alt Hacker NewsThe 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.
Replies
> 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...
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.
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...)
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 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.
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.