4 ms·
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 intend
by mrweasel 1y 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.
- varispeed 1y agoThis 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.
- TMWNN 1y ago> 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.
- JFingleton 1y ago> 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..?
- varispeed 1y agoBecause 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.
- JFingleton 1y ago> You think yelling at allies to pay up, threatening to leave NATO, and undermining trust serves Western unity? Yet look at the current NATO spending review: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/25/nato-donald-trump-mark-rutte-europe-latest-live-news https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/25/nato-dona... Looks like unity to me...
- varispeed 1y agoThe classic "Europe was freeloading" line - straight from the Kremlin's greatest hits compilation. Here's the thing: the post-WWII security architecture wasn't designed out of charity or naivety. The U.S. wanted to anchor Europe under its military umbrella, precisely to prevent another arms race on the continent (you know, like the one that gave us Nazi Germany). Re-arming Europe too fast or too independently was a geopolitical nightmare the U.S. wisely avoided. Framing this long-term strategic choice as mere European "freeloading" is historical malpractice - and straight-up disinformation. It's the kind of reductionist narrative that ignores why NATO exists, forgets the U.S. benefits (forward bases, arms sales, influence), and erases the fact that Europe did gradually ramp up spending - until Trump turned alliance politics into a shakedown operation. Trump's behaviour - threatening Article 5, calling NATO obsolete, encouraging Russia to do "whatever the hell they want" to non-payers - isn't tough love. It's textbook Kremlin strategy: undermine trust, fracture alliances, weaken deterrence, then pretend it's just "common sense". The "unity" you're applauding is what happens when your supposed ally holds a lit match over the fuel tank and everyone else finally realises they're on their own. This isn't thanks to Trump - it's a survival reflex against him. Undermining NATO's core guarantee, parroting Russian talking points, and daring Moscow to test the alliance wasn't tough negotiation - it was sabotage.
- blackbear_ 1y agoOnly on the surface (promising a rise to 5% in 10 years is meaningless in this climate), and only because Trump is a lunatic. This week’s NATO summit will be all about placating Donald Trump https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/06/19/this-weeks-nato-summit-will-be-all-about-placating-donald-trump https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/06/19/this-weeks-nato-... At a tricky NATO summit, a Trumpian meltdown is averted https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/06/25/at-a-tricky-nato-summit-a-trumpian-meltdown-is-averted https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/06/25/at-a-tricky-nato...
- BoxOfRain 1y agoYeah 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.
- lm28469 1y ago> 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...
- mrweasel 1y agoThe 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 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.
- haiku2077 1y agoIt'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_tests_and_delays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus#Flight_te...
- Arnt 1y ago"If Boeing can't do it, it must be hard", is that what you're saying? Are you implying that Boeing is better at building aircraft than Airbus (or really anyone else)?
- eigenspace 1y agoThe 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.
- milesrout 1y ago[dead]
- bgwalter 1y agoWhat 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.
- thephyber 1y ago> 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.
- mytailorisrich 1y agoYes, 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.
- rich_sasha 1y agoThis 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.
- Nursie 1y agoTrident 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"
- rich_sasha 1y agoAh, that's an interesting tidbit, I didn't realize.
- Nursie 1y agoMy 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...)
- rich_sasha 1y agoThat'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.
- mytailorisrich 1y agoWhy does the UK need an option available quickly? I think it does not and this is just pandering to the US.
- rich_sasha 1y agoThe narrative is of a looming war with Russia, necessitating rapid rearmament. My armchair strategist view doesn't extend as far as knowing if haste is advised or not. I'm curious why you think specifically there is no rush.
- mytailorisrich 1y agoIt's hard to take this "looming war" with Russia seriously when WWIII didn't happen during the USSR times when Russia was much stronger. It's hard to believe that Russia would want to start WWIII now when they didn't then and when they have shown that they were highly struggling in Ukraine (and they struggled in Chechnya, too). Along the same line, during the Cold War Sweden was literally facing the Warsaw Pact and yet stayed out of NATO. Now it is surrounded with friends and needs to join NATO. I am just old enough to remember the end of the Cold War and the fall of it all. To me it is very difficult to consider that the situation now is riskier than then. A reasonable conclusion is that we are being led up the garden path... Russia has a stockpile of nukes for defense because they are worried of invasion (history has shown this is warranted). But they know that the military might of the US and NATO would obliterate their conventional forces. My theory is that there has always been push-back against an EU power-grab to full "statehood" and involvement in military matters, and that this is a pretext to "manufacture consent" in European public opinion. Now, specifically for the UK, again I think this is largely pandering to the US to attract favours (tariffs, etc)