Comments by "Billy Bob" (@davidrobertsemail) on "BFBS Forces News" channel.

  1. Russia is winning. Slowly but surely. The sooner we have peace the better.
    1
  2. Glenn Ridsdale is this your piece?
    1
  3. That’s a quote from Hansard. Whoever put this piece together either is incompetent or covering for the needless deaths of British soldiers. Pick one.
    1
  4. Glenn Ridsdale I’ve quoted you Drayson contradicting this videos portrayal of himself at the time. Yet you defend the piece and Drayson. Wouldn’t it be nice if politicians like him were held to account for the needless deaths.
    1
  5. Glenn Ridsdale In June, 2006 when this was first raised in the Lords, the defence procurement minister, Lord Drayson, insisted that these unarmoured Land Rovers provided "the level of protection we need".
    1
  6. Glenn Ridsdale I’ve even given you a link to read. Even when it’s in black and white you refuse to believe it.
    1
  7. Glenn Ridsdale great tactic...you can’t see what I’ve written. Strong.
    1
  8. John Bond I think we are in agreement.
    1
  9. John Bond you’ve got me confused with someone else. I’ve pointed out that the politicians are to blame for knowingly sending them in with the wrong gear.
    1
  10. Sandhurst video commentary disabled because…..?
    1
  11.  @nian60  it’s what we promised Russia in regards to NATO expansion at the end of the Cold War. “Not an inch East” One reason for Putin’s 2014 invasion was the talks of Ukraine joining the EU and NATO. Our eastward expansion of NATO set the groundwork for this war. Millions of ethnic Russians live in Ukraine. Russians under NATO command? We need to think through our actions better. What’s done is done…. But Ukraine should not be part of Nato.
    1
  12.  @abrahamdozer6273  sure!!!! It perfectly normal to have aircraft carriers without planes! That’s what the US and China do ;-)
    1
  13.  @abrahamdozer6273  the reality is we should have not retired our carriers and harriers until we had replacements. These two ships are a debacle. Smaller carriers should have replaced our retiring carriers one for one with f35s replacing harriers as available. 28 f35s are in country and MAYBE in the future we may get a total of 74 for two carriers that’s half the original order for both carriers. Not enough escort ships and no early warning. The people defending this debacle as “Perfectly normal” to have carriers without planes need to read the story of the emperors new clothes.
    1
  14.  @abrahamdozer6273  if it was a war we would put two to sea. That can’t happen without planes and even if they had planes they aren’t protected with escorts or early warning. With 3,4 or 5 carriers the argument could be made that one would nearly always be unavailable. As is expected with the US carrier fleet. Two new carriers with an original order for 148 planes were clearly intended to be mostly both available and definitely both available in a shooting war. At the time many people argued for three smaller ski jump carriers so two would always be available and they would be much cheaper and faster to build. These ships are white elephants.
    1
  15.  @abrahamdozer6273  the criticism of these procurements, both the carriers and the planes is completely justified and understandable. They are big enough to be catapults but they went with the ski jumps thus inferior planes. Retired carriers early and junked their planes along with decades of experience operating carriers. No early warning. Completely insufficient escorts and not enough planes.
    1
  16.  @abrahamdozer6273  there’s a whole backstory about the design. First cats then ski jumps then the next government tried to change them to cats but it was unfeasible at that point. The whole time debate about the f35 and which model and it’s limitations and timelines etc. the end result is this debacle. Huge ships, no cats, wrong f35 and no planes. It was all avoidable and all predicted by armchair pundits like me. So when I see an aircraft carrier being described as, “Operational” I just sigh. “I’m from the government. I’m here to help”
    1
  17. Pathetic
    1
  18.  @JaneGalvin it’s got no planes!
    1
  19.  @admiralmallard7500 deliveries aren’t slow. They are what they are. We retired the harriers too early and instead of going for 3 or 4 small carriers we went fir two huge ones without catapults that have taken twice as long to build. Then we decided to halve the f35s order and delay purchases as well as cancelling the A variant. It’s all a debacle. Now we have people fawning over a 65,000 ton carrier that will never have any planes or enough escort ships.
    1
  20.  @admiralmallard7500 the carriers are sitting ducks without destroyers and frigates. They are only more capable with aircraft on them.
    1
  21.  @splatoonistproductions5345 nonsense. We retired our harriers not them.
    1
  22.  @admiralmallard7500  you don’t think an aircraft carrier without planes, early warning aircraft or air defense destroyers or frigates is a problem. It looks like a £3.5 billion target and a symbol of government mismanagement and Britain’s decline. Sad.
    1
  23. You still pushing the Russian hoax?
    1
  24. The green con. They are really expensive and unreliable. Meanwhile we are giving our industrial base to China and it’s coal power stations.
    1
  25. And next week they will be trading Chinese pilots how to kill American pilots.
    1
  26. We sold ours to the US for nothing! What a disgraceful decision. We should have kept them and at least one carrier until replacements were ready. How can forces news report this without pointing out that obvious mistake!
    1
  27. The important thing is economic migrants pretending to be asylum seekers get looked after. That’s what we really want.
    1
  28.  @johnallen7807  the cuts have been from both parties. I agree about the spending though. Procurement is key too. I think buying cheap off the shelf US instead of expensive European or developing expensive home grown white elephants like Ajax.
    1
  29.  @johnallen7807  both parties have stripped the military. GDP Spending during the Iraq and Afghanistan war peaks is questionable as we we’re burning through equipment. The a400 over the Hercules is a good example. As is Ajax. There are plenty of others. The French do well on some fronts but they also pay a high price for their independence in costs. Yes some success such as planes.
    1
  30.  @johnallen7807  I think we are pretty much in agreement. There’s plenty of money the government isn’t willing to pay for our military though. One analyst put it well. “The shop window is full but there’s nothing in the shop” Aircraft carriers without planes. Jeez.
    1
  31. We are doomed. The military is a joke. Diversity, green nonsense and woke!
    1
  32. The world is on fire. Who’s the leader of the free world???
    1
  33.  @hicks30  defending Ukraine is not defending us. Not even in NATO. Bad politics led to Putin’s invasion and the west shoulders much of that blame. In the last 40 years we didn’t expect Argentina to attack and they did. In recent years we gave up our carriers and harriers only to need them six months later in Libya. Only now are we close to having a carrier force. (No ships to protect them though) You are right building up our military takes years even decades. That’s why defense cuts in the last 30 years have been so poorly thought out. Our military is already woefully inadequate and giving away what we have left leaves us I’m a terrible state. I’m all for Ukraine winning but let Europe fund it.
    1
  34.  @ricardosmythe2548  yes and maybe in ten years we will get a delivery of half of what we have now. We aren’t building any more tanks and the few we are upgrading are a long way off. The AS90 isn’t being replaced despite it being required so giving what we have away with nothing to fill it’s place is ridiculous.
    1
  35.  @robharris8844U  they invaded in 2014 NATO is fine. Ukraine isn’t in NATO we are acting like it is. Germany should be arming Ukraine not us.
    1
  36.  @robharris8844U  who’s ignoring it? My point stands. Europe should be paying and arming non NATO Ukraine. Sure we can help but at a much smaller scale. Sending kit and money we don’t have is bad for Britain. We aren’t replacing the tanks or the guns. We don’t have enough as it is.
    1
  37.  @robharris8844U  don’t believe the media. The bigger threat is China and every day this war drags on we are getting weaker. The industrial military complex of the west is not prepared for a conflict with China. Supplying Ukraine only increases the chance of a war with China over Taiwan.
    1
  38.  @robharris8844U  we don’t wNt nuclear war. Taiwan would be impossible to supply after the invasion started. Completely different to Ukraine. We should be arming Taiwan to prevent war. Instead we are depleting our stocks of everything and China knows that.
    1
  39.  @robharris8844U  Taiwan is not in a good position to defend itself and China is getting stronger every day. If we are Taiwan now it could prevent a war. Instead we are arming Ukraine and depleting our stocks. Generals always fight the last war.
    1
  40.  @robharris8844U  not nearly enough. Look at the numbers of stocks we are giving to Ukraine against a much less well armed Russia. Once China invades it will blockade Taiwan. Nothing will get it. They can’t last without resupply.
    1
  41. To appease his anti Israel voters in an election year.
    1
  42. It’s a joke
    1
  43. Even that isn’t enough.
    1
  44. How about recruiting real men. Real men don’t want to join the woke military though.
    1
  45. Russia is winning. Ukraine is running out of men.
    1
  46. Actually they are more anti Russia. However many question the goals of the policy. Americans are struggling and they are borrowing this money to give to Ukraine to defend Ukraines border when their own border is wide open. Also the hundred billion that has been allocated is completely unaccounted for. Nobody has a clue where all the money is going. Don’t forget Ukraine was and still is a corrupt country.
    1
  47.  @ralphdavis9670  then let Germany pay for it. You don’t deny our borders aren’t secure yet we are spending billions (we don’t have) to defend Ukraines border. Russian didn’t invade Britain. Ukraine isn’t part of NATO
    1
  48.  @ralphdavis9670  water is also wet! The fact is it’s not our war. Our borders aren’t secure yet we are borrowing money to give to Ukraine to defend its borders. If our borders were secure and we had the money I’d feel differently.
    1
  49.  @ralphdavis9670  Russia taking a slice of Ukraine with large Russian population percentages isn’t an existential threat to us. That’s hyperbole. Our borders being wide open is.
    1
  50. What flag was flying?
    1