• deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s important to cover the eyes of birds when transporting them so they think it’s night and sleep through their journey.

  • aramis87@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m delighted we’re sending these over to Ukraine (though it should have been done a long time ago).

    Question: the F-16s are planes. Is there some reason we’re loading them onto other planes for transport instead of flying them over?

    • BatrickPateman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      3 months ago

      Ease of transfer (one pilot vs multiple for a looooong flight, probably no refuel on the Antonow, and if so it eats less specialised stuff than the F-16s) and maybe even fuel efficiency, I would guess.

      Also, one cargo plane raises less eye brows than a flock of fighters.

      • ItWasTheDNS@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        AN-124’s are extremely inefficient - it’s probably stopping 2-3 times on route, but still easier to arrange than flying each plane.

      • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Both aircraft types will almost certainly be running Jet A1, or whatever the military version of it is.

    • Dicska@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      The others here answered everything already, I just would like to use one analogy: 6 sports cars on a trailer.

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The maximum range for the F16 in “ferry” mode (max fuel, no weapons, pee before takeoff) is something like 4000km. The distance from Belfast (Maine) to Belfast (the original) is 4500km.

      That would mean air to air refueling, which is expensive and risky. It would put major wear on the planes, which are not the newest to start with. And unlike the Antonov, the F16 comes with neither legroom nor bathrooms.

    • Wilshire@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s safer for long distances, plus they won’t have to worry about refueling.

      • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        That, and 6x the flight hours for a F16 is expensive. The flight hours with accompanied wear and tear are better used over Ukraine.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 months ago

    Oh hell yeah, are we pulling some stuff out of AMARG? I didn’t realize we were doing that!! Thought it was just a handful of European countries donating airframes they were decommissioning.

          • Vanon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I have, too. Maybe I’m still in denial over this dark magic, but I still think just about anything can be successfully stored, using proper tested procedures. Regarding fluids, fuel, batteries, tires, etc. Can’t imagine how complicated it is for a million dollar fighter jet, though. But they’re probably built tough, and not full of cheap materials that disintegrate (unlike my old car).