Comment by mrweasel
6 months ago
The refueling seems like a very minor issue. In joint NATO missions, the F-35A can just be fueled by tankers operated by the US. Alternatively, if the UK intends to operate these 12 planes long term and on missions that actually require refueling, they could buy or modify one or more tankers.
It's not really an impossible problem to solve. It's also the only plane the UK can buy that would allow them to launch US made nuclear weapons, assuming that they would like to participate in the US nuclear sharing program in the future. Many of the nuclear sharing agreements the US have involves other countries using their planes and pilots, while the US provides the weapon and launch codes.
The subtext is that everyone is now realizing how stupid it is to be militarily reliant on the USA, and big spends like this are now under extreme scrutiny. The USA is not a reliable partner.
[dead]
> In joint NATO missions, the F-35 can just be fueled by tankers operated by US tankers.
I don't think we're in a timeline in which NATO's stability should be counted on for such critical things like refuelling your own planes...
The UK is no stranger to engineering, it's not like it would take them years to build or modify a tanker on their own.
Airbus makes the stupid tankers for the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT it's not a problem.
Edit: the US cancelled the Airbus program, but they still can make the boom operated tankers.
It's actually quite hard to build a boom tanker; Boeing's most recently one has been a disaster for the company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus#Flight_te...
3 replies →
> I don't think we're in a timeline in which NATO's stability should be counted on for such critical things like refuelling your own planes...
This is the entire point of NATO, complete interoperability between forces. To work as one cohesive force.
We're still stable, if we're not then it's already over.
> This is the entire point of NATO, complete interoperability between forces.
How is it interoperable if you cannot refuel your own planes ? Sounds like the opposite of interoperability to me
1 reply →
next question: should it be counted on for such things as "being able to service and operate our planes"
What is the benefit of nuclear sharing for European countries? The sites where the nukes are stored will attract Russian strikes and you don't have the launch codes.
It seems like the worst of all worlds to me. After a limited nuclear exchange, e.g. Manchester and Minsk, the glorious leaders of the U.S. and Russia will have second thoughts and only the vassal states will have been hit. They'll then make peace and nominate each other for the Nobel Peace Prize.
> What is the benefit of nuclear sharing for European countries? The sites where the nukes are stored will attract Russian strikes and you don't have the launch codes.
I guarantee you the Balkans countries that joined NATO would LOVE to have that problem instead of the current problems they have.
My first reaction is - why should the UK be launching US-made nuclear weapons?
It's been widely reported that these aircraft will only be able to use US nuclear munitions, and that will require US permission.
God forbid they ever be used, of course, but it seems like a weird choice, especially when the UK is apparently able to build warheads for trident, and is allegedly able to operate that system without US oversight (though of course with US ballistic missiles as the carrier...)
That's probably one of very few options available quickly.
UK could launch it's nuclear program, it has the scientific background and infrastructure, but surely they wouldn't have a certified, tested weapon within 5 years.
Maybe UK could buy them from France - but I don't think France ever exported their nukes, and if they would even consider it. How would it be launched? They have air-launched missiles, presumably only working with French jets, and cruise missiles, which IIRC are not very long range.
Who else is there? India? Pakistan? Israel? North Korea? Hard to imagine a sale from either of these countries.
> UK could launch it's nuclear program, it has the scientific background and infrastructure, but surely they wouldn't have a certified, tested weapon within 5 years.
As in the other thread (that I see you've now seen) the UK does have an active nuclear weapons program, with an in-progress updated design. It's true that it would need a smaller 'tactical' warhead design for the use-case we're talking about so it would take some time.
> How would it be launched?
I have no idea, we have certainly reached beyond my competence to hold an opinion here :)
It just feels like an odd choice at the current time, to crow about a new capability, but reveal another country is going to hold the keys. especially when the UK does have an active nuclear program. :shrug:
Why does the UK need an option available quickly?
I think it does not and this is just pandering to the US.
13 replies →
Yes, the problem is that those planes are useless to the UK in term of nuclear capability: They can only carry American tactical nukes, which the UK does not obviously have, and any strikes would require authorization by the US and NATO and then supply by the US.
I.e. the UK is paying to follow the orders of the US President.
This is presumably the same as the naval component - the missiles and warheads are American, and I'd be amazed if the UK can use them if the US vetoes.
Trident carries UK-manufactured warheads and is allegedly independent, even though it does rely on US ballistic missiles to carry them. Wikipedia says -
"The British government insists the warhead is indigenously designed, but analysts including Hans M. Kristensen with the Federation of American Scientists believe that it is largely based on the US W76 design"
There appears to be a new design in the works at the moment called "Astraea"
1 reply →
This assumes the US will be still in NATO and on our side. Given that the US is now governed by Russian assets, I don't think it is even a good idea to buy American weapons at all. The UK should double down on home grown military tech.
Yeah as a British person if anything I think the French had the right idea and we need to be moving away from dependence on American SLBMs in favour of a fully indigenous programme.
I find the idea that our nuclear deterrent depends on American missiles we can't produce ourselves concerning with isolationism being a recurring factor with American politics, sure Trump doesn't seem to particularly dislike us but Vance clearly sees us with open contempt given his comments about our forces. We're far too geographically close to Russia for us to depend on anyone but ourselves in my opinion.
> Given that the US is now governed by Russian assets
Donald Trump has consistently and forcefully argued that European NATO members must significantly increase their defense spending. He has long criticized European nations for not contributing enough to their own defense and relying too heavily on the United States.
Why would you do this if you're a Russian asset..?
Because destabilising NATO by framing it as an unfair burden is the Russian objective. You think yelling at allies to pay up, threatening to leave NATO, and undermining trust serves Western unity? Putin doesn't need puppets who wave a Russian flag - he needs chaos agents who erode alliances under the guise of tough love. Congrats on falling for the 'if he criticises Europe, he must be pro-America' bait. Textbook.
3 replies →
> This assumes the US will be still in NATO and on our side. Given that the US is now governed by Russian assets
Such /r/redditmoment comments are unworthy of HN.