I think one problem with our military is that it have borrowed bad ideas from the corporate world. Our politicians believe that we can save money and make the military more effiecent by borrowing ideas from how big companies work. But that idea is stupid. The goal of a military is not to make economic profits. It is to win wars. Having gigantic mountains of ammunition sitting around and not being used is good if you one day suddenly need it in a war. But an economist would be horrified with over filled storages of supplies that are not being used. Storage costs much money, and a companys goal is to make as much profits as possible. And one way of increasing profits is to get rid of all unnecessary monthly costs. So if a military tries to copy the behaviour of a company, then it will just try to get rid of all ammunition, gas masks and hospital equipment that it rarely ever use. And that saves the tax payers money. But it constantly leaves us with unpleasant surprises in the worst possible moments. We don't have ammunition to help Ukraine, we do not have gas masks to protect nurses and doctors if a more dangerous pandemic than Covid-19 would happen. And if the military cannot do any of those jobs, then I wonder what is the goddamn point in having a military at all? Why have a military at all if it cannot fulfill even the most basic tasks on its own? And I don't pay taxes to the military for the hope that it will somehow make me rich. I do it to protect the country and win wars. And moned plowed down into buying new armored vehicles are likely money that never comes back, regardless if a tank gets blown up on a battlefield, or taken out of service because it is too outdated and worthless on a battlefield to be worth keeping.
@@doomedwit1010 Just in time is good idea for the car industry, and horrible idea for a military. You see it right now. Not even when the entire western world + Korea and Japan ramp up production of 155mm artillery shells can we produce enough to meet demand at the frontline. Russia sends 21.000 artillery shells down on the Ukrainians each day. While the Ukrainians only respond with less than 6000. This shows that we need large stockpiles with artillery shells. So many that we can respons with the same amount of artillery fire as the Russians until we manage to pump up production rates. Having minimal stocks of artillery shells makes troops vulnerable. At limits the options a commander have. The problem with Lean Production and Just in Time is that it is extremely vulnerable to interruptions. If you get for example a workers strike at a sub-contractor or an earthquake disrupting the world supply of microchips... then will all your car factories soon have to shut down production because there are no stocks of supplies that you can use until the strike is over or the world market has recovered from the worst effects of the earthquake. And in war will of course your enemy do whatever he can to cut off your supply chains. He will bomb ball bearing factories like the allies in WW2, or try to cut off your access to microchips like with Russia. A chain is no stronger than its weakest link. And if you have nothing in reserve and have a very thin supply line with too few workers at your factory, and hope to hire extra workers when needed - then of course is your logistical system extremely vulnerable to bottlenecks. Lean production along with idiotic ideas such as NPM (New Public Management) destroys everything they touch) in the government. By measuring success in terms of economic output per tax dollar you often destroy the quality of government services. You can double the output per tax dollar if you double the size of a school class from 15 to 30 students per teacher. But you will probably see worse results among students. Obsessing about numbers also just makes you lose focus on what is important. McNamaras obsession with bodycounts, sorties flown, kill ratios, output of sorties per aircraft carrier, tonnes of bomb dropped each month and so on was unhelpful to US war effort in Vietnam. Just like it is unhelpful when the police wants to impress people with increasing the percentage of crimes solved. So they start to prioritize catching people who drive 5km/h too fast over solving more sever crimes like murder, rape, and physical violance. Mimimizing waste also leads to understaffed organizations, because why not cut away unnecessary workers so you don't have to pay out so much in wages?. This results in too little spare capacity. What do you do when your country have the lowest number of hospital beds in the entire EU and you suddenly have a gigantic pandemic, and you do not have enough personnel to take care of them all? -People die as a result. Workers get overworked and never get any vacation and time to rest. And nurse students gets a poor education since there are no one who have time to teach them.
@@doomedwit1010 In corporate world you assume a perfectly working supply chains, which turn out to be optimistic assumption during recent infections. The whole point of military is to stay operational even in case of conflict, with enemy interdicting part of supplies.
Dr. Antobus' contrast between Britain and Sweden raises an interesting question - how often do alliances give individual countries an illusory sense of security? Czechoslovakia and Poland in the 1930s seem to be the classic examples for this (where the threat was existential), but NATO members can let their capabilities atrophy in a way that a non-NATO member like Sweden would not be foolish enough to do (whether this would change if/when Hungary and Turkey approve Swedish NATO membership is a related question). EDIT - This issue of relying on alliances in ways that prove to be illusory is not new either. Machiavelli talks about it at length in The Prince when discussing Cesare Borgia's spectacular but ultimately failed attempts at conquest in Central Italy.
I'd say almost all the time it gives them an illusion of security. Alliances can be good and at least countries may have felt pressured into aiding an ally, such as UK and France who eventually said I guess we should jump in, but with groups like NATO and the UN you have another problem which is just BS proxy wars where they can send a few planes or ammo here and there never actually doing anything so conflicts last for eternity. Good point I'd say.
@@Fronzel41 All the time, not always but very often. Not having your country in constant wartime economy tends to be better for the people and also the rulers.
There wasn't even a mention of the ridiculously small number of (physically tiny) MOBs that the RAF now operates from. Two fighter bases, one strike aircraft base, one transport/AAR base, one MPA base, one heavy-lift helicopter base, one ISR/AEW/everything else base, ... And all with no medium/long range SAM protection. Russia wouldn't need to bother with nuclear weapons to render the RAF ineffective within a few hours.
7 airbases for a country with as small a landmass as the UK doesn't sound bad at all, actually. The relative lack of SAM protection is interesting. It seems common across all western forces - even the US, especially regarding long-range SAM. It seems we all rely much more or interception by our air forces than SAM as a matter of philosophy/design. I suspect the Ukraine experience will change that over the coming years.
Global warming is a non-issue if a bomb blows up a nuclear plant which spills out enough toxic substances and radiation to kill all life on the planet. For that reason am I not a fan of civilian nuclear power and rather take climate change instead.
See. There is your problem. Eliminating more humans is extremely helpful to de-carbonizing the planet! Of course, the Commissars will still be needed to supervise who gets the front line assignments! Onward Comrades!
That's easy. Hypersonic pine trees. Hits the target, pine cone shrapnel everywhere, the fires triggers the germination. A following water and poop bomb waters the fertilizes the site.
I agree that it's importance seems secondary to me, at best. In manufacturing and supply chain? Sure, seems reasonable. In the context of platforms and practices? Not at all what I would focus on. Mission first.
I disagree only in the sense that it was a question of recruiting today's brightest and best who have very different career drivers from my era? I don't like it either though!
@@stamfordly6463 I think you got it right. It's a potential push factor, not a pull factor. Makes sense to me, if you want to attract the best, you can't afford to put them off by being a dinosaur.
I’ve heard many arguments for and against from people in the military, and honestly, the members against environmental issues keep getting bit in the ass over time. There was the entire US Marine Corp base that was poisoning it’s own water wells, among many, many, many other examples of dismissal of environmental issues.
Was just talking about this somewhere else. The last 20-30 years have been disastrous for NATO/the West in terms of public morale. The War on Terror, multiple botched procurement programmes, the degradation of existing forces, continuous mistreatment and neglect of serving personnel and veterans - all of these have ruined the way Western civilians view their militaries.
The lady who talks a lot, but says little is back. We are still to hear a clear structured explanation from her on what “resilience” should actually look like in terms of practical steps taken. All we heard was “there isn’t enough resilience, more resilience is better than less resilience, we should be more resilient”… Waste of words.
It's a corporate buzzword that is currently infecting the western militaries. It can mean everything and nothing, and it's usefulness is in it's ability to generate Power Point presentations, useless yearly training requirements and annoying all the actual operators.
forgot name but that street experienced rough life guy guiding kids in prisons seems what they need(was guest in Triggernometry a while back)... ie actual street cred + life experience.... shouldnt be hard to turn that around but sure upper middle class women (mostly) learned bunch of cool sounding jargon in college/uni is last thing they need. Military is boring, grinding, mentally, intellectually lacking place but on flipside they learn practical things and emotional group things. That could give purpose,understanding to more people if they could taste it without culturally shoved prejudice.
Half the war takes place on the battlefield and the other half back home, in the factories and the training facilities. Given the inability to quickly increase the production of even basic ammunition to support Ukraine, i would say NATO is not resilient at all. Its member countries have adopted the "overpower, win quickly with minimal losses and withdraw" dogma.. In a major conflict however, where losses are inevitable and a quick victory not in the horizon, the inability to quickly replace their losses and persist is profound. China, for example, has been producing warships at an extraordinary rate. Even if these are not as capable, in the end they will be left with a number of less efficient ships and their opponents with none. The importance of highly trained personnel is profound, but mostly if you win quickly or during the first stage of a prolonged conflict. After that, the war will be fought by their replacements. Do you have a structure that will produce good enough personnel in good enough time? Do you have an industry that will produce good enough material in good enough time? That's resilience.
this is exactly point why russia/putin attacked. They noticed this weakpoint especially in western europe. They even said february 2022 they believe this operation would last max 1 year and by that time west has lost interest and support to ukraine has stopped making it possible to walk over ukraine. So this is prime reminder before anything happens elsewhere. Even US struggles a bit in this sector, which is good reminder europe and others have to do their responsibilities.
The idea that Net Zero 2030 is going to make the military an attractive employment option for socially conscious young adults is deeply misguided. To begin with, I don't see most militaries taking these goals seriously in their acquisitions or long-term planning. Add to that the fact that most military operations, training or combat, burn enormous amounts of fossil fuels by necessity. Perhaps none more so than the air force. We as a society gain very little from the massive carbon emissions produced by the military. I just can't imagine that such an institution is going to draw recruits because of its "green reputation" vs. industry.
I agree that it'll take a lot longer than 2040 for the MOD to reach net zero goals but I do think its really important. There is a reason why young educated people don't want to go close to the military anymore. A healthy military should protect its population, the effects of climate change is a big threat and its the militaries that will have to assist civilian gov groups when those effects are felt. Its only logical that they plan ahead to do their part in mitigating those effects
@@DanielSanchez-tc6dc I hope you know that Earth is in an Ice Age right now and has been for the last 2.5 million years. If we look at the last 200 million years those recent 2.5 have been the coldest. Even if we look at the interglacial we live in today (The Holocene) we have had much warmer periods than we have today when trees could grow much higher up the mountains and much closer to the Poles. 125 000 years ago during The Eemian interglaciar hippos swam the Thames where today is London. There is nothing wrong with the climate. But maybe you prefer a mile of ice on top of Scotland what is the 'normal' for the last 2.5 million years.
@DanielSanchez-tc6dc I agree that the UK MOD has a better plan than many for trying to cut down on CO2e emissions where they can. Some of it is obvious stuff, just increased efficiency, etc. Ideally, some of that basic research they do will be applicable elsewhere, such as novel airplane fuels, reducing the frankly horrible amount of emissions seen in the aerospace sector. Stuff like that. Ultimately, I see a lot of these investments being made in greening the military as sort of like putting lipstick on a pig. The military is just really inefficient, and there are better ways of investing money to reduce carbon emissions that will make more people's lives better.
@@edwardharshberger1 How can we talk about 'greening' the environment while we want to reduce what is greening the world, CO2. CO2 is plant food. Most commercial greenhouses where they produce food have CO2 at about 1200 ppm so 3x atmospheric level. Earth has a CO2 shortage not a surplus.
I respectfully disagree with this expert. Appealing to the youth by addressing the issues like climate change will backfire, as the US Army can attest. One commercial that highlighted diversity over competence actually caused recruitment to drop, while the USMC was able to meet their recruiting goals by showing the youth what they will be shaped into. "Younger voices in academia" are not warfighters, and one would be better served by listening to recently separated NCOs and enlisted to improve retention. There is a place to address climate change, but not in the field of defense where kit and competence matters 10x more than an airforce's carbon footprint. Thank you once again for everything you do Bismarck.
Shoot down the bloody CO_2 molecules! Yes that talk was very strange, but I am not british and would never doubt the genious of the british goverment which promoted the stupid climate hoax to fight the carbon union. It was Margaret Thatcher wasn't it?
@@Fronzel41 She is being aware that climate impact is an issue that smart driven young people take into consideration of what career path they choose to take. The military is one of the largest consumers of hydrocarbons in the world and they need to come up with a plan to deal with that fact.
More like "Make sure you're doing your part so the new generation of people feel like their responsibility to defend Britain doesn't also see further parts of that island literally fall into the sea".
Absolutely Agree. Environmentalists are not going to be your future war fighters or pilots. Saint tank members like this are more of the problem than offering real solutions.
At least the current state of Western airforces is better than Russian. The main issue with the end of the cold war was the naive thought of (or desire for) peace dividend. Where that ideal goes wrong is that when you're the peaceful party, you depend on actions of the others to remain peaceful.
I hear you, but I think the idea that "the current state of Western airforces is better than Russian" may be flawed. When the Russia-Ukraine War began, I was shocked at how bad the Russian air forces performed. Their bombs-on-target numbers were trash, their sortie rate was lower than a snake's belly, and their helicopters were shot out of the sky by Ukraine MANPADS. My friends from other branches were also shocked at how bad Russian armor units performed. I think the Russians learned a hard lesson. They have recently proved they can hit fixed Ukraine targets from a distance. (Zelensky said the Ukraines shot down every Russian missile. Zelensky lied.) The Russians are improving their strike capability with the assets they have. The Western air forces look good on paper. The Russian air forces are learning to be effective with what they have. All I hear is hype about the "Ukraine spring offensive". It is May. Where is that offensive? I think the Russian have learned that they are not good at blitzkrieg, and Putin has settled in for a long war. This year, Russian objectives will be limited: 1) Lugansk, 2) Donbas, and 3) push to get within artillery range of Kyev then pound it. Before this war began, Russia and Ukraine were in a horse race for most corrupt government in the world. Russia led by a nose. I hear that with all the arms pouring into Ukraine, only 30% of it makes it to the front. It is like Egypt in '56 and '67. Billions of dollars of equipment pouring into a country of thieves. What could go wrong? According to what I hear, 40% of the people of Ukraine fled to asylum in other countries. Ukraine cannot fill the ranks of its army with the men remaining. Ukraine needs to end this war now with a negotiated settlement. Only Russia wins the endgame. I wonder when the Russians will launch an offensive from Crimea.
How long does it take to train a fighter pilot? Should be 3 or 4 years. Apparently, the RAF now needs about 7 years because of a shortage of airframes and instructors (senior pilots busy elsewhere). Also a government party whose only idea is to keep taxes (and therefore spending) low so, like the NHS, teachers, local government etc., the Forces will be allowed to rot. And Brexit has already cost the UK about 4% of GDP - so much less money available in a poorer country.
Brexit has a high cost because politicians (British and European) want to punish the population for voting the wrong way. If we were friends before Brexit why can't we be friends now ?
The 4% GDP is fake news. It was taken from an article which referenced a forecast which did not say that. If you think it isn't go ahead and show your working.
My father's observation, as an Airman and later an army officer, in WW2, was that Regulars were not ready fight a war. They were very good at running training depots and turning huge numbers of joiners and accountants into soldiers and aircrew, but the theme here seems to be that now we don't even have that!
The RAF has been screwed by having multirole combat aircraft. Its allowed the accountants to say great, they can do multiple jobs so we don't need many. Problem is, come a major war, those small numbers of multirole aircraft will be tied up in air defence duties, we won't have any to spare for the other roles. It's a force limiter not a force multiplier as it was originally sold.
It's all about working within a limited budget, the RAF can't afford multiple dedicated fleets for different tasks. A multirole aircraft can actually mean greater resilience in a small force, as if you loose a squadron you don't loose all your ability to do that capability. The trade off is your platforms might not be as efficient at thier assigned role but cost savings of a single fleet and the flexibility it offers is a plus.
@@charlesfowler4308 there is no flexibility, that's the whole problem. In the event of a serious conflict they'd all be tied up in air defence leaving no ground attack capability whatsoever! At least in the days of the 2 tornado fleets air defence and ground attack were fully covered. The RAF has effectively been turned into a purely defensive force. Much like happened to the Royal Navy, ships left with purely defensive weapons and no ability to attack themselves. The UK military has sleep walked its way to castration.
Not RAF but Army, and I wholly disagree about the recruitment problem. I only joined a few years ago and the reason people want to join the Armed Forces is to serve their country. If any part of society can be let off the "sustainability" responsibility, it's the military and everyone knows that. The military's role is to protect the nation. There are a million other reasons why qualified people don't want to join the Forces. The pay is poor, the housing is poor, the work-life balance is poor, the public image is poor. Why join the military when you can get paid more for a more comfortable job in industry? The last thing people consider is how "sustainable" it is. Diversity and Inclusion training and a focus on sustainability will not improve recruitment numbers because you are targeting the wrong crowd. The social justice lot will never join the Armed Forces so don't cater to them. Further to this, my generation hate their country and see the military as an evil hangover of the colonial era. Good luck trying to get into a relationship if you are in the military. You are seen as worse than a Tory. We live in a country where wearing a uniform outside of barracks is a safety risk and personnel get called "baby killers" and "fascists" by people our own age. Oh, but the the problem with recruitment is the lack of "sustainability" and "diversity"... what a joke.
Yeah, because the military was for hundreds of years an institution of colonial repression that stood in the way of freedom for millions. It may be somewhat reformed now, but what has it done lately? Iraq 2.0, with devastating results and a massive cost, and Afghanistan, which went to shit immediately after it left despite massive costs. Why would people want to join a losing organization with no accountability? If the military is a major source of emissions, it's a major threat to the continued survival of everyone. It doesn't just get a free pass because it will keep the immigrants out.
Colonial hangover? Sorry but your generation must be extremely stupid then. Do they expect us not to have a military? And hating the country? Then leave. The very military they despise fought and died for are freedom, so maybe they should think about that, and whilst we have countries like Russia and China who would happily enforce controls over us if we didn’t have a military then you should realise that it’s essential. I haven’t met many young people who feel this way.
@@edwardharshberger1 Don't bother with these goobers. They think that climate change isn't real, and think that the browns and the poors are beneath them. They would sooner bankrupt the country with military spending and put lgbt people in prison than do anything actually useful to society.
@@edwardharshberger1 Politicians set objectives and unfortunately ours (all of them) are intellectual and moral midgets. The army doesn't get to choose where it goes or the missions it is set.
Thanks for the video, that's indeed a preoccupying question. A word about the editing though... first I would *really* avoid changing the size or position of people every few seconds when they're talking. Is that to keep people focused? I find it most distracting, like a glitch in your editing system (or is it actually a bug?). Then showing distracting and mostly unrelated footage when your guest (and not you) is talking is, how to say... inappropriate? And certainly unnecessary, part of the message is on the people's face when they're speaking.
This. Too many armature (technically, not meant as a slam) media producers jump from fad to fad in their production. Remember the over use of the horrid second camera off to the side of the narrator? Tried and true methods are there for a reason. Effective communication. I speak from 40 years of network media production.
There is no climate crisis. This was supposed to be a conversation about military preparations and she is talking about climate change as if the climate can do anything other than change. What else is this “expert” going to get wrong?
Society in general has lost resilience. We have lost out mindset to accept decisive engagement and if necessary sustain casualties in pursuit of national goals. We avoid risk (not manage it) and then when we lose 1s and 2s people like the PM attend ramp ceremonies. In Vietnam we were losing 10s or higher, let alone casualties figures for Korea and the Second World War. On a facetious note: I would have thought Chair Force resilience was linked to permanent bookings of 6 star accommodation within a short drive of the flight line.
No worries as we Americans will just print more money and cripple the future economy with our ridiculous national debt. Seriously though you raise a valid point and procurement in the US is striving for standardized parts especially in helicopters and the thought with single airframes for multiple roles and different services.
@@tonyroberts7481 They could just tax more to cover spending in the future. Taxes were much higher during the Cold War, a huge percentage of the GDP was in defense spending, and it was an era of high growth for America.
If climate change is going to be a deciding factor in how defense capable a country is, that country will easily find the losing side in conflict. Too many militaries are moving from the primary mission of "killing people and breaking things" to becoming a social justice force with advanced weaponry.
I think Dr Antrobus has some of this exactly wrong in my opinion. Its the fact that the military is focused on other things than its actual job, which is strategic deterrence and operational readiness, that it is so under-prepared. I am pretty sure almost no one joins the military for the sake of "diversity and inclusion". And who exactly is joining the military to fight "climate change"? It is the focus on differences rather than what people have in common that is preventing many from joining western militaries. People join the military to do something greater than themselves as an individual, they don't join to have individual differences highlighted, but rather to similarities highlighted. This really is a more broad discussion about many western institutions. Will institutions keep subjugating themselves to distractions that don't have to do with their actual goals, or will they put the goals that matter to the wayside and do things that are not their job? We don't have militaries to fight climate change. We should not do massive initiatives for diversity and inclusion unless there is a provable benefit that this actually is increasing the military readiness of the military. The self-flagellation of western countries over historical wrongs is not helping military recruitment either. This really becomes more of a cultural issue broadly than a specific military issue because there isn't much the military can do if the culture isn't producing people that want to defend their country. I think its time we get institutions that just say no to the distractions and focus on what their job is, and maybe people will find these institutions worthy places to bring their skills to.
Yes, she started letting her ideology show there. She had to bring up Brexit of course, after which she immediately admitted that recruitment had to be mainly from British citizens anyway. And as there does not appear to be a limit on legal immigration, where does she think the problem is? I'm sure Britain can supply the necessary technically trained staff from its 70+million (and growing) population.
I don't think Dr Antrobus's opinion was that anyone joins the military for the sake of "diversity and inclusion" or to fight "climate change". Rather that those are currently issues in modern society, so you need to have a stance on them if you're trying to attract members of the general public to sign up for the armed forces.
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 Thats the thing, I think having a stance on every issue rather than focusing on the job of the military is what is preventing people from wanting to sign up.
I think the framing was more along the lines of "young people do not want to sign up to something that gives the impression of neglecting climate change, and the military risks giving that impression". Of course it's dumb to expect someone to fix climate change by firing an AIM-120 at it, but when framed correctly it's an interesting conversation to have imo. If the "traditional" military is not appealing to the younger generation, and climate friendly initiatives are, I think it is easy to conclude that the military can make itself more attractive by trying to hit some climate target or whatever. The issue I have is it doesn't not directly address *why* the military comes across as unattractive, which goes well beyond climate goals (e.g. does the military provide a good quality of life in peacetime? if the answer is no, that is problematic for instance).
Like other people replying to your post, I think you have got what Dr Antrobus was trying to say, utterly wrong. People are concerned about climate, the armed forces are part of the government and they have to be part of the governments approach. It will turn off certain people who are climate conscious if the Military say "bugger climate change, we're rolling coal". Brexit has had an effect on our workforce and economics, so that too affects the military, they have to compete more for human personnel, as it's pool is smaller than the corporates.
Most politicians treat their country's military as if it is "just another jobs program". Any service member who dares to innovate and improve military capability is crushed like a cockroach. Therefore, the military grapples to make do with broken equipment and 30 year old technology. What bright, ambitious young person wants to start a dead-end career?
yeah, you don't fix airforce recruitment by telling young (potential) soldiers about impossible climate goals, that can be archived only by bending definitions. You fix airforce recruitment by letting boys be boys, and showing them how much fun it is to inject tons of fuel into your afterburner. You fix it with a healthy dose of national pride, patriotism and a good salary. You won't attract the right kind of people into airforce service with diversity training and forced gender speak. You want well trained and critical warrior poets. People that disassemble your ideology, and only leave what wins you a war. Like Prussia did for example.
There are plenty technically inclined young man age 18 who are looking for their place in society. Catch them before they go to university, college. Now that I have a degree and work experience everything is easy and pay is good but it was very hard to get there.
I believe that serving the country is one of the most important motivators for joining the military. Learning a craft, driving powerful machines, comradery, seeing the world, the status that comes with wearing an uniform, a sense of honour to belong to an elite unit or a regiment with a long proud history, and testing ones own physical limits might be other motivators. If I was paid the same amount of money to fly a boring civilian transport plane as I would be to fly a funny powerful fighter jet, then of course I would prefer to fly the latter. I believe in the idea of a citizen soldier rather than a small professional army. And if you are in the army only for the money then you might be more loyal to people who pays your wage than your country. I think an army should mostly be motivated by patriotism and a willingness to defend democracy and the constitution. Wages do not need to be high - I rather have many soldiers, than a few soldiers that are very highly paid. But on the other hand can people not be too badly paid so they starve and consider taking another job than the job they love, and they even consider flying that boring cargo plane than a fighter jet. And an experienced pilot which the tax payers have spent 20 million to train up is of course a catastrophic waste of tax payer money if he choose to leave his job. So good working conditions is important to motivate people to stay at their workplace.
One of the big issues with depending on patriotism for recruitment is retainment. I know a lot of guys who would have liked to remain in the military, but the compensation they would get for their service just wasn't enough. It becomes especially difficult once they start having children. Yes, they'll have a house and they'll be able to put food on the table. But, at least in the U.S. they'll usually be moving too a new base once every 4 years. When you add in time spent on deployments and just how long of hours a lot of people end up working, patriotism just isn't enough anymore.
@@jonathanforrest7215 It all depends on type of job I guess. Losing an aircraft pilot because he takes another job because he is too poorly paid is one thing. But the simpler jobs should be done by conscripts in my opinion. That is the easiest way to keep the ballooning costs away. Some European countries like the Netherlands had their wages doubled once they switched over to a professional army and had to compete with the private sector of the same pool of workers. As a tax payer I am interested in the ability of my military to defend my country and nothing else. I am not interested in paying for a kindergarten for grown up men. And if they feel like they get too badly paid, then they should take another job. Men in the military should adapt to the army, and not the other way around. We live in an age when an army must consider if the air inside a tank is suitable for pregnant women. Call me old fashion, but I do not think that a pregnant woman has anything to do near a warzone - and especially not while taking a bumpy ride inside a tank. I then say that maybe the army life then is not for everyone.
@@nattygsbord and since parentage and pregnancy isn't an issue with conscripts (medical discharge or postponement of conscript training or allocated to civil defence conscription at mustering evaluations in case of pregnancy) It would only become an issue with cadre officers if there's no provisions set up for it. Eg, officers who choose to keep an intentional or unplanned pregnancy can get transfered to administrative and/or base logistics duties until they go on parental leave and then return to their former rank and duties when recovered, no different from any physically demanding civilian job in most aspects.
@@SonsOfLorgar Feels like you try to answer a question I never have asked. 🙃 My point was rather that the military life have some drawbacks compared to other jobs. And if do have its unique upsides as well - like all jobs do. Elderly people are not much needed in the military - while in other jobs they can be very valuable for example. And being a man carrying a rifle is what the military needs many of. Not everyone can do a career and become a General. So when people (like a guy on youtube) complains that the military is no offering any opportunities to make a career - it is true. But I don't see what he thinks that we should do about it? Should we turn the military into a kindergarten for adults? Should its main task be to help people do a career, get a well paid job, relaxed schedule, much free time for to raise your family, and no early mornings so you can drive your kids to school? I know what I think. I think the main task should be for a military to fight a war and win. And I also think that the idea that everyone should be making a career is dumb. You know, even in the richest countries you need people who do the unglorious tasks like pick out the trash. I also think that society should put more honour in people who are doing a good everyday job - like a caring and competent nurse assistant, or a thorough and skilled clerk. In capitalist societies are entrepreneurs and CEOs upheld as demigods by some but I think the simple man which is doing a good job is a better role model. In that sense do I identify more with Prussian values than with British ones. I do not worship people who have made much money. I have more respect for military people who unselfishly make sacrifices for their own country and have strong sense of duty. And while I am not a fan of militarism I do feel like these values are things that we need in our society today. To me is a soldier earning more respect than a buisnessman.
@@nattygsbord The RAF has called their best fighters "useless white male pilots" (E-mail by RAF recruitment, court evidence) and now has to pay £5000 in a settlement to 31 white male pilots they have bullied and discriminated, prevented from being hired or promoted. Which is the main reason some of them are defecting to China to teach them how to fight! But hey, at least it's environmentally friendly and makes combat unfit twitter feminists happy...
I find it fascinating that the RAF has a "pipeline" problem because the people at the sharp end aren't moving on - and the R*C*AF has a "pipeline" problem because the folks at the sharp end are quitting in record numbers. Not that I recommend Canada's "get your equipment procurement process completely sidelined by politics and have most of the senior leadership get accused of sexual harrassment/assault" to the UK as a way to "unjam" the pipe. But it is fascinating how the two organisations have basically the opposite problem.
Resilience requires contingency, and right across the UK political sphere, contingency is seen as a waste. This is due to the UK Treasury which drives to many of our National policies under the name of efficiency. The accountants Treasury driven approach does not see contingency as an investment in continuity of operations in the face of a shock. Whether it’s the armed forces, or any other aspect of UK life, small events cause great and often dangerous disruption because of the failure in the UK Treasury to invest in contingency.
...as from the beginning of this year, most of the Dutch army has been integrated into the German army, now we should do the same with our airforces and navies!!!
I’m not certain integrating your military into the German one was such a good idea given the simply embarrassing problems that have absolutely slammed (and keep slamming) the German military. Literally no one in Europe or abroad thinks Germany could help defend another EU country or it’s NATO Allie’s let alone itself. Maybe in ten to fifteen years if Germany doesn’t completely reverse course on military spending after the Ukraine War ends Germany will be able to contribute to the EU or NATO in a meaningful way, but for now it’s laughingstock. I truly don’t mean to offend, this is simple world view/reality.
@@carlpolen7437 Germany took responsebility for northern Afghanistan and is currently responsible for the defence of Lithuania. While it is unlikely for Germany to match Polish tank forces in the forseeable future this is not the point as Germany provides a bit of everything while Poland is not exactly focusing on its navy. Furthermore intagration is about working better together and the whole being greater then the sum of its parts
@@carlpolen7437 Germany is also helping to defend the Aispace for both Poland and Slovakia but shure absolute useless ally, only second biggest contributor to Ukraine after the US and so on
It's interesting that there was no covering of the diversity issues for the RAF. It's was a huge boondongle in the press not too long ago. The RAF has been very cagey about it too despite resignations and uproar.
All these discussions, absolutely all of those topics (environment, resilience, alliances, procurement and recruitment, etc.) are just dust twirls in the wind unless political systems and electors reward long-term planners and diplomacy literacy instead of populism and sensationalist media. Next year presidential elections in France and potential coalition upsets in Germany could change the dynamics, but basically eastern Europe and Ukraine will drive European defense until we stop the big CEOs and retired generals from playing backroom politics with our defense strategy. As Ukraine shows, once a clear enemy or common goal manifests itself, the people will come and overcome, but first the scalpers will have to stop their zero-sum games.
Repair capability is essencial. Sending everything back to depot for repair wastes rescources and makes availability less attainable. Dispusement, stockpiled supplies, and alternate manufactureing bases are essential. I saw this starting to happen during the first gulf war. Sadly it didn't go on long enough to truely strain the system in the lgistics sense. This was just after the USAF went from 3 level maintanance to a 2 level system. At the time there were still many well trained techs and spares at the former second level to keep the system running, and the depots were struggling to keep up. I look at the US VS China in a naval war and they have so many facilities to repair ships compared to the USA. They just have to damage ships and we might not have the facilities and expertise to get our ships back into the fight. Retired USAF Crew Chief.
Why did you interview an insufferably incompetent bureaucrat? Totally lost me at climate crisis, nuclear bombs and conventional warfare are far more dangerous to the immediate security of European nations than a “climate catastrophe”.
Nuclear bombs and conventional land, air or sea warfare have directly hit approximately 0 European nations in the past 80 years and only caused economic damage in as much as it has forced these nations to not go to one cheap source for their gas, or spend on keeping up with the Joneses. (And yes I'm not stupid: a lot of that is due to defence policy and people donning the uniform to stand ready for anything). At the same time, the British and French coasts are eroding at an alarming rate, Spain is in an enduring drought that hasn't been alleviated by winter rain for several years now and Emilia-Romagna is currently mourning 13 deaths due to extreme flooding in what used to be a traditionally dry month not even 10 years ago. Yes, a broad-base analyst used to boardrooms is probably going to look much more at seemingly pointless non-military matters like NetZero goals, but the whole point about "resilience" is making sure that you have a public image that will also draw in new recruits coming in around 10-15 years from now. Not adding Planet-killer to the list of terms people fling at those who serve might also help in how people feel about a prolonged career in the military too. Considering that we can clearly point to places where climate change is literally making the UK smaller by the day than was originally presumed, there is a good chance those recruits might value having an actual island to defend and feeling like they're keeping it in one piece in more ways than one.
The RAF has called their best fighters "useless white male pilots" (E-mail by RAF recruitment, court evidence) and now has to pay £5000 in a settlement to 31 white male pilots they have bullied and discriminated, prevented from being hired or promoted. Which is the main reason some of them are defecting to China to teach them how to fight! But hey, at least it's environmentally friendly and makes combat unfit twitter feminists happy...
Excellent video, just a quick note: The videos of the british AF are missing the source-title you normally include. Dunno if that is important. EDIT: And you need to swap the timecodes of the two videos, I was waiting for space-force and it was never mentioned. 0/10 totally unplayable ;-)
Lol here she goes with the typical academic climate change mantra again. Let's see how we can insert something completely irrelevant into the discussion.
The RAF has called their best fighters "useless white male pilots" (E-mail by RAF recruitment, court evidence) and now has to pay £5000 in a settlement to 31 white male pilots they have bullied and discriminated, prevented from being hired or promoted. Which is the main reason some of them are defecting to China to teach them how to fight! But hey, at least it's environmentally friendly and makes combat unfit twitter feminists happy...
I doubt very much the environment element affects recruitment. The young folks that want to get in the military really don't care much about the fuel consumption of his F35 or his tank, he wants to drive it that's it.... The main problem for recruitment imo for air forces is that there's so few machines that the prospect of actually landing a pilot job is slim at best of time so is it for the supporting crews. Then you get the training queue, i'm a CAF vet and have some friend in the RCAF where we have queue that can last years for to start pilot training. Why would you ever want to get in the air force if you're going to wait forever only for a chance to be a pilot ? They just won't try and apply for other jobs in the market.
This is just a cycle that reoccurs in aircraft procurement. Its taken longer as all modern aircraft take more time to develop. However, we have gone through this change several times in the past. I was wondering when it would happen again. I actually prefer this style of procurement. Brutal efficiency over flexibility. Aircraft that are really only good at one thing. However, they are built to be peerless in their role.
hello ! can you please make videos about these planes Fw190 D14/D15 Bf190 K-6 /K-14 sadly no one made videos about them and they have really nice history but forgotten :(
Greetings. A civil and military ecosystem of personnel , facilities and industry is needed to have an armed forces with adequate capacity . For that you have to have a strong economy, industry, honest institutions and a conscientious society.
The foreign legion is honest, they want to go places and blow shit up. Some woke climate ideologist trying to fix the air force with diversity training, gender speak and stupid quotas is peak irony. And she can't even reflect herself critically enough to realize this.
Could that possibly be to do with the fact that it is a still a legitimate way to earn French (and thus European) citizenship at a time when huge amounts of people are trying to illegally immigrate to the EU?
Price killing everything. The cold war was geared to force the USSR to overspend, and wrecking it financially that way, without a real war. The development unfortanately kept the pace. Now we are getting to a point where even the West can barelly afford it's own pace of development. A single unit is so expensive, the loss of it simply unthinkable. Let it be vehicle or crew. Never mind complexity...
Cost wise, this isn't necessarily the case. To be fair I'm speaking about the U.S, but defense spending now in relation to GDP is hugely reduced from what was seen in the cold war. Reagan's rearming took up ~7% of GDP, nowadays the U.S is holding in the mid-upper 3's. Even during peak surge in iraqistan the U.S was still under 5%. So certainly while everything LOOKS more expensive, the reality in the U.S when adjusting for GDP growth still retains notable headroom from historical precedent. I'll confess to be not as well versed in European defense spending however.
Another point: the Nordics 🇩🇰🇫🇮🇳🇴🇸🇪 have said they will ‚merge‘ their air forces (so F16, F35, F18 and Saabs). How exactly will that work? Olaf Scholz talked about the creation of a European Air Force a few weeks ago. Imagine if 🇩🇪🇵🇱 joined in?
all others except sweden have ordered bunch of F35s.... not sure of sweden plan. by around 2027 it will be more uniform. It wont be USAF style airforce but distributed duties, everyone monitoring their region but incase northern part is question, whoever wants to take at a time more duty, shall do it. Overall this is most of all joint planning and organization, flow of information and commandment. DEPL will be hoped to join defense of Baltic sea for sure, once germans get their internal problems in better shape. iirc Poland may have ordered lot of F35s also? not sure of that but so many european countries have so far. Also swedes have put effort in data sharing between jet fighters so they are close to bleeding edge in other than stealth features. What I mean all countries have very good understanding and similar thinking of this situation.
@@effexon Simple Sweden will cease to exist as an independent country. It will be named province number 27 in EU. Because it is nothing more than that. Sweden have already decided to buy the same military uniform as its neighbouring countries - which to me sound like an incredibly stupid idea. But the plan is of course to destroy all Swedish traditions and transition over to using the Euro currency soon.
@@nattygsbord Grow up - countries choose to join the EU because it is in their interest to do so (ask 🇺🇦). The EU is amazingly successful in pooling sovereignty - we do not live in 1712.
@@charlesbruggmann7909 Its not in our interest to have our souveriegnty taken away, or democracy taken away, or to get deindustrialized because we no longer are allowed to have a national industrial policy. And someone like me who is a leftwinger do not apprechiate that EU has written into law that the only economic policy allowed is neoliberalism - i think that is both anti-democratic and stupid economic policy. You need to grow up. All your stupid grandpa ideas gave us this war. Europhiles love to claim that EU have created peace in Europe but do never care to prove it. But trade does not automatically create peace - German dependency on russian gas did not prevent the war in Ukraine, but it did rather embolden him to invade as he suspected that Germany was too dependent on Russia to dare to oppose him. Free trade is not always good either - as almost every poor country that has become rich have done so by mercantilism and not free trade. And this silly romantic idea of a superstate=good, small country = bad. That Europhiles have is also dumb. I see the Austro-Hungrian empire as one of the dumbest and dysfunctional political entities in European history. And it is something which I do not wanna recreate. I rather have a small effiecent Prussia, than a big clumsy ineffiecent state where minorities are always unhappy. And if my country needs to work togheter with other country, then we can simply work togheter with them on those particular issues. Simple as that. We don't need a gigantic super-state for that. It worked well before Swedens Anschluss with EU in 1995, so it will work well now too.
@@nattygsbord Id look more domestic policies.... sweden been good straight A student of DNC policies to bring lot of immigrants to country... what is happening in US, but as smaller country sweden dont have as much "buffering" to handle these issues. Economics so far have been fine but these policies eventually destroy domestic economy. Why would anyone invade when they can do it culturally or economically, these days just press of a computer button. Warfare is messy and expensive and need very good staff to pull it off.
A couple of solutions 1. creation of a home guard 2. Expansion of the Gurkha or, respectively, the creation of a Foreign Legion 3. Mercenary's 4. building more reserve units 5. A relaxed reintroduction of conscription 6. More synergy with the private sector 7. More synergy with the individual (See Germany's proposal on Technicals and taxation)
I would agree re: reserves, it's one thing that we have got consistently wrong since the end of the Cold War. Although I can see the grown ups reasons fro wanting to direct limited resources to regular forces which can be available at shorter notice.
@@stamfordly6463 It will be expensive due to higher wages to attract the necessary staff. One of the reasons for Germany's miserable military is its many officers who demand a higher salary.
Comment before watching video: casualty aversion. Certain airframes like the A-10 Thunderbolt II are loved because of their loiter time, the US Airforce has been trying to get rid of it. We much preferred the Cobra over the Apache becuase they were always overhead while the Apache was very rarely there even though there were more of them.
Why are you comparing an air force platform to an army platform? If you want loiter time, you want a drone. If you want gun rounds on target quickly and accurately, you want an F-16 or F-35. If you want bombs on target reliably on call, you want an F-16 or Strike Eagle or Raptor or F-35. The A-10 does nothing well. It can't survive in contested airspace and has no air supremacy, so it can't even be used until you're already outright winning the war. The hard part, the contested fight against them while they're at their strongest, A-10 needs to stay out of theater entirely. It can't even come in until the enemy is defeated. It's too slow to respond to threats as they are detected. It has no modern data link, so it can't receive targeting info, and it has no ground targeting sensors. The ground attack plane needs a jury rigged targeting pod from an F-14 to be able to see ground targets. The F-35 pilot can literally use EOS to see through their floor from ten miles away, while the A-10 pilot can only spot targets by flying beside them, banked over so they can look at the ground. In a real air war against a real opponent, loiter time means get shot down time. If you can't fight, you can't bob and weave, maneuver in strategic space at strategic speed, you die, or you stay so far back you're not going to be contributing. I an not contesting that helo's are on their way out. There is a reason the army scrapped Comanche outright, and is not looking to replace Apatche with another attack helicopter. For the army, drones are just better. Anything heavier can't be carried by a copter anyway. For the air force speed is everything. You do not sit over the battlefield with 300km ranged sams buzzing you. You sit back, and rush in to deliver ordinance when called, using someone elses targeting through data link to hit it, and you xxxx off before you die. Or you're a stealth aircraft, and you actually can loiter over the battle space, and provide those targeting cues, assuming the Russian's and Chinese are lying about their anti-stealth radars. Which they might not be, so we return to speed. Stealth, speed. Pick one, ideally both. Have neither? Well, then you get to be a data link bomb truck, like the B-52.... Wait, you can't do that either? Nothing. No contribution at all. It's fun to note, A-10 was grounded for two entire years during the Afghan war, because they were able to get ordinance that threatened them enough we couldn't use them. Terrorists in caves shut down A-10. A-10 is still in service because congress keeps forcing the air force to keep it. Congress keeps forcing the air force to keep it because soldiers keep talking about how important A-10 is. Those soldiers keep being made to look like fools, by having air force introduce them to the pilots who flew the strafing runs that saved them *in F-16's.* One hearing was so xxxxed that all six of the soldiers who were brought in as witnesses for the A-10, literally all six, were actually saved by F-16's, and all six happened right in the middle of A-10 being grounded in Afghanistan. Unless you literally saw the A-10 make the run, or you met the pilot after, it was probably an F-16 pass. F-16 performed more than *one hundred* times as many strafing runs in Afghanistan as A-10 did. In Iraq F-16 destroyed as many tanks as A-10 did despite also having to perform air combat the entire time, and F-15E's killed twice as many tanks as A-10. The top tank killer? F-111. Yea, that mess that everyone hates, and to top it off they were also performing electronic attack missions the entire time, and there were like twenty of them in theater. As it turns out they were very good at detecting tanks with their radar, and laser guided 500 lb bombs, which they had plenty of, was more than enough. They also flew at night, while most tanks were stopped and even easier targets.... Did I mention A-10 can't fight at night? A-10 was not particularly good when it was built, but it is horrible today. It has no mission, and it can't survive terrorists in caves, let alone a serious combatant with IAD or an air force. It is only good at beating down already beaten opponents, and literally any US combat jet can do that even better.
Military aircraft development goes only one way, the way of price increase, preferred way of the military industry. Most new aircraft in the west are way too expensive, overequipped, over digitalized and unnecessary complex for majority of the missions, which causes low acquisition numbers and low availability, which in turn causes pilot disappointment, low flying hours, low experience. For example, putting Flight Management System in light to medium tactical transport helicopter inherently suited for VFR and not IFR is insane. Helicopter is not an Airbus. It only needs a reliable moving map with available data, and good enough stabilizing system to mimic stability. Only the tip of the sword needs to be cutting edge, rest of it doesn't, rest provides mass and support to hold the blade together and give it momentum. Few super advanced cutting edge aircraft and many less sophisticated, but smartly equipped, digitally connected to cutting edge craft, yet not all digital and overequipped, because it's not necessary. Modernization is not just increasing complexity, modernization is also simplifying, making cheaper, more robust, simpler to maintain (so most issues are solved on the flight line), making more available by smart use of technology.
@@kwanarchive We have been discussing this issue for 30 years time now so often that one get headache. And activists loves to invade every sphere of society and push their nonsense on us other who are tired and just wanna be left alone. I am tired of all virtue signaling from activists. I am tired of paying for pointless and counter-productive climate action that will not do one bit to reduce carbon levels. If climate activists sincerely worried about the climate - then they should go to China. Because China is now pumping out more CO2 than what both USA and EU does combined. And if you do not stop China, then all climate action in the west has been done in vain as the planet will get destroyed anyways. So if you are worried about the hockey stick - then go to China. They are the problem. China and India are responsible for over half of all plastics in the ocean as well, while the EU contributes less than 1% even before we decided to tax plastic bags and forbid plastic spoons to our coffe mugs and such insignificant measures.
Dr. Sophy Antrobus said she just could not avoid mentioning Brexit in the context of available personel in the UK. There are 6 million EU citizens currently resident in the UK. Net immigration is increasing - currently at half a million per year and forecast to exceed one million per year in the near future. And that is just the "skilled" ones that are allowed in. Get over it; Brexit happened and is NOT adversely impacting the population of skilled workers in the UK.
Resilience. Declining & aging population makes recruitment an issue. Smaller tax base to be able to afford funds spent on defence. Every new military capital expenditure whether on artillery, ships or aircraft is more complicated, more expensive and less resilient than previous generations.
As societies have less children to take care of the growing group of elderly, they will shift their funding. Instead of tax money going to schools they will go to elderly care. Simple as that. Elderly are also more healthy than before and our economy is becoming more and more effiecent, and GDP continues to grow - which means that more resources are available to take care of the elderly. So no, I don't buy into this propaganda. And while big warships and fighter aircrafts costs ridiculous amounts of money do I think that those other weapon systems seems quite affordable. Even the cheapest and best fighter jet, like Gripen still cost say 100 million Euros per unit. A tiny sum compared to other fighters. Its still a very large sum in the government budget. If buying 15 planes eats up a third of your defence budget... then I think its hard to still motivate the existence of an air force. I remember that the military wanted 800 billion swedish kronor for the future development of this jet. That sum alone eats up two-thirds of all the 1200 billion we pay in taxes in a single year. And that is just for a damn fighter jet. And the F35 have a similar impact on the American economy. This is just ridiculous. One could do many funnier things for 800 billion than buying a stupid plane. One could provide everyone in the country with free transportation on subways and buses for 5 billion. You could build away the shortage of housing for 200-300 billion. You could build so much solar power and wind farms for 500 billion and never again have to rely on coal or nuclear power. Or you could spend say 100-200 billion on improving roads and railroads and fix potholes and lay new asphalt on roads, and fix all leaking 200 year old water pipes underneath our cities. The options are many.
@@nattygsbord only growing GDP≠more availiable tax money since our economic systems has been corrupted to allow an ever increasing percentage of the GDP to be concentrated and siphoned out of circulation into tax deducted/under taxed and/or tax excempt private fortunes which creates exponentially worsening artificial deficiencies in every other aspect of the global economy.
I hadn't really thought about how Brexit weakened the UK's national security by keeping people out. But now that I think about it, the UK universities used to be the EU's research hub. And a certain number of people in the air force were married to EU citizens.
You are talking about military preparedness and the Dr. is talking climate change. If you can't protect your country you don't have to worry about climate change. I don't think Putin or his like worry too much about it!
Likewise, if your country gets flooded due to raising sea levels, you needn't worry about the military. Seriously, why does public debate so often resort to false dilemmas instead of keeping more than one thought at a time?
I think we need more diversety and competition. Millitary industri is to centralized. More competion lower prices more democracy, and maybe less war. Maybe the millitary complex paniced after the west leaving afghanistan.
The way she brings up woke/WEF talking points completely unprompted is rather suspicious and off-putting I have to say. I noticed that in the last interview with her on this channel already.
Sorry, but you don't fix airforce recruitment by telling young (potential) soldiers about impossible climate goals for 2040, that can archived only by bending definitions. You fix airforce recruitment by letting boys be boys, and showing them how much fun it is to inject tons of fuel into your afterburner. You fix it with a healthy dose of national pride, patriotism and a good salary. You won't attract the right kind of people into airforce service with diversity training and forced gender speak. You want well trained and critical warrior poets. People that disassemble your ideology, and only leave what wins you a war. Like Prussia did for example.
Its not going to be hard to get people into the military in UK and Europe because as more people get poorer more people decide the military is a good option. And you guys are gonna be poorer for a while.
Earth is in an Ice Age right now and has been for the last 2.5 million years. If we look at the last 200 million years those recent 2.5 have been the coldest. Even if we look at the interglacial we live in today (The Holocene) we have had much warmer periods than we have today when trees could grow much higher up the mountains and much closer to the Poles. 125 000 years ago during The Eemian interglaciar hippos swam the Thames where today is London. There is nothing wrong with the climate. But maybe the 'greens' prefers a mile of ice on top of Scotland what is the 'normal' for the last 2.5 million years.
The RAF has called their best fighters "useless white male pilots" (E-mail by RAF recruitment, court evidence) and now has to pay £5000 in a settlement to 31 white male pilots they have bullied and discriminated, prevented from being hired or promoted. Which is the main reason some of them are defecting to China to teach them how to fight! But hey, at least it's environmentally friendly and makes combat unfit twitter feminists happy... And if those are the times, i am quite happy to go against them. Full force.
The real problem for Western airpower is that Russia and soon China can shoot all their fancy crap out of the air easily, but the NATO clowns can't reciprocate. Along with the US, they've all made the mistake of thinking the enemy must meet their over hyped and overpriced junk with equally over hyped and over priced junk. WRONG!
Western “fancy crap” has prevailed in almost every engagement with Russian equipment. I don’t know where you have this idea that the Russians can just shoot it all out the sky. It’s expensive because it is good equipment. Russia, on the other hand, has been cutting costs, and look where that’s planted them.
@@RyanTheHero3 true incase of russia... though weather balloon incident in north america reminded that chinese can be way more clever... this reminds me of one bosnian general who managed to shoot down one F117.
Russia developed a cheaper cost effective 5th generation fighter so they could afford to outnumber the American's. Now, after having it in production for nearly a decade, *Finland* is about to have more 5th generation fighters than Russia, because Russia can't afford to build even their cheapened bargain fighter. China was trying to decide which 5th generation fighter to copy, and it ended up looking exactly like an F-22, only a full twenty years after it entered service, instead of looking like the 5 year old Russian attempt. Not even China things Russian kit is worth copying anymore. America might literally be fielding 6th generation fighters before Russia has it's first 200 5th generation fighters at current rates. Seriously.
The trillion of dollars spent so far for defense could have been spent on building 5 million residential homes @ 250k dollars per home. This planet is much larger with unoccupied land open for development. Unnecessary killing and destruction is tragic. Trees grow fast when nature is left to grow. Seems easier to move mountains than convincing these 80 year old cold war politicians to make it easier on humanity... just retire and let life go on
Unfortunately the world is not completely populated with people who are as nice or gentle as you probably are - especially not those in power. Many humans (not just the old ones) are nasty and cruel and we have to defend ourselves from them or they will be the ones who get to make all the decisions. And you can bet they don't give a stuff about trees.
Its astounding for this woman to talk about Climate Change as being relevant to the RAF ....... Its going to take several hundred thousand people starving to death for the Climate to drop of the news .... And when the country is being bombed every day the fact it might be 1.5c hotter in 100 years will seam less important O and don't forget the diversity 😅 very very important
You're a 20-odd year old out of university with a technical degree showing you're suited to learn aerodynamics and all the other theoretical courses required by pilots, and now looking for a career that preferably serve to ensure your future children has a planet to live on. Are you looking to the RAF for that career? No? Then that IS a concern for the RAF.
@@johanmetreus1268 if the solution to it being 1.5c warmer in 100 years time is No shoes no clothing no homes no farming no transport no tecknowledge no travel no light no warmth Then we don't need an raf because there's nothing to protect everyone will be dead of exposure
The RAF has called their best fighters "useless white male pilots" (E-mail by RAF recruitment, court evidence) and now has to pay £5000 in a settlement to 31 white male pilots they have bullied and discriminated, prevented from being hired or promoted. Which is the main reason some of them are defecting to China to teach them how to fight! But hey, at least it's environmentally friendly and makes combat unfit twitter feminists happy...
