Comments by "David Houseman" (@davidhouseman4328) on "Defence review refresh: What does the military need?" video.

  1. 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
  2. They are doing the job they are needed for in Ukraine.
    4
  3. 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
  4.  @christianhaupt2637  I don't think your getting anywhere near double the man power with a bit cheaper personal equipment.
    3
  5. Not really, it just tells you Israel is threatened and has land borders.
    2
  6. But they do help before that, and given that isn't going to happen we should be spending on computers.
    1
  7. Ajax isn't an IFV
    1
  8.  @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
  9.  @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
  10.  @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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13.  @californiadreamin8423  what did I say thats wrong, the lack of substance on your reply suggests you dont know?
    1
  14.  @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
  15. 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
  16. Buy, doesn't mean develop, chances are it would mean from abroad.
    1
  17.  @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
  18.  @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
  19. 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
  20. 1 is different hull to 2.
    1