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

  1. PDZ1122 so cover a country with goat herders and missiles, you'll only need hundreds of thousands of them...
    3
  2.  misternovelbro  the donbass casualties were primarily in the first couple of years, but it is another Russian transgression.
    3
  3. 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
  4.  @paggerd3210  The idea Russia can have a buffer at the expense of other countries is a problem.
    3
  5.  @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
  6. Anything with moving parts goes quickly. You always get it round the anchors. Seems the lifts will be the same.
    3
  7. 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
  8. You know Ukraine is currently flying jets?
    3
  9. 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
  10. It has a purpose, train the ANA so they can look after themselves. It may be futile but it is a purpose.
    3
  11.  @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
  12.  @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
  13. A ship is always a she, makes sense to me another vessel is too.
    3
  14.  @fredmidtgaard5487  most European countries don't spend 2% on aid, only a few even pass the 0.7% UN target.
    3
  15. Much is just the video showing the price for 2 British carriers not 1.
    3
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Indeed, the Eurofighter is just getting a massive update for ground attack.
    3
  19. Robin Seward Those numbers are wrong (or at least not comparable). Typhoon would need strengthening for catapults which would be extra cost too.
    3
  20.  @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
  21.  @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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24.  @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
  25. Variously either rumour or untrue.
    3
  26.  @andyf3781  they have to wear something, where's the waste?
    3
  27. FAA still exist and have pilots flying the F35B.
    3
  28. Only the US can fight a war against a peer half the world away.
    3
  29.  @TT-hd3zi  CAMM is British, CAMM-ER is an Italian onward development.
    3
  30. 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
  31.  @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
  32.  @maxmullen6337  The French didn't design it. BMT and Thales UK did, and then BAE and Babcock were added.
    3
  33. Sure they can, just a little training but with poor morale.
    3
  34. Yes, but all things aren't equal and the extra size comes from extra armour and weaponry.
    3
  35. Sad to see a video on Forces perpetuating rumoured cut numbers.
    3
  36. 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
  37. Not really, very different contexts.
    3
  38.  @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
  39. 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
  40.  @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
  41. 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
  42.  @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
  43. And the colour sergeant.
    3
  44. @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
  45.  @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
  46.  @GracesGarden80  I wouldn't make any adjustments based on Trump for the next 6 months. See how the election goes.
    3
  47.  @Horizon344  they seem more inefficient than actually bad, but I willing to be corrected?
    3
  48. Who the hell else would be building it?
    3
  49. 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
  50. Can't remember NZ needing us, but they've certainly fought with us when needed.
    3