3 ms·

> 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

> 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 ago
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 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 ago
  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_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)?
    - haiku2077 1y ago
      I said absolutely zero of thise things. I said building a boom tanker is hard.
      - Arnt 1y ago
        Sorry about the misunderstanding. It sounded like "so hard that even Boeing has problems", if you see what I mean.
detaro 1y ago
next question: should it be counted on for such things as "being able to service and operate our planes"
bilekas 1y ago
> 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.
- lm28469 1y ago
  > 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
  - bilekas 1y ago
    This is a problem of RAF, they're at fault for not getting their hardware in order, everyone else can do it fine. > Since the RAF's Voyager fleet lacks the boom-type system required by the F-35A Because 1 component is incompetent doesn't change the point of NATO integration. This came up with Isreali Jets too, the RAF have known about this but seem to be doing nothing. > https://afwerxchallenge.com/media/download/303d097876348381d7db57cd07166d01 https://afwerxchallenge.com/media/download/303d097876348381d... > https://www.difesa.it/assets/allegati/58377/allegato1annesso1requisitotecnicooperativotanker.pdf https://www.difesa.it/assets/allegati/58377/allegato1annesso... Section : 3.4.5. Fuel delivery methods These standards are implemented elsewhere in NATO. Infact the RAF might be the ONLY ones not capable. Edit for clarity on missing boom fuel syste,.

mrweasel 1y ago

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 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 ago
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_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)?
  - haiku2077 1y ago
    I said absolutely zero of thise things. I said building a boom tanker is hard.
    - Arnt 1y ago
      Sorry about the misunderstanding. It sounded like "so hard that even Boeing has problems", if you see what I mean.

detaro 1y ago

next question: should it be counted on for such things as "being able to service and operate our planes"

bilekas 1y ago

> 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.

lm28469 1y ago
> 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
- bilekas 1y ago
  This is a problem of RAF, they're at fault for not getting their hardware in order, everyone else can do it fine. > Since the RAF's Voyager fleet lacks the boom-type system required by the F-35A Because 1 component is incompetent doesn't change the point of NATO integration. This came up with Isreali Jets too, the RAF have known about this but seem to be doing nothing. > https://afwerxchallenge.com/media/download/303d097876348381d7db57cd07166d01 https://afwerxchallenge.com/media/download/303d097876348381d... > https://www.difesa.it/assets/allegati/58377/allegato1annesso1requisitotecnicooperativotanker.pdf https://www.difesa.it/assets/allegati/58377/allegato1annesso... Section : 3.4.5. Fuel delivery methods These standards are implemented elsewhere in NATO. Infact the RAF might be the ONLY ones not capable. Edit for clarity on missing boom fuel syste,.