an extra 100,000 or 2? My point is we need troops with the equipment and support so we can use them effectively. The deterrent is not for the home islands which no one is going to touch but else where, thus it's the deployable number not the total that is relevant.
    1
  2657. random thoughts "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics"
    1
  2658. Different areas. AUKUS is more about information and technology. It will include things that frankly wouldn't be shared with India. On the other hand the UK doesn't have the presence for it to be part of QUAD.
    1
  2659. Better to prevent the fight than win it. You don't talk about your special forces that will be there in hours, you do talk about a multilateral force that designed to dissuade and would be easy to find out about anyway.
    1
  2660. Fuchs, our nuclear biological and chemical vehicle.
    1
  2661.  @MrKeithblair  What response are you referring to because it won't be anything military? Alone we wouldn't want to fight China, but we aren't alone we are adding our voice to the chorus.
    1
  2662.  @MrKeithblair  No it couldn't be military. That would be a declaration of war on the UK and it's allies. Economically we are considering sanctions over Hong Kong anyway.
    1
  2663.  @overcorpse  Japan have basically failed at 5th gen alone. 6th gen isn't an option. But they could be a good partner. They have the money and fabrication capability and could be a useful far east centre.
    1
  2664. It's as if you don't understand English, it's very common to refer to something someone owns as theirs.
    1
  2665.  @cp4512  What is right for others doesn't necessarily mean what is right for us. We aren't a continental army like Germany and we are set further back from the Russian border. You say all peers but France doesn't have tracked IFV, and they are our closed comparison? If we had the resources of the US army sure, we don't.
    1
  2666.  @adamatch9624  Scots can keep the Queen even if they are independent.
    1
  2667. It might be bigger but it doesn't dwarf it with the whole of Europe being a similar size economy to that of the US and it's Europe that's looking after the millions of refugees.
    1
  2668. We are seeing very little of either, given the advance they would be behind the lines.
    1
  2669. Logisticians. It's about commonality with allies.
    1
  2670.  @truebluekit  There's a lot in potential enemies between guys in sheds and the the few major power that might be pushing tank tech. While we have plenty of allies that could be said to have accountants at the fore, we are also allied with the US, I believe if there was a need for a larger gun they would have it.
    1
  2671.  @truebluekit  I brought up the US not because we should rely on them but because they also use the 120mm, every western nation does. You think you know better than military expects of numerous nations., think on that. 148 is a different question. If we spent more I'm sure we would have more.
    1
  2672.  @truebluekit  you say your not an expert but feel the need to post that the experts have made an error. Wheres the logic?
    1
  2673.  @truebluekit  "whenever possible" as you've described yourself you aren't capable offering input, your getting your info off Youtube. Independent thought requires to to be self critical and understand your limits.
    1
  2674.  @truebluekit  You haven't offered anything to suggest I'm wrong, you admitted your own ignorance. Do you want to explain the capabilities of the 120mm?
    1
  2675. That was a Truss idea that went with her.
    1
  2676. Sure, past stolen tech, nothing ground breaking
    1
  2677. I've benefited from 30 years of money spent elsewhere and feel in no way threaten.
    1
  2678. The UK tax take is about 35% of GDP.
    1
  2679.  @Xzibit9  no one's suggested they will stop trading, it's that trade levels will reduce.
    1
  2680.  @vetren23  a recession is negative growth. In the UK it has to last for two consecutive quarters. 4% over 15 years is about 0.25% a year, normalish growth is about 2%, so little chance of negative growth.
    1
  2681.  @vetren23  4% lower than normal over 15 years, so if it would have been 2% it now 1.75%.
    1
  2682.  james mcbride  there are single months of negative growth but this years forecast is 1.3% growth (and that down partly because of th global economy generally). No deal might change that, when I last posted that seemed much less likely. The pound falling is more likely to increase your car price, as imports will be more expensive.
    1
  2683. My guess would be Germany isn't quite as attractive with the INF treaty ending.
    1
  2684.  Maxi Delevingne  the US not buying our weapons has nothing to do with the EU, it's because they support there domestic industry.
    1
  2685. Sure, it will alienate countries like India and China.
    1
  2686.  @seanpruitt6801  For that your counting France's Floreal class, an OPV is all but name.
    1
  2687. They join after the ships left port.
    1
  2688. Sounds like baiting Russia to attack Poland, while being worse than increasing existing NATO production capacity. Not seeing the reasoning.
    1
  2689. Like when it said Russia was preparing to invade Ukraine, then it did...
    1
  2690. So the Russian economy colapses but it doesn't effect Ukraine?
    1
  2691.  @nerdnec  nope, but I know Russia isn't the only source of fuel. And frankly the Europe is already considering sanctioning oil. It'll cost but is doable. It's gas that would really hurt.
    1
  2692.  @fergusmacrae7590  he says spending will stay the same and what he will spend more money on, neglecting what he'll cut.
    1
  2693. No, in a war with weak air forces artillery has proven to be king.
    1
  2694.  @VASILLEVSKI1878  We don't know because it's only been weak air forces against the anti air. Russia isn't even running SEAD to Gulf war levels and that was over 3 decades ago.
    1
  2695. See B61tactical nuclear bomb.
    1
  2696. Joint biggest would still be biggest.
    1
  2697. Its not the Royal Navies duty, its border forces.
    1
  2698. It's designed for the F35B.
    1
  2699. Any forces we face will almost certainly have Russian kit, it doesn't have to be Russia herself.
    1
  2700. Because it's never been used against an Anglo?
    1
  2701.  @krakenburger56  You can just say Atlantic.
    1
  2702. The work we actually do, train and embed with other forces rather than bring large numbers ourselves.
    1
  2703. Artillery and airpower killed tanks in WW2.
    1
  2704. There is efforts to defend Odessa and in fact they are trying to push back to Kherson. Mariupol is heavily surrounded and with lots of troops in the area, it simply isn't militarily possible to reach.
    1
  2705.  @SuperWagner23  Global warming can be dealt with in rich areas, the Dutch have lived under sea level for years. Just because the worst scenarios won't come to pass doesn't mean it won't be bad. And it is avoidable.
    1
  2706. You get peace by NATO not attacking Russia and being to strong for Russia to attack.
    1
  2707. They're too busy watching the Middle East and China, we could just nip in and nab Yorktown.
    1
  2708.  @za.monolit  well that a failure in my American geography, apparently the main US Naval base is just next to Yorktown.
    1
  2709. WW2 wasn't Russia it was the USSR, plenty of Ukrainians died fighting for the USSR.
    1
  2710.  @charlieharper2529  pick your side. The psychopath that's already killed millions if you or the one that is about to. Stalin or Hitler.
    1
  2711. There's no occupation, just mutual interest.
    1
  2712. The Lightning force is a joint one. It lets us deploy a larger force from the most appropriate platform, carrier or land.
    1
  2713. It's basically kit for defending against Russia, defending against Russia. Except are people aren't dieing in the fight.
    1
  2714. This a very different drone, frankly the word drone doesn't mean much anymore as it covers so much. This is more comparable with a mortar, Bayraktar with a plane.
    1
  2715. I presume the giving to Ukraine, who do you think we need to defend against if not Russia?
    1
  2716. Why ask someone for help based on what they know when you can do it based on the colour of there skin?
    1
  2717.  @RR-ty6zz  the ejection seat is a British design.
    1
  2718.  @RR-ty6zz  No the F35 ejection seat. MK16 Martin Baker. A British design.
    1
  2719. Then your pretty naive. Africans are the same as anyone else. And everyone fights wars.
    1
  2720. As conventional weapons. Also the same as us as deterrence.
    1
  2721. The cold war didn't go hot. When has the lack of an arms race led to peace? War is ubiquitous.
    1
  2722. The Type 45 only makes sense for fleet defence. It great at area air defence and decidedly average elsewhere. Six is a good number. The Type 26 is a much better option for other duties, though overkill in a lot of cases .
    1
  2723. The UN hasn't changed, its always been powerless against the permanent members.
    1
  2724. Yes, basically any weapon threatens Russian forces, and this is a useful one.
    1
  2725.  @tiosavdarivalic3662  S400 and S500 could be perfect, it would still be easy to destroy them, count the missiles and add a few. As a note the S500 isn't even operation and when it is it's ballistic missile defence.
    1
  2726.  @fluffymadsquirrel5946  The limbo before NATO is more dangerous than once a country has actually joined.
    1
  2727. The middle east has seen direct force used which is more than your seeing here?
    1
  2728.  @CyrilSneer123  Maidan was hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians on the streets of Kiev.
    1
  2729. I know we have some good relations with the Five powers agreement. I hope we can put into port in many more friendly nations.
    1
  2730. Sure we have various allies nearby. Russia doesn't want us around so it can bully them.
    1
  2731. It's the same chassis on this.
    1
  2732. That is kind of the point, it's not about the country but about a tank advance.
    1
  2733. For a start Russia is failing in Ukraine so that stops Russia. But why do you think they'd do nothing? Everyone has been consistent in saying they won't fight for Ukraine but will for NATO.
    1
  2734.  @jazzguy1927  Why do you think that? Everyone has been clear they will fight, there are even troops already in eastern NATO countries that would automatically be in the fight.
    1
  2735.  @jazzguy1927  NATO explicitly said they wouldn't fight if Ukraine was invaded.
    1
  2736. You seem not to understand what a Nazi is, or percentages for that matter.
    1
  2737.  @LevanGudadze  You don't even know what you wrote. It was the West you called Nazis not Ukraine. Even then you tell me to read about WW2 not today. And the best you can do is a few street names. Even Russia aren't Nazis and they are invading neighbours, suppressing the opposition and controlling there media.
    1
  2738.  @LevanGudadze  you don't have anything to tell me, I was corrected your rubbish.
    1
  2739. Ajax essentially is a light tank.
    1
  2740. MGCS isn't looking for FOC until 2040 and then you'll have a period of overlap where old tanks are still running.
    1
  2741. We have aircraft.
    1
  2742.  @alba9507  we've just spent a month over near the US operating F35s. Not to mention the various helicopters.
    1
  2743. Actually like most ships, it's named after a previous ship, HMS Queen Elizabeth. Elizabeth was the queen that repelled the Spanish Armada so has decent claim anyway. Churchill had a class SSNs named after him, I'm sure he'll get another ship sometime, Monty was army he won't get one.
    1
  2744. The Royal Navy is also the strongest it's been in decade and the only force capable of invasion is there ally, the US.
    1
  2745. Because it isn't 100m. Nor is it only 10% of wjat it could be. Also CATOBAR puts a lot more stress on the aircraft giving shorter life spans.
    1
  2746.  @Kevin_Patrick001  there is still arrested recovery, as with Emals it's less stress than older systems but it's still a much faster accelerations/declaration than conventional or STOVL. On in air refueling, a V22 could easily do that job but at the moment we are busy by fighters. And the F35B still has good range, even if it's shorter than the C.
    1
  2747.  @Kevin_Patrick001  Super Hornets can tanker from each other, it may be a future F35 development.
    1
  2748.  BLACK BOTO  the F35B isn't VTOL in a practical sense as it can't take off with enough fuel/munitions. The Ski jump increases the weight it can lift off with even further than a short run on a flat top.
    1
  2749. They may make lots of money on successful products, but the lose on R+D that goes nowhere. Its high risk. They aren't particularly profitable companies overall.
    1
  2750. Albion is commonly used as a command platform, it doesn't have aircraft.
    1
  2751. Do we have any two wheel forces?
    1
  2752.  @ThePalaeontologist  I was wrong on the drawing board. But it's odd to respond to UK most powerful warship with one that won't be launched for years.
    1
  2753. Keep coming up with those excuses when reality doesn't fit what you think should be happening.
    1
  2754. Depends what you mena by world power. It isn't a superpower but the next step down it clearly is by Navy, Money or Diplomacy.
    1
  2755.  @fatbloke2285  They are useful now, without a full complement, while we build up F35 numbers.
    1
  2756. Russia will keep pressing. If there is a weakness something might happen or might not but it is better there is not weakness. Weakness at home makes Russia more dangerous because they may need a distraction.
    1
  2757. Yeah, there's a limited commonwealth intake.
    1
  2758.  @stipielmiomier3019  not really a fighting army.
    1
  2759. You know any prospect of invasion ended with the Battle of Britain before the USSR even entered the war?
    1
  2760. BAE is a prime contactor on the F35. Producing more value of parts than we spend on complete jets.
    1
  2761.  @davidrobertsemail  half the fleet is 9.5, 4 for the carrier, how can't we have any elsewhere?
    1
  2762.  @davidrobertsemail  that's why I halved the 19 as you said.
    1
  2763.  @davidrobertsemail  type 31s are being built because those frigates elsewhere don't need the capability of a type 26. Rather than the type 31 not being a frigate the real change is the type 26 is not a frigate, it's a destroyer. The type 31 will stack up with the 5 type 23 we already have with no towed array sonar.
    1
  2764.  @davidrobertsemail  The F35B doesn't have a low payload and range it massively outstrips the Harrier. It's lower than an F35C, that doesn't make it low. If your comparing to the US we come up short. But that's a dumb comparison, we not in the same weight class. Try look at France.
    1
  2765.  @davidrobertsemail  type 45s are still destroyers, that's the point type 26 are type 45 size, and they are looking at using the type 26 hull for the type 4X, the 45 replacement. We do need to keep up, thus the 26. But frigates do a lot of duty that isn't matching against major navies, the 31 will cover those duties. With more ships we could do more but this started with us not being able to doing anything else when we send out a carrier group. That's not true.
    1
  2766.  @davidrobertsemail  I don't think the US is wrong to go with catapults but they can spend 12bn on a carrier and make 11 of them, they are working in a different scale. We are gearing up for a carrier that can take anything none US out, and we are getting two.
    1
  2767.  @davidrobertsemail  we need them to do what? We don't need them to defend ourselves, our armed forces are expeditionary not defensive. We can send a carrier group across the world while defending ourselves, that seems a good level of capability to me. If we can't be training with the Japanese, saying hi to the Australian, teaching the Indians and pissing off the the Russian is the black sea at the same time I can live without that.
    1
  2768.  @theancientsancients1769  I'm not assuming a type 31 can go head to head with a capable vessel, I hope if runs away (If we're at war). At best in a fleet of will add some extra CAMM. But there are lots jobs that aren't fighting that we use frigates for. All out destroyers and frigates are escorts. They aren't there to fight alone but to protect others. Astutes and F35s will do the fighting.
    1
  2769.  @sensibledriver933  unless you have very new information, no. Last I heard a preferred bidder was rumoured for DSEI next week.
    1
  2770.  @davidrobertsemail  how does that illustrate how badly planned they were, they were planned as STOVL carriers. (Though you can add an electric powered steam generator, kettle anyone?)
    1
  2771.  @davidrobertsemail  we didn't make them smaller because we designed the ships to make the most out of the jets, rather than trying to make the most of a ships with the jets. Given we'll spend more on jets this seems the right way round to me.
    1
  2772. Role, time introduced, numbers in service all make F22 a better comparison.
    1
  2773. Which day, you know the Royal Navy also worked against slavery.
    1
  2774. French rafales all the way, and if they're wielding meteors it isn't even a fair fight. India suffer from too many different platforms though, know your enemy and yourself and you'll give yourself a chance.
    1
  2775. There is no technically.
    1
  2776.  @meme4one  like everything Airbus supply chains are across Europe including Rolls Royce engines.
    1
  2777. Which of those is Kososvo part of? Or the Falklands?
    1
  2778. Lots of countries are, and have been all through the conflict.
    1
  2779.  @joelopez198  You know your I much larger country? And for reference Slovakia has already sent an S300 system and Czechia T-72 tanks.
    1
  2780.  @mollie626  it has been considered, but it cost too much for too little gain over Merlins.
    1
  2781.  @mollie626  money on V22s means less on F35s. I'm not disputing the V22 would likely be better, just the extra it gives doesn't justify the extra cost. Having AWACs is essential, having the best isn't.
    1
  2782.  @mollie626  you seem to be missing what I've said. I agree the V22 is better but getting would mean we lose something else. We can barely afford enough jets as it is. And ultimately a carrier is about it jets. 24 F35 with Merlin support is better than 20-22 F35 with V22 support.
    1
  2783.  @mollie626  also F35 R+D isn't anywhere near a trillion. That is the lifetime cost including acquisition and sustainment of thousands of jets over 50 years.
    1
  2784. Ukraine exists and there is no sign it won't continue to do so.
    1
  2785.  @PauloGoncalvesGuimaraes  the only time Russia has not attacked beyond it borders is when someone was strong enough to stop it. From the Russian Empire to the USSR invading Poland to today with Ukraine and Georgia.
    1
  2786.  @dandhi_gandhi1626  Trump wouldn't be allowed to. He doesn't have the respect of the US military.
    1
  2787. @@JimCarner a few essentially as spotters for long range ship based missiles. You could potentially make a drone with the sensors, stealth and STOVL but there's nothing at the moment.
    1
  2788. @@JimCarner You named incomplete drones without STOVL.
    1
  2789. How would that make a difference?
    1
  2790. Constantine, at what? I very much doubt it's better at jungle warfare, which they were teaching.
    1
  2791.  @ConstantineJoseph  Urm... is your argument 50 years ago the Isrealis trained with a city state that (given it only became independent in '63) was British trained so they'll be better than the British now?
    1
  2792.  @ConstantineJoseph  that's some nice information about modern Singapore. But how does that impact on modern Israel when the interaction was 50 years ago? How's Israel maintaining and updating it's Jungle skills nowadays? Britain has training bases in Brunei and Belize specially for Jungle warfare.
    1
  2793.  @ConstantineJoseph  well that was a long post but one sentence was relevant. Israel doesn't do Jungle training. The reason posted in the first place was that the UK would be better at this Malawi mission than Israel as it does Jungle training.
    1
  2794.  @ConstantineJoseph  it is pointless, your trying to arguing a jungle training is better done by a country that doesn't do Jungle training. And your seemingly talking about equipment for a destitute country.
    1
  2795. It not built for humanitarian aid, but it will fullfill that role if and when the need arrives.
    1
  2796.  @Ab-km9tr  what do I need to be awakened to? Do you think the UK is a cartoon villain that couldn't conduct a humanitarian mission?
    1
  2797.  @Ab-km9tr  you think Britain has never conducted a humanitarian mission? I has done wrong, but it hasn't only done wrong.
    1
  2798.  @notsomalicious4435  We invented tanks but unless you mean by a tank nation juat we literally had some tanks then no we aren't a tank nation. Rather than cutting tank numbers being indefensible it's almost a given. Our armed forces have to be viewed as a whole, tanks aren't as important as they were so won't get as big a share of the budget.
    1
  2799. Bob Smithies Sarmat is the one that definitely exists. It's just an ICBM, but a very capable one.
    1
  2800. Bob Smithies your pretty likely to hit some, not all jets are in the air at the same time.
    1
  2801. As Russia you would chose to escalate the war to dozens more countries (and much better armed countries) when your struggling with one?
    1
  2802.  @David-il9xw  Your saying your not rational?
    1
  2803.  @David-il9xw  You led with if "I" was Russia? Was the rational/butcher comment just random
    1
  2804.  @yeetjones927  Ukriane isn't an ally, just a friendly country. Equipment and training, sure. Dead soldiers less so.
    1
  2805. The basic idea isn't that tanks are useless it's that they aren't practical for an Island far from the fight. Heavy, expensive and requiring transporting over long distances you can get a lot of other kit to theatre for the same logistics cost. You should always be reviewing what best, but the UK has decided to keep tanks if in small numbers.
    1
  2806.  @jimanstey9174  On the otherside to improving attacks, active protection systems are improving defences. They may be ending going forward my thinking is troops will never go, so you need troop transport, given that continued armoured support seems quiet likely. It may not be your classic MBT but still something tank like.
    1
  2807. If Russia isn't attacking then that plan isn't happening.
    1
  2808. Because ground still needs taking and holding.
    1
  2809. The government always denied mothballing tanks but that not what sells newspapers
    1
  2810. Nope, but they're a lot better on long, fast trek by road.
    1
  2811. You think we shouldn't build new jets?
    1
  2812.  @mrscreamer379  Sweden has signed an agree with the UK over Tempest, affordability is part of design plan.
    1
  2813.  @JuzzlinOSS  fighter aren't just to stop invasions. I don't want Russia bombing the UK. Obviously you don't need 5th gen to escort a commercial jet. Your point was we don't need fighter.
    1
  2814.  @JuzzlinOSS  Russia don't go around bombing people like us, we have an air force. The story is different in Georgia, Syria or Chechnya. They wouldn't spontaneously bomb us, there'd have to be a trigger, and even then it's unlikely. But you prepare for the worst case. Not really sure why you added Germany, they are an ally?
    1
  2815.  @JuzzlinOSS  they aren't going to attack for fun. They'd attack because we'd come into conflict over something. You think we are as likely to be attacked by an ally as by a country who that alliance is basically there the defend against and who has conflicting foreign policy? And again you just said fighters not any specifc generation. What fighters is a whole different question.
    1
  2816.  @JuzzlinOSS  minimal, we have an air force. Because you can't stop one weapon doesn't mean you should stop caring about others.
    1
  2817. It pretty much a soldiers job to mind other people's business.
    1
  2818. Why, there is no threat of an invasion?
    1
  2819. The air domain is very hostile (to both sides). Frankly the A-10 works because it's supported by the rest of the USAF.
    1
  2820. No, preparing for war is what every military does.
    1
  2821. Then you'd never design a new fighter. How ever much money you put in the NHS even more would make it better.
    1
  2822. What do you think is the disputed territory? Because a no fly zone over a small part of Ukraine says little about the overall conflict.
    1
  2823. The military is useless at someone else's job?
    1
  2824.  @death_parade  we haven't retired harpoon yet.
    1
  2825.  @death_parade  Might be and we'll be down to Sea Venom, or they might extend again, either way it wasn't what you said.
    1
  2826.  @death_parade  You don't like it when someone points out your wrong? I didn't say anything about quality or claim it was replacing harpoon, but sea venom is an anti ship missile.
    1
  2827.  @death_parade  you literally wrote "its an antiship missile". If that doesn't convince you the Royal Navy has an anti ship missile I don't know what will.
    1
  2828. We can certainly afford a larger budget if we choose. 3% isn't particularly high in a historical sense. It would mean less for other things so we may choose not to but it's a choice.
    1
  2829. Also we don't have a good desert base of our own unlike say jungle where we have Brunei and Belize.
    1
  2830. The Brit not sure if "hundreds of years" is the best phrasing. There's a bit too much Empire building in that time.
    1
  2831.  @thom0243  rather that the Challenger 3 number being a choice I think it is more likely to be an acceptance of the natural wastage over time of what it already an old vehicle in the Challenger 2, so a larger number would require a different tank.
    1
  2832.  @paulzink2492  your right about having a balance between numbers and quality but not about something that can dog fight, that part is done by the missile. Also now rather than a striped down manned fighter a fighter drone is a better option both being able to drop the person support and being more disposable.
    1
  2833. Article 5 has been activated once, by the US, and saw hundreds of Europeans die in an American war.
    1
  2834.  @Matt-so8xf  NATO has always been about US objectives as much as helping other countries. For most of the last few decades European NATO has been a nice forward base and a shop window, not somewhere that needed protection.
    1
  2835. How do you get 27? and 2 is just behind.
    1
  2836. Sprite?
    1
  2837. Why?
    1
  2838.  @philwhiting5769  that is passing on kit not Poland using it. And the Germany that has given it own tanks to Ukraine along with a variety of other kit so it one of the biggest donors your talking about.
    1
  2839.  @MrBlaxjax  the navy has bases in Bahrain and Oman.
    1
  2840.  @seanmoran6510  Yes, it is important. Oman is a bit more general purpose though.
    1
  2841.  @michaelmcginn7260  they aren't east of Suez, the context of this conversation.
    1
  2842.  @nazrulizam9264  Not sure your point there, but we did colonise more than Germany.
    1
  2843. The world had stopped being Unipolar before Biden, China was definitely another pole, the EU perhaps one. If anything China is now stuttering (nothing to do with Biden) with economic issues.
    1
  2844. We're an island, defending it is all about technology not manpower
    1
  2845.  @squirepraggerstope3591  Your numbers are too high. With all kit we want the carrier is designed for 36 F35B and 4 Merlins. Adding more helicopters means running less F35. 24 F35 is a very reasonable amount with a significant ASW contingent.
    1
  2846.  @squirepraggerstope3591  The ship is designed to get the most out of the jets not the other way round. And given the ship cost less than the jets and will last twice as long thats the right way round.
    1
  2847.  @squirepraggerstope3591  The amount she can take comfortably is the amount she's designed for.
    1
  2848. That would only make sense if we were arming both sides. If Ukraine is weak Russia has no need to sit down and talk.
    1
  2849. How is protecting our own shipping being a vassal, what nation wouldn't do that?
    1
  2850. Ballistic missiles are a bad fit for a mobile target.
    1
  2851. That HMS Vanguard was built for a war that had ended, how is that the same?
    1
  2852. Being well armed still allows you to choose peace, being poorly armed allows stronger countries to choose war for you.
    1
  2853. It not the UK needing support but about how much support the UK can give others, but thanks anyway.
    1
  2854. Stop listening to videos about the RAF then.
    1
  2855. 2:37, they were here two years ago.
    1
  2856. The Navy is the priority, Army is back of the queue. The projects discussed are way behind and don't even include the warrior upgrade that was previously planned.
    1
  2857. Because we don't fight at home we fight abroad.
    1
  2858. This isn't us acting, this is us teaching. It may not make a big difference, but the soldier we teach and the people they help will be a little bit different.
    1
  2859. Yes it does.
    1
  2860. As long as your still convincible, too many have written it off before it's flown a combat mission.
    1
  2861.  @notrut  Type 42 destroyers were on both sides of the Falklands war.
    1
  2862.  @rogerhudson9732  by complex history you mean Russia repeatedly invaded Estonia? And without NATO support they'd be free to do it again?
    1
  2863.  @rogerhudson9732  the exactly the situation where Putin will use force (see Georgia and Ukraine). Without support it isn't a negiated solution, it's Russia's solution.
    1
  2864. It was 100s of thousands of Ukrainians on the streets of Kiev that changed the regime in 2014.
    1
  2865. Also who is your western world because Germany is often standard for underspending and they were totally smashed in WW2?
    1
  2866.  @18yearsoldnot  Its cities were levelled and a large part of it population killed.
    1
  2867. There aren't any new tanks at the moment with 130mm. And this is an upgrade rather than a new tank.
    1
  2868.  @williamtudway1481  I was tempted by the same (pretty poor) joke.
    1
  2869. Direct conflict is very unlikely as the risks are too high. An open proxy war is more possible. You can argue the merits of annexing Crimea, it is more Russian, historically and demographically and was on its own done effectively. Eastern Ukraine doesn't have those counter points and is just causing death and misery. The latest move of closing off the Sea of Azov is clear Russian bullying even if you take the view that the Ukraine is trying to exploit it.
    1
  2870. European NATO massively out spends Russia.
    1
  2871. @baburaj6266  there definitely attacking other countries ships, at best they may have Israeli links. What they aren't doing is effecting Israels war.
    1
  2872. NATO has said it won't fight for Ukraine so even with an invasion it wouldn't be WW3.
    1
  2873. They do have drones that they'll fire at and shoot down, like the Mirach target drone. But it sounds like that's rare and its a lot of simulations and testing part of the system.
    1
  2874. This is about defending Norway.
    1
  2875. You mean in the sense no major nations have since WW2?
    1
  2876. Its an upgrade rather than a new design.
    1
  2877. Russia invaded, Russian can stop it, the fault is Russia's.
    1
  2878. There are a load of RN priorities ahead of a third carrier including things like jets and escorts that a third carrier would need even more of.
    1
  2879. @GonzoTehGreat  Agreed gradual is the way to go, but I basically ignore any claims that are pushed off to the next government. In this case, particularly, there is a gap between 2027 and the next election. Not saying it won't happen, just that I'll wait and see. And planning for money you don't get is worse than never expecting it, as we've seen with things like the warrior upgrade that cost millions and got nothing.
    1
  2880. Battle of Basra was at the beginning of the Iraq war and not following Americans.
    1
  2881. The A10 role seems perfect for drones, not as robust but much more expendable.
    1
  2882. Wars always come, WW3 is a different matter. Russia move showed how far from matching NATO they are. Iran and North Korea are small fry. China could start WW3 but only miscalculation, they are winning the peace.
    1
  2883.  @progwolf12  it would acttually be 12 weeks on 6 weeks off at that. 2 shifts serve at once.
    1
  2884. Much of NATO has a similar issue in terms of low consumable stocks. So though NATO is very powerful sustaining a high intensity war for a long time would be a problem.
    1
  2885.  @ARXDMOS  Challenger II, Eurofighter, Astute. Russia had a session upgrading but its for a smallish core. They have a force similar to the UK or France of a decent standard. And they have a large force of old kit and conscripts that would making invading them incredibly painful.
    1
  2886.  @ARXDMOS  pretty much.
    1
  2887. Me too, it's one of those signs of age when the exciting modern jet is retiring.
    1
  2888. All of NATO has been pretty clear they aren't fighting this war, there's no pretending to be tough.
    1
  2889.  @tedteddington6223  Your using 100s of thousands of Ukrainians supporting closer ties with the EU as evidence of the US
    1
  2890.  @tedteddington6223  you say it factual but don't offer facts. There was very clearly hundreds of thousands of protesters in Ukraine that led to the fall of the government. And there was nothing surprising about that Ukraine has long been split been looking to Russia or to Europe. And this war is a Russian invasion.
    1
  2891.  @tedteddington6223  because NATO is open in principle. It was practicalities that meant Ukraine wasn't going to join. Frankly a Ukraine friendly to Russia but in NATO would make NATO less of a threat to Russia, it works by consensus.
    1
  2892.  @BigRed2  how big are your babies? Even compared the US it's 70% the displacement and looks a similar size on photos. It's bigger than anyone else's.
    1
  2893.  @BigRed2  I led with displacement. But looks is a reasonable way to judge size. By what metric do you think this 280m Behemouth is a baby?
    1
  2894. You must think Islam is a very persuasive Religion.
    1
  2895. Lose in what sense, they ensured there survival months ago.
    1
  2896. F16s are a key part of the USAF now and going forward.
    1
  2897.  @raylopez99  No, the main air force not the national guard. Why would you think otherwise?
    1
  2898. They can, big mostly just means more. But it also has advantages on takeoff/landing weight.
    1
  2899. Except you've missed the all important humans out of the equation, and your talking the cost of a newish Hilux not a Lamborghini.
    1
  2900.  @EthanKnight97  Looking for peace is entirely different from peace at any cost. No you think any invaded country should instantly give in to avoid war?
    1
  2901. ​ @gareth2397 NATO is the context of our defence, NATO massively out spends, out mans and out techs Russia.
    1
  2902. Time is the point. But how little we have is also an indication how small our production capacity is.
    1
  2903. When do you think we last had 250k troops to cut?
    1
  2904. It larger than anything 10 years ago, may be back to the Falklands.
    1
  2905. ​@richardmorris3830 Japan's navy doesn't have kore tonnage than the UK and France combined, and if you include the rfa its smaller than the UK.
    1
  2906.  linkzable  making a ballistic missile hit an unpredictable moving target is a real issue, the US certainly couldnt do it in the 70s when it was first landing on Mars.
    1
  2907.  @gazza7uk646  the UK has a significantly bigger GDP than Russia.
    1
  2908.  @MetaView7  today's warfare is against lesser countries. Nuclear Armageddon is what's against big boys.
    1
  2909. 1999, the UK started the boxer program with allies. 2003 we dropped out. Theres no point is designing something you already designed.
    1
  2910.  @zhufortheimpaler4041  8x8 designs were around long before the UK left.
    1
  2911. Trade is wealth and in fact food.
    1
  2912. It's mostly from the carriers, they are a big boost so that isn't disingenuous. But you also have type 26s coming in which is in effect a destroyer replacing a frigate. The cold war is a long time ago.
    1
  2913. @meme4one  exactly what our interests are is an open debate but the obvious one is keeping our trade routes.
    1
  2914.  @Smithy779  Your right constant improvement is standard practise. Brimstone has already gone through a few iterations, the next being the basis for SPEAR III. Russia would gain from examples but it's not going to be crucial. Honestly the biggest issue Russia has is not it ability to develop kit but being able to get in into service in numbers.
    1
  2915.  @zipz8423  it doesn't have a larger wing area, that's the C.
    1
  2916. I think Sierra Leone is the type of mission we are optimising for.
    1
  2917.  @EvenWaysMusic  Definately. It's an area where numbers aren't a big restriction, only being able to act fast and hard. The carriers are coming along to give us much more capability there. The new Rangers to give back up to the Marines and Paras. The extra awareness of drones. Maybe we are worse at fights where it's us vs them, but they are often the fights we shouldn't be getting involved in. Instead it's us supporting one side in fight, our ally supplies the numbers, we supply the punch and technical support.
    1
  2918. If Ukraine was in NATO the situation would be completely different.
    1
  2919.  @wayneshilcock3027  it isn't just that, it a whole.diplomatic tour visiting 40 countries and various exercises. But that's the intimidation part.
    1
  2920.  @wayneshilcock3027  at some point, China wants Taiwan, but not soon. China takes a long view it's winning the peace at the moment.
    1
  2921.  @wayneshilcock3027  or Mainland China is a province of Taiwan. The point is the CCP want actual control of Taiwan.
    1
  2922.  @wayneshilcock3027  not sure what your saying, it isn't in practical sense at the moment.
    1
  2923. It was at one point, new ammo developments have superseded it. The fact that no one else uses rifled means there been less development, it also makes logistics harder.
    1
  2924. The APC version on Ajax, Ares, only takes 4 soldiers.
    1
  2925.  @damianousley8833  Total dross, Germany are still building Leopard 2's
    1
  2926.  @damianousley8833  As I said total dross dross. For example a recent contract for Hungary specifically had 12 existing Leo2's and 44 brand new tanks.
    1
  2927. ​ @damianousley8833  44 neugefertigten Kampfpanzern Leopard 2
    1
  2928. It's not just you, it's much smaller, which fits with it not being a long range system like the two you mentioned.
    1
  2929. They aren't for defending our airspace, they are for attacking others.
    1
  2930.  @Phil_AKA_ThundyUK  there no sign of them being used in that role, nor are they well suited to it. We'd pull Typhoons from there offensive roles before using F35s.
    1
  2931.  @Phil_AKA_ThundyUK  lol, sure. Tranche 2 will be 15-20, Tranche 3 only 10-15. Plenty of life in them.
    1
  2932. What was the spectacle, parliament doing what it's supposed to do?
    1
  2933. Defence is the primary duty of the government but increases aren't about defending our country but about power projection across the world. It can still be justified but it isn't as that core defence of the realm.
    1
  2934.  @gusgone4527  Are you totally disconnected from the British population to think that isn't a normal opinion?
    1
  2935.  @gusgone4527  I wasn't talking about you opinion on defence spending, I was talking about you dismissing someone as foreign for not agreeing with you. Is that what you believe or were you just trolling?
    1
  2936.  @gusgone4527  Your name is Gus Gone?
    1
  2937. The military is trained to kill not protect, I don't want them on our streets.
    1
  2938. Ukraine didn't chose to be invaded, why are they dumb?
    1
  2939. In a nuclear war, sure, taking everyone with them.
    1
  2940. "Perfection is a achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away" France added a lot of bells and whistles, France has 1 carrier.
    1
  2941.  @RR-us2kp  QE means we can fly jets, thats what a carrier is for. Keep it simple l. And France has basically the same number of escorts as us, but less top end capability. Ie. They only built two horizon. Our 2 carriers are so we always have one available. France just spent 18 months with CDG refueling.
    1
  2942.  @TT-hd3zi  has there been some announcement because it's been the plan for a couple of years?
    1
  2943.  @TT-hd3zi  fair enough, that just sounds like they aren't confirming the particular ship yet rather than changing there mind.
    1
  2944. They dropped Warrior LEP, relying on Boxer ...
    1
  2945. @dc-4ever201  I don't actual disagree with the choice, I was just pointing out we are moving to more wheeled. That said warrior/boxer might actually be infantry rather than cavalry, hard to tell without the horses ...
    1
  2946. Great Britain is a specific thing that generally not the right term, i.e. it doesn't cover the whole of the UK.
    1
  2947. Obviously this isn't the best we can do, its a small deployment to show our commitment as part of NATO.
    1
  2948. Are Russians themselves so incompetent that with the beat arms and a lot of them they can't win?
    1
  2949. Likely hyperbole but it is the largest fifty gen deployment by a margin.
    1
  2950.  @xclonejager6959  the one thing an unmanned aircraft can do massively better is get shot down. That may sound glib but it is very important.
    1
  2951. Meteors are new, it wouldn't br a case of any more but not yet.
    1
  2952. It was NATO members that set the 2% number they didn't need anyone to point it out.
    1
  2953.  @MutualZebra0123  Its not Putin pointing something out its him acting ie. things have actually changed.
    1
  2954. Chung Kai Man there aren't any tanks developed yet.
    1
  2955. This is the light system, you get another rather than support it.
    1
  2956.  @obamagaming-zv4vy  no air support equally makes the Ukraine experience a poor example.
    1
  2957.  @GeneralZadrot  It's incredibly difficult to disable a sub a duty, that's the whole point.
    1
  2958. Rather than maximum it's a normal full load, the Indian figure seems equivalent as I'm sure they can also technically fit more.
    1
  2959.  @ashleygoggs5679  we weren't buy an IFV. CV90 would need a host of modifications like ASCOD did.
    1
  2960.  @shaddaboop7998  no, it says nothing. They were always planned along Ajax, the few extra are due to the Warrior upgrade cancellation.
    1
  2961. @Drew Peacock Yes phalanx isn't great. There are better alternatives but they are also limited it what they are good for. It's your misisle systems that are going to be doing any high level defending.
    1
  2962. Russia will have thousands dead and diplomatic isolation and what will they gain? The hatred of Ukrainians? Is that a victory?
    1
  2963. Mike William although the design is ageing it's the physical age of the airframes thats leading to there retirement.
    1
  2964. Mike Williams every decision is because of money, we have a budget. The interesting question is why this. And it's because of deminished effect per £ because of the age of the airframes.
    1
  2965. Mike Williams they will be missed. I'm only an amateur and I must admit what I read was Tornado vs Tornado information. I will note that the Tornado strikes on Syria had a Typhoon escort.
    1
  2966.  @peterwait641  You can only influence decision so much, you at least need a reason for your choice. But BAE has a lot of sway to begin with, GD lobbying would probably only equalise the situation.
    1
  2967.  @hugh.grection1386  Hornets are being replaced by F35C, Super Hornets aren't. The USMC only has Hornets, all are going. The USN will keep Super Hornets until the F/A XX program comes to fruition. You can't upgrade a Hornet to a Super Hornet, they are effectively different aircraft. I don't know if you meant replace?
    1
  2968.  @hugh.grection1386  the USMC are getting 80 F35C, they can't fly from amphibs, the detach to carriers, could easily have been Super Hornets. The Navy never planned to go all F35. Availability hasn't affected anything.
    1
  2969.  @emmanuelknight8974  1808 to 1917?
    1
  2970.  @CommonWealthSnow  probably, which is nothing like never.
    1
  2971.  @EneriGiilaan  I'd certainly say that Norrland was occupied, that it has become integrated after does take away from that, though as far as I am aware there has been discrimination against Sami past the middle ages that would make some parts look more like occupation (though I admit my knowledge there is very limited). I accept modern day occupation isn't the same as middle age occupation but I don't think that doesn't mean you can't use the word. I'd certainly say Wales was occupied by England and I see similarities there.
    1
  2972.  @ivarwb4115  I learn a lot through debate with someone like Eneri, if you want to make me learn tell me some history.
    1
  2973. Republic is mostly not a kingdom. It should mean an elected head of state but it's obviously used by dictators too. Ironically Democratic in a countries generally means it ISN'T democratic. I guess because dictators try to compensate.
    1
  2974. It's not certain but the chances are pretty high. Money has already been committed and foreign partners joined. We'll need a typhoon replacement and there isn't a natural fit to buy in. We've been involved in the design of our last 3 fighters. The better question is how far will we push it. It could range from a Typhoon with an internal weapons bay to the trend setting 6th gen jet.
    1
  2975. Belt and road is a factor but you know this is opposing it?
    1
  2976.  @discipleaj  I hope your a troll, because it would be sad to see some one put in so much effort with so little understanding.
    1
  2977. I depends on what you talking about the glide vehicles are an advancement on ballistic missiles. Ballistic missile having been going at hypersonic speeds for decades the change is manueverabilty.
    1
  2978. South Korea is generally more neutral and concerned with North Korea.
    1
  2979. Hopefully in it starts bad but turns out alright.
    1
  2980. Tank comps aren't war fighting, no ones shooting back at you.
    1
  2981.  @JamesVDBosch  of course not, thats why it's not part of a friendly competition. But it is a very important part of assessing the quality of a tank.
    1
  2982.  @JamesVDBosch  may be one depending on specifics, but also no reports of them surviving multiple weapons strikes. You didn't say there was no proof, you said there was no indication. There's clearly an indication.
    1
  2983.  @JamesVDBosch  There have been multiple instances of challengers being hit by multiple RPGs so I don't know how you can talk about "the" challenger hit. It has also survived ATGM. And its noticeable you had to move from Leopards for more combat experience. The T72 in particluar isn't anywhere close to be worth comparing.
    1
  2984.  @JamesVDBosch  again you've tried spread the debate away from its Challenger/Leopard beginning.
    1
  2985. They are using them for this upgrade.
    1
  2986. 11?
    1
  2987. Yeah, seems like a thing that will happen but not in the decade timeframe.
    1
  2988. You protect what you have, 10s of Billions isn't miniscule.
    1
  2989. Didn't watch the video? It's about sending troops to Estonia.
    1
  2990. Forget western press, Russian commentary is getting much more worried.
    1
  2991. It's a large spending increase despite the general situation, I don't think you can expect a mainstream party to be doing more than that.
    1
  2992. I imagine the Boxer issue is about the work share the UK wanted.
    1
  2993. It's a good point, but to execute it means a smaller military to free up money for change.
    1
  2994. The combined arms operations from the end of WW1 were seriously advanced.
    1
  2995. The next step is loyal wingmen. Short distance communication that much harder to disrupt. We'll see how that goes and then look again.
    1
  2996. Except we are actually supporting weaker countries against the bully.
    1
  2997. The war means funds are needed else where and our enemy is getting weaker.
    1
  2998.  @itzmatty1906  sure if they can do basically the same thing but with better range and camera, then great.
    1
  2999. That's true, the risk is miscalculation. If Putin thinks Europe is divided and he might act and the US will end up sucked into a war. The US guarantee prevents that.
    1
  3000. @thebarkingmouse  I agree to an extent, but it easy to overestimate what is about helping others and what is about the US securing it own interests. The US wants a presence in Europe and the far east because it makes the Pacific and Atlantic into its backyard.
    1
  3001.  @TheOneVoxel  it's the war we plan for but by planning for it we stop it happening. But the war against Russian kit ...
    1
  3002. Pawns with democratic governments, nuclear weapons and security council seats. In what world does that make sense?
    1
  3003.  @alextorres6146  how you they do that when the other security council members have exactly the same powers. And vetos are regularly used?
    1
  3004. In 2013 there was no appetite for Ukraine joining NATO from either Ukraine or NATO. But Putin invaded.
    1
  3005. We worked together on this, like we did on latter Harriers.
    1
  3006. Your talking about China taking Taiwan and also complaining about fear mongering, which one is it?
    1
  3007.  @MetaView7  carriers are Air force warfare but without a sitting duck of an air base.
    1
  3008.  @MetaView7  a 500+ (not 400) mile range is good for attacking things within 500 miles of the carrier. You are living in WW2 if you think rounds is relevant. Don't why you think 65,000 tonnes is tiny. The UK isn't a giant, against a giant we aren't going to be attacking we are going to be defending.
    1
  3009. It answers the question at 0:49.
    1
  3010. There starting the process with the existing vehicles but the plan is to use Ajax and Boxer.
    1
  3011. And the fact no one but the US has the capability to project a significant force across the sea at distance. There's zero threat of invasion.
    1
  3012. How, if you were in a fight and were offered zero armoured vehicles or only a few which would you choose?
    1
  3013. @alangunningham5667  why would an island looking around the world be structured like a country directly bordering an adversary? Tanks do nothing to help our defence, they can help our allies, be so to subs and jets, and nukes. We have some tanks, but our limiting figure isn't the tanks we have, its the air and sea lift we have to to deploy and a sustain them.
    1
  3014. @alangunningham5667  I don't know how you came to that. But to go back to my initial objection to your post. A small amount helps, it is worthwhile, even if more would be better. Second an armoured vehicle is useful even without large numbers of MBTs. And to add, the British army wouldn't even be best improved with more MBTs, what its actually lacking is long range fires and air defences.
    1
  3015. @alangunningham5667  I think maybe it's a language issue and you don't understand the word worthwhile.
    1
  3016. Russians has already given up on the whole of Ukraine and is only going for the South and East.
    1
  3017. They will be some of the most active ships. 3 watches will rotate through roughly 2 months on 1 month off keeping the crew permanently fresh.
    1
  3018. Russia is looking at a declining population it actually can't replace it's men.
    1
  3019. Marham
    1
  3020.  @patrickrobinson-mh5jw  is that the Muslim PM or Chancellor or the vast c. 15 MPs that are Muslim?
    1
  3021. @Justin Thyme F35 plans don't come close to the 4,600 F16s built.
    1
  3022. The only certainty is boots on the ground, and these get them there.
    1
  3023.  @matthewmallan1995  Are you suggesting there aren't boots on the ground in Ukraine?
    1
  3024.  @matthewmallan1995  there's always been an array of weapons that can and did destroy armour. Armour isn't there to make troops invulnerable but to make them less vulnerable. There still plenty of small arms and shrapnel, so boxers.armour is still useful.
    1
  3025.  @matthewmallan1995  300 to 1 of anything is is bad, it's not telling you about the equipment. But I think what your problem is completely overestimating what Russia can do, it's a country stalled out in Ukraine that had to mobilise just to get that far.
    1
  3026.  @matthewmallan1995  How can you be so ignorant?
    1
  3027. As the 2.5% is a percentage of GDP not a percentage increase of the existing budget it will take into account inflation. If we head into recession there is an issue but at the moment we are looking at low level growth.
    1
  3028. By supplying weapons destroying Russian kit?
    1
  3029.  @TheLastCrumb.  You will see the type of weaponry being supplied is changing with heavier and more advanced kit being sent. That is because early in the war there was a genuine fear Ukraine would simply be overrun and like you are thinking Russia would be able to claim what was supplied. Since Russia was stopped outside Kyiv and has pulled back from the north along with a clear willingness of Ukrainians to fight a Ukrainian collapse is no longer a worry, instead Russia is looking to carve off part of Ukraine with the question being how much.
    1
  3030. What about this video came across as causing trouble?
    1
  3031.  @_._._._._._._._._._._._._.____  they aren't this mission. They were very clearly different types missions, with the obvious fact they weren't working with the government's.
    1
  3032.  @_._._._._._._._._._._._._.____  The UN don't do training?
    1
  3033. It not a standing army it's total military, so including airfirce and navy along with all the logistics and support.
    1
  3034. Buy, doesn't mean develop, chances are it would mean from abroad.
    1
  3035.  @ThePostie501  The Challanger 3 turret is being developed to work with other tanks but I think at that point we would just go all in and buy leos.
    1
  3036.  @jammiedodger7040  It would be in the case that they decided they needed more tanks that they get from the existing Challenger hulls. I don't think it will happen. Also I think there is basically zero chance of a new all British Tank, we'll straight buy or join a joint project.
    1
  3037. Russia is poor, the only reason they even have a large army is legacy kit from the Soviet union.
    1
  3038. The EU wasn't stopping bu8lding our forces, it was and still is public will to pay for it.
    1
  3039. In a high intensity conflict, maybe never if it's not needed.
    1
  3040. @charliesw1234  unsurprisingly I have. Not sure how it is relevant to my post.
    1
  3041.  @davidrobertsemail  they haven't actually cut the order yet.
    1
  3042.  @callumbentley1582  I'd like to see some F35/Typhoon combo vs pure F35 war games to see whose better.
    1
  3043.  @draigygoch  not sure if they will anymore. China has pretty much caught up with Russia and they have a lot more resources for there own development.
    1
  3044. Lost in what sense? I'm sure they are considering all the people and infrastructure they have lost. But they haven't lost the war and they are fighting for there country, that isn't pointless. Russia however are just getting people on both sides killed.
    1
  3045. Russia loosing wouldn't be an existential threat to Russia. It might be the Putin himself but there are other people around that can stop using nukes
    1
  3046. Russia feels it can dictate Georgia and Ukraine's foreign policy, the UK disagrees.
    1
  3047.  @noname-wg5me  why wouldn't Russia take a Nuclear power with a larger economy and UN veto seriously? But we don't work alone anyway, with respect to Russia it's generally in the context of NATO.
    1
  3048.  @noname-wg5me  I'm talking about the UK in respect to them, yes.
    1
  3049. DAVE A Its a fine aircraft but we want to be able to project power, the stealth is key to beat improving SAMs.
    1
  3050. They have flown in combat.
    1
  3051.  @AverageGuy916  Mach 20 is a normal speed for an ICBM, S400 is intercepting very few if any. If the S500 turns out to intercept 75% that will be an amazing success but that doesn't stop MAD.
    1
  3052. Not sure if that is actually true never mind it being naive. The world wars brought incredible leaps in advancement and we only went to space for the sake of the military.
    1
  3053. Basically the same as every major country since nuclear weapons.
    1
  3054. The upgrade will be something like half the price of new tanks. Challenger 3 is a bit of politics but reasonable justified give the large number of changes, particularly the new gun.
    1
  3055. 1chish . I agree with you , the ability to use all of them either at land or sea is excellent. The last 50 or so F35s we're planning on could be A's though. They are a lot cheaper and little more capable. I think it comes down to if it makes more sense to only have one type for maintenance.
    1
  3056. How did you come to with that, all it mentioned was the radar?
    1
  3057.  @Mlster-Grln  who's the you? Because Russia fought along side Britain not against it.
    1
  3058.  @Mlster-Grln  my point being previously Russia had allies and were against a smaller country rather than being against alliance. And Russia successes were also the successes of NATO members.
    1
  3059.  @bluerainbow956  it was already good, now it's better. The bigger changes are the weapons it's added Meteor which cab hit other jets at longer range, Brimstone which can hit moving ground targets a go through armour, and Storm Shadow for fixed ground targets but from a long way away.
    1
  3060. Either Russia is strong and 15000 troops is not in the least bit threatening or Russia is weak. You can't have it both ways.
    1
  3061.  @rhysnichols8608  the BBC is a good start but there not alone, and we have a free media. Channel4 news is my preferred choice for investigative journalism.
    1
  3062.  Brian Coley  you aren't talking about the harrier vs the tornado but the harrier, the carriers and the escorts. But I wasn't making a point about which choice was right just that it isn't about today's capability.
    1
  3063.  Brian Coley  I don't get what point that was trying to make?
    1
  3064.  Brian Coley  why would you think that, current plans have us buying more than 48. It would mean for around a decade we didn't buy any fast jets.
    1
  3065.  Brian Coley  the two options aren't 138 and 48. If anything they are the two least likely numbers. If you are looking at the buy rate it would be a lot slower than currently to spread the buy until Tempest.
    1
  3066. I'd be nice and I'm sure we'd throw in a load of training but it's a massive jump in capability.
    1
  3067. As far as I'm aware there isn't a problem with food in general but getting it to besieged places.
    1
  3068. We have it
    1
  3069. You mean like the decades of peace between superpowers we've had, that kind of learning?
    1
  3070. Our reaction would probably have been to sanction Russia and then shrug as they were already using Russia kit.
    1
  3071. Not really, no one has sent western tanks for the best part of a year, being slightly later isn't some great difference.
    1
  3072. lol, damaged propellor doesn't look like undamaged propellor shocker.
    1
  3073. Boar Vessel, 600-500 B.C. , Etruscan Ceramic I like your name but we aren't being attacked any time soon and the downward thrust from STOVL will ruin a normal surface over time so it makes perfect sense to base them at one spot.
    1
  3074. True, propaganda doesn't have to be lies and we need to keep telling the story in Ukraine when it directly effects people in there homes.
    1
  3075. They aren't fighting, so they've done nothing to prove there value yet.
    1
  3076. Yep, many ICBMs go Mach 20+. The difference here isn't the speed its the manueverabilty.
    1
  3077. What is donated is weakening Russia, and we are safe on our island, the context is fighting for others.
    1
  3078.  @freespeechandall137  Our army is basically irrelevant for purpose of defence, that falls to the Airforce and Navy, and Russia doesn't have the navy to project power across the sea, not to mention we are surrounded by allies. We are safe.
    1
  3079. Because one or two hundred jets compares to millions of cars?
    1
  3080.  @Robertsmith001  why would we bother, 2 vetoes isn't any better than 1.
    1
  3081.  @OffordDarcy  it's a talking shop but that's not meaningless. It has no hard power but neither does the UN because of vetoes. The UK influence is a fraction of what it had in 1945. But a fraction of that is still large. Calling it a pygmy just shows your biased.
    1
  3082. I find the F35 particularly deceptive, because it's a bit chunkier, it seems it should be smaller.
    1
  3083. Because you block the signal and suddenly no ones flying it.
    1
  3084.  @TheUncertainKill  you have carriers over 40 years old and Ford isn't operational yet so 10 and very old sounds arguable to me.
    1
  3085.  @TheUncertainKill  Nimitz commission 75, Eisenhower 77? How's that not 40 years. What deployments has Ford been on then?
    1
  3086. Israel has good relations with Russia, they sell them weapons.
    1
  3087. Not even close, for example in the UK about 5x as many people work for the NHS as the armed forces. The NHS works day in day out saving lives where as the armed forces spent much of there on disaster relief and very little time killing.
    1
  3088. ​ @mitchrils from what I heard they sufficiently mitigated it. Its not a yes/no situation but how bad.
    1
  3089. Cuba? Are you still living in the cold war era?
    1
  3090. Can't go through the Bosphorus.
    1
  3091.  @paulreeves1787  who's that? If your talking about Philip May, then no he doesn't.
    1
  3092. So what was the result?
    1
  3093. Except there's a budget increase.
    1
  3094.  @tp1267  The money difference wouldn't be that big. But there are some things like nuclear subs that would have basing issues and industry like ship building and our Radar centre.
    1
  3095.  @tp1267  no it doesn't.
    1
  3096. Leopards are at least twice the cost of the upgrades.
    1
  3097. What's being defended against.
    1
  3098. Doubtful, they have a couple of known programs that are still deciding on what direction they go in.
    1
  3099. Challys are in need of an upgrade. Hence them getting one soon. As an example they don't currently have an active protection system.
    1
  3100.  @challyho6375  Saidi Arabia?
    1
  3101. How? It's just asking for more defence spending.
    1
  3102. 76.2
    1
  3103. The UK is fine with the pace of delivery, until Block 4 and all it's weapons get integrated getting F35Bs early just mean more upgrades.
    1
  3104.  @splatoonistproductions5345  a war hits it won't much matter if they are US or UK F35B when they are hitting the same enemy. As a manufacturer (which we are in part on F35, particularly the F35B) a constant flow is best, we don't want to have quickly built all the F35B and then shut the production line down and be left wanting for spares or more jets.
    1
  3105.  @splatoonistproductions5345  we aren't pushing to get them faster!
    1
  3106.  @splatoonistproductions5345  you know we haven't ordered 138?
    1
  3107.  @splatoonistproductions5345  138 was the plan, but we order them in batches. The first order was 48, we negotiating a second order of 26 at the moment.
    1
  3108.  @yuritarted984  There might be some but it is often the case we don't want it, the F22 is a famous case they didn't export but we never pressed them diplomatically because we were happy building the Typhoon. There is also tech we have that is more advanced than them and they are much more reluctant to buy, the meteor missile at the moment for example.
    1
  3109. I give two fucks.
    1
  3110. NATO isn't short on tanks and generally they are better quality, ie Abrahns vs T72.
    1
  3111. Russians are in Transnistria, how is that a long way away?
    1
  3112.  @1IbramGaunt  they weren't originally supposed to be cat and trap, it was only the plan for a couple of years due to SDSR 2010.
    1
  3113.  @1IbramGaunt  Money was the main issue but time was also a factor, with Emals development and installation it would have pushed the carriers back maybe 5 years. The money was never there and that couple of years just thinking about catapults not actually doing anything cost an extra £100m+. And the money isn't just the carrier, Hawkeye is often cited, France just spent $2bn on replacing its Hawkeye. If you gave the Navy the money to change to catapults I think they buy frigates. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
    1
  3114.  @1IbramGaunt  Steam wasn't the option on the table. We wouldn't have been doing either ourselves, like France, our last catapult carrier was a long time ago. Steam is a lot more wear on the aircraft and would also require steam generators. Also an empty F35C is 15.5k Kg, Phantom/Buccaneer 13.5k Kg.
    1
  3115.  @iananderson7883  Look at HMS Ocean, because that's Brazil's standard. A twenty year old ship, build to commercial standards, that's becoming there flag ship. And Ocean went because of the carriers, we'll have spare capacity for 5-10 by which time it would be needing replacing anyway.
    1
  3116. The Ajax decision was about being more British. BAE offer was to be built in Sweden, GD offered more work in Wales (though not all of course).
    1
  3117. It's just come back from the China area?
    1
  3118. Its not about fighting alone it's about our stocks compared to our military size in a high intensity situation.
    1
  3119.  @bulletproofguy5112  We are an island. Tanks aren't high on our priorities. It quite reasonable some smaller countries have more. Poland definitely should have a lot more having a land border with Russia.
    1
  3120.  @bulletproofguy5112  When we had the BAOR it made sense to have a good number of tanks. We don't have a significant force there anymore. The fact we are a global power counts against tanks. We need kit we can move quickly across the world. Thats airpower (from land or sea) and light troops. Some tanks, sure, just not loads.
    1
  3121.  @bulletproofguy5112  Not at the moment. We need modest plans that are certain to get done, and in a timely fashion.
    1
  3122.  @Then.72  Commissioned has a specific meaning and Prince of Wales has been commissioned for a couple of years. But it might not have reached FOC (full operating capability) yet which could be what your talking about.
    1
  3123.  @Then.72  Why are you still saying it hasn't been commissioned when you've been corrected and it a doddle to look up? Theres even a video on this channel from 12/12/19.
    1
  3124.  @Then.72  There aren't different types of commissioning. Your commissioned or not. As I explained earlier commissioned doesn't mean FOC.
    1
  3125.  @Then.72  You don't known what you word commissioned means.
    1
  3126.  @Then.72  And F35 have already been launched from PoW.
    1
  3127.  @Then.72  You know ships train all through there life?
    1
  3128.  @Then.72  I've already talked about FOC. It's the use of commissioned your getting wrong.
    1
  3129. Yes, none of this modern change to F22s.
    1
  3130.  @chrisklitou7573  why does that matter, modern fights are about about sensors and missiles?
    1
  3131.  @vmcauley  and? The Vietnam war was almost half a century ago.
    1
  3132. Lol, the guy is fixing Trumps alienation of Europe and you think he's a problem?
    1
  3133.  @mikemines2931  Hi Pedro
    1
  3134. They were shouting all over the place 6 months ago that an attack was coming?
    1
  3135.  @matthewwalker8165  so how can you say they couldn't tell anyone?
    1
  3136.  @matthewwalker8165  it wasn't just a military briefing situation, it was a massive publicity operation, there was no attempt to hide it.
    1
  3137. That is only part of a war. You still have to occupy territory.
    1
  3138.  @mbukukanyau  why does it assume they cannot restart production? They aren't going to rescind an export band on the off chance they will restart production sometime in the future and someone will want to buy it.
    1
  3139.  @mbukukanyau  being a secret worth keeping means it's worse. When was the last time the F15 had a fight against a modern aircraft?
    1
  3140. Forget SCO or BRICS as a defence organisation. It isn't, simply if you see India and China in something together its not a solid unit.
    1
  3141. How can you describe 65k tonnes as titchy?
    1
  3142. It's latest tanks are still 120mm.
    1
  3143. Capable of, not will. She's a big lass.
    1
  3144. Yes of course that's it rather the urban combat shown in the video.
    1
  3145. Its a message to Russia.
    1
  3146. You can't not rely on computers as you would lose. You can make systems resistant to cyber style attacks, which we do and is becoming an increasing emphasis. Whether this change is fast enough or deep enough I don't think we (people not intimately involved) will ever know.
    1
  3147.  @gilbert7794  What EMP weapon?
    1
  3148. They can still use inertial navigation, but to get rid of GPS you need open war with the US, which if it stays conventional Russia looses and if it goes nuclear Russia looses along with everyone else.
    1
  3149. Any swift Russian victory is over, if Russia do win it will be a very slow grind.
    1
  3150. Basically European country had the same post cold war cuts we did.
    1
  3151. It is a bit worrying as one explanation is Putin is completely out of touch, being given the information he wants to hear not the reality.
    1
  3152. 2 is a lot?
    1
  3153. It depends what you mean by genuine, national interest is always part of the consideration, a government wouldn't be doing it job without that. But the UK is active in Africa.
    1
  3154.  @As.11.11  Should we be doing things like spending billions every year on aid to brown and black countries, oh, we already do.
    1
  3155. God doesn't exist.
    1
  3156. In fact Ukraine is the better analogy to the first two dates. For a start it was part of part of those invaded, which wasn't modern Russia but the Russian Empire/USSR. But mainly Ukraine is the one invaded and fighting for it's homeland.
    1
  3157. Russia aren't finished yet, fuelling Ukraine doesn't change that.
    1
  3158. Russia invaded, the US and NATO aren't even fighting, yet you blame the US and NATO.
    1
  3159. An extra carrier is bottom of the list.
    1
  3160. Still are just later than the Griffin.
    1
  3161.  @rowanmaguire7890  No the fibreglass ships will be replaced by autonomous vessels. We already have steel ships like bays running mothership and frigates in the area for our current vessels. Where the current sweepers go it won't be T32s, it will unmanned vessels. It not the US in the past it's the UK and France now.
    1
  3162. It's well known that soldiers need training to be able to kill civilians?!
    1
  3163.  @charlieharper2529  an oddly large number of Ukrainian military have died only bombarding civilians.
    1
  3164.  @notsomalicious4435  The Tornado airframes are getting too old. Though they can still do a job, maintenance times and costs are shooting up.
    1
  3165.  @notsomalicious4435  in part because we're retiring ours they can be cannibalised to keep others flying as our harriers helped the USMC keep there's flying. But its also about preferences. Ours is to be small but top of the line. Italy cancelled the last of there Typhoon purchases, Germany aren't getting the F35. Its not that there unusable but it's not a zero sum game and the maths is moving against the Tornado. From what I've seen it more about putting money into the Typhoon rather than the F35. Getting new weapons integrated and existing aircraft up to spec so it is a true multirole jet.
    1
  3166.  @Rigel_6  doubt it, SU-57 is unimpressive and not going to to mass productive, the way he talks suggests he thinks Russia has something in reserve.
    1
  3167. What makes you think it won't have jets when we already have 17 and have just ordered 17 more?
    1
  3168.  @Boric78  138 is the FAA + RAF number, a carrier needs 36, and would still be effective at 24. We might not get 138, that's completely different to not having enough for a carrier.
    1
  3169.  @Boric78  36 is what the carriers are designed for. Having more fighter doesn't change that. And even 24 F35B makes the carrier more capable than the Kuztenov or Liaoning so no they wouldn't only last 30 minutes. We've already ordered the next 17, so no it won't be just 17. And we'll continue buying them. 50% extra cost just means we'd only buy 2/3 the numbers ie. 90.
    1
  3170.  @Boric78  Ford is 75 aircraft, not 75 fighters. That includes ASW helicopter, Awacs etc. and normal deployment is lower. But yes they are a lot bigger. 003 maybe be as big, and it may get a capable jet (J15s aren't scary), China does have 20x our populations and many times our economy. That only leaves 191 countries against whom they might be useful and that's not even counting coalitions.
    1
  3171.  @Boric78  yeah, not the best time politically. And I don't think we'll make the most of the carriers. But they will be useful and have jets.
    1
  3172. What treaty is that? Treaties are written down and easy to refer to. But it wasn't in a treaty, so you can't tell me.
    1
  3173. We are, not exactly the same but using the same CAMM missile.
    1
  3174. 100 years ago we were a super power.
    1
  3175. Bigger kit like artillery also needs training so a big dump isn't actually that useful.
    1
  3176.  @adelaidesngan604  thanks.
    1
  3177.  @EvenWaysMusic  there are major upgrade plans for Challanger and Warrior, and Ajax and Boxer are coming in. But they aren't here yet and the fact they are needed suggests the current kit is out dated.
    1
  3178. Very different to Syria, this is an invasion not a civil war, and the scale of support is much greater.
    1
  3179. It has to be a ship of theseus by now.
    1
  3180. All the attacks did was refocus Ukraine.
    1
  3181. The US defence budget is hundreds of Billions a year, how is 800 Million surprising?
    1
  3182. Because Qatar is spending Billions ...?
    1
  3183. Some are being built in Germany
    1
  3184. It's an Infantry Fighting Vehicle. This update is mainly about the 30mm gun being upgraded. Warthog isn't providing that.
    1
  3185.  @blmetal65  I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the Warthog, simply it filled a different role. An APC not an IFV so it's not viable warrior replacement.
    1
  3186. What do you think the US didn't know about, because there has been public reporting in HGV for years never mind what intelligence agencies know.
    1
  3187.  Pat Hat  why do you think China being on the UN security council will stop sanctions?
    1
  3188. Quite a bit, but they didn't armour it like the US ones. The worry is the kinetic energy of hypersonic missiles act like a massive warhead to do more damage.
    1
  3189. 20 of the 18...
    1
  3190. Nope, wheeled vehicles like Mastiff.
    1
  3191. It's Royal Anglian. Took me a while to figure it out though.
    1
  3192. We have our freedom due to defence spending, both in fighting like WW2 and in presenting a strong front like the Cold war. We active in the world because trade is part of our prosperity down most fundamental level, feeding ourselves. Individual actions and war should be debated, defence spending is always important.
    1
  3193. They aren't left with nothing, only 2% goes on aid.
    1
  3194. ​ @Ukbrummie worth klnotinvbits a family, so 589 in total buf 245 Ajax itself.
    1
  3195. Russia has one broken carrier. China's only just built her first.
    1
  3196. Befriending Russia would have meant leaving the likes of Estonia to there mercy.
    1
  3197. Simply that isn't known, that's Russian bull.
    1
  3198. Fitted for but not with is as generally a good low threat peace time policy. It means you get more ships which have years long lead times but can upgun them in months or even weeks. It wouldn't be good if the UK were likely to be attacked, but it's not. QE is a different queation, no defensive missiles is just a choice, not FFBNW. Missiles on the ship isn't particularly important, only that you have enough in the fleet.
    1
  3199. They are giving weapons not selling. And they are taking refugees if too few too slowly.
    1
  3200. Why does Russia get to decide what Ukraine does? And the reality was NATO wasn't close to letting Ukraine join.
    1
  3201. You know he was only elected in 2019?
    1
  3202. Defends us from what, we both fight together, a long way from home?
    1
  3203. It would be nice to have everything but we are off the edge of the continent not on the main land.
    1
  3204. Carriers are designed to survive a hit or two. And carrier groups to not let that happen in the first place.
    1
  3205.  @singularity-6339  I they want to end the world Russia can do it whenever they want, I don't see why now would be more likely than any other time?
    1
  3206.  Connor Cook  Not really. Syria sprang from Iraq. Iraq and Afganistan were for very different reasons.
    1
  3207.  @nosamsemaj9150  France hasn't pulled out. And we have very little involvement at the moment, less than Syria, no where near Afganistan.
    1
  3208.  @nosamsemaj9150  250 troops under the UN, it's a long way off Afganistan yet.
    1
  3209. Its a working hospital, where's the problem?
    1
  3210. A major power sure, but certainly not the major power, it's not rich enough.
    1
  3211. Neither Russia nor China has a military alliance with Mexico so that would be a little odd.
    1
  3212.  @ThePina558  Portugal is an ally, being in NATO. What war are you talking about?
    1
  3213. Henry VIII was also a Prince of Wales, you could go with father ship.
    1
  3214.  @m4a1z1  Interestingly the average age of an active Abrams is something like 4 years because for a few years they've been building them to keep the production lines going rather than because they want more.
    1
  3215.  @aquillandscroll6428  that was actually Challlenger 1.
    1
  3216. That would just unite the Russian people behind Putin and he wouldn't care.
    1
  3217. Or Russia could leave, also ends it but with Ukrainian deciding there own fate.
    1
  3218. If Russia doesn't want war, don't attack, no one else is going to.
    1
  3219. That 30% utterly drawfs Russian spending, the adversary NATO is designed for. Europe doesn't rely on the US, it out spends, out mans and out techs Russia. The US spends such a vast amount for its own concerns, being global superpower, not for the defence of Europe. As an example its bases in Germany have long since stopped been about Eurpean defence and for a couple of decades been a useful stoppping off point and drone relay to the middle east.
    1
  3220. We can't really say either way, we don't know the plan.
    1
  3221. Reassuring an ally.
    1
  3222. Who are you selling to? Italy who have the Cavour or Japan who have the Izumo?
    1
  3223. How would it do that?
    1
  3224. @Drew Peacock miss typed meant can't not can. Have edited.
    1
  3225. @Drew Peacock then your not fighting the missiles your fighting the vessels carrying the missiles. The whole point of a carrier is the fight starts hundreds of miles away from it. In terms of disrupting expensive missiles, they need to be targeted. Even if you can't stop the missile you can stop the aircraft, satellite or what ever is targeting your ship.
    1
  3226. @Drew Peacock your missing the whole point of a carrier. Jets, in the air, far from the ship. There's no horizon to scoot behind.
    1
  3227. War can be the lesser evil, its up to politicians to fight the right wars. The military is simply the tool they use.
    1
  3228.  @jamesstewart7224  The west had already being attacking ISIS for a year before Russia intervened in Syria, and even then Russia was keener on attacking the moderate rebels than ISIS (as they knew the was was doing that part). That is not turning a blind eye.
    1
  3229. I far as I've seen its a few less than 170 delivered and some of those have been sold on as part of export deals. But I think they have also excluded the Navies Rafales which is a bit disingenuous.
    1
  3230. 1 is different hull to 2.
    1
  3231. You say the US is five times better equipped but China as all the aces?
    1
  3232.  @blacksmith67  Firstly, my point was about all the aces. May be China could have 3 of the aces, but current power has to be at least one? The third Reich started by being cut off from the rest of the world. The first move against China is cutting it off from the rest of the world. I can't see a comparison. The winner in the two world wars was the team that could leverage the world economy, not just there own.
    1
  3233. Not obsolete, but no longer the centre piece of a force.
    1
  3234. Look her up, she has a solid defence background. People didn't have an issue with the career politician, Gavin Williamson.
    1
  3235.    I'm not sure what more you would be expecting? Being a Royal Navy reservist shows she cares and she has some previous experience from being minister of state for the armed forces.
    1
  3236. Somewhat, though it wasn't originally.
    1
  3237.  @trevortrevortsr2  ideally we'd have a tracked IFV as well. But Boxer isn't covering the fighting part (Ajax is) just the transport, so can to some extent go around or unload earlier.
    1
  3238.  @meme4one  that is both untrue, we can escalate and not declare war, and thing to do with article 5 anyway.
    1
  3239. Hold our own in the UK against what, there is no one (except an ally) that can launch a cross sea invasion at scale even without our Navy and Air force which are quality.
    1
  3240. Nope, must have been something else you saw, claiming QE was nuclear would get jumped on in 10 seconds.
    1
  3241.  @Kav.  PA2 wasn't the original design, it was a French adaption of the British design.
    1
  3242.  @Kav.  You maybe getting confused with the fact Thales was involved in the original design, but that wasn't PA2.
    1
  3243. It's not that they are but the risk they could become the threat. Iran is a theocracy with links to a lot of none state actors. Those are avenues that could lead to them using a nuclear weapon.
    1
  3244. It depends, maybe a Europe dominated by the Prussian army might not have been that bad but stopping one of Nazis was worth the cost.
    1
  3245.  @chigeryelam4061  that doesn't work when it's a fire tempering steel.
    1
  3246.  @chigeryelam4061  no, I'm not. I really want to avoid war. But when it becomes inevitable you commit to it entirely. We lost Czechoslovakia by thinking the fire was on the other side of the river. A stable Nazis superstate would have won the war. Britain built it's empire on divide and conquer, it excelled at taking advantage of the state ravaged by fire. It saw the difference in the world wars.
    1
  3247. No it wouldn't. It would be a slight set back to the west, but given the west is much richer, more populous and hasn't even fought, no ones dictating anything.
    1
  3248. The voter. Ultimately governments haven't spent because it doesn't win votes.
    1
  3249. Weird divide strategy, coordinating across borders.
    1
  3250. Gregg Sonic the companies are not actually worth that much, if they were a profitable as you says actually big companies like BP or Apple would pick them up.
    1
  3251. They aren't in control of the air, even if they lost no jets they still started with few, they are denying Russia total control.
    1
  3252. How? Because we're doing a normal jet update?
    1
  3253.  @hardwired548  go away because you don't be an answer?
    1
  3254.  @hardwired548  I didn't go on and on about, you did. I was more concerned you thought a Typhoon could take off from a carrier. And I gave you links.
    1
  3255. The US aren't planing on fighting in Ukraine nor have they moved a significant number of troops.
    1
  3256.  @BroadHobbyProjects  Distracted in what sense, there's a massive military apparatus in the Pacific focused on China?
    1
  3257.  @BroadHobbyProjects  I take it you accept there's no distraction? The US has a couple of carrier strike groups as well a major USAF presence in the area and that would be augmented within days not months. Not to mention a massive invasion force would be obvious long before it attacked. A cross sea invasion is incredibly difficult, it's not something China could do if it was opposed by the US.
    1
  3258. Prince of Wales is just a honorific and doesn't mean your the head of that country. It's not aways awarded, the Queen was never the Princess of Wales for example.
    1
  3259.  @Khumry  No her father was George VI, it was his brother who abdicated his rights. There's often not a Prince of Wales. It only for an heir apparent, but it can't always been given to an heir apparent.
    1
  3260. Yep, telling the airforce or artillery were where the MBT is.
    1
  3261.  @anthsarin070497  Nope, all being built in there respective countries. There should be some knock on work in design and subsystems but not in the actually ship building.
    1
  3262.  @BroadHobbyProjects  building some cheaper frigates is exactly what we need to do. The 26 is larger, more advanced and more heavily armed than the ship it's replacing leading to it being multiple times the price. That's not sustainable to be going 1 for 1.
    1
  3263.  @BroadHobbyProjects  having more advanced ships doesn't help when they are tied up doing routine work. Having the cover of the 31/32 means those 4 26s are truly available. In terms of losing ships the type 31 is an Iver Huitfeldt hull with a quality CMS, it's something that can be turned into a full warship very quickly. If we need to replace ships we need numbers built over current quality.
    1
  3264. There is a constant flow of gear a into Ukraine.
    1
  3265.  @karlharrison2449  the Ukrainian army isn't surrounded and and even if part of it was the rest can still attack from the outside.
    1
  3266.  @karlharrison2449  You know Russia pulled back in the North? And Donbasss isn't surrounded.
    1
  3267. Brian Cullen if there is a war in the south east of Europe what we need is a carrier. Oh look that's what we're getting.
    1
  3268. What do you think is illegal here?
    1
  3269.  @johnpatrick83  that didn't explain anything. Nothing about this is one man, the country of Ukraine is fighting the country of Russia after it invaded
    1
  3270.  @johnpatrick83  Do you just live in a fantasy, thats even the Russian view even if they believe it's justified.
    1
  3271.  @johnpatrick83  are you just posting random things now, what did I say that was anything to do with race? What does you being British have to do with anything?
    1
  3272.  @johnpatrick83  so you struggle even with words. I have a problem with Russias actions, I have a problem with there propaganda, I don't give too hoots about there race (which would basically be the same as mine anyway).
    1
  3273.  @theoonyoutube  there are Gurkhas in the SAS.
    1
  3274.  @theoonyoutube  I presumed there'd still be as there were some a couple of years back.
    1
  3275.  @randomuser1911  my point was that it's not an EU project.
    1
  3276. STOVL?
    1
  3277. It not the wests rights its Eastern Europes rights to there own choices.
    1