Comments by "David Houseman" (@davidhouseman4328) on "Analysis: How the refreshed Integrated Review will affect Britain's Armed Forces" video.

@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
Only France is even close to the UK in all services capability.
2
He is giving more money to the armed forces and his wife is voluntarily paying more tax.
2
@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
Just European NATO massively outspends, outmans and outtechs Russia.
1
There regular army is about 120k mostly conscripts, conscription does mean they have a large potential reserve though.
1
Billions added to ten of billions already. But thats no money.
1
@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
@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
£10bn for F35s
1
Not really, Britain defence is being an island surrounded by friendly countries. The defence of eastern NATO might be spelt USA.
1