• metaStatic@kbin.earth
    28·
    2 days ago

    Australia could act like a sovereign nation and do the right thing in the face of American interests but would you put money on it?

    Didn’t work out so well for us last time.

  • TheSlad@sh.itjust.works
    4·
    1 day ago

    Why does a landing gear component need to be replaced based on flight time? Shouldn’t it be based on number of take-offs and landings?

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    18·
    2 days ago

    Hate to be a party pooper but the only approved vendor doesn’t mean Israel couldn’t cobble something together.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      52·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, what would happen is another vendor being approved elsewhere, meaning it was pointless and they lost business.

        • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 day ago

          It would be ending a relationship with any country that uses F-35s. Sorry, but you’re a child if you think there’s even a snowball’s chance in hell of a company risking their exclusive manufacturing of a component that could easily be produced elsewhere if there was a demand. You think the message from the company would be “We will not support Israel’s actions!” but the only message buyers will hear is “We’re an unreliable company that should not be trusted as a supplier!”

          This post is like saying only one company makes the paint used to mark the bombs, so we can stop all the bombs by not making the paint; completely ignoring that the paint isn’t all that critical, there is already plenty of spare supply out there, and practically any other company could start producing more if it was really needed.

  • can@sh.itjust.works
    9·
    2 days ago

    While presumably not as disposable cursory research shows the the horizontal tail assembly is provided exclusively by Canada and UK.