8 ms·
I wonder if we'll see a coordinated wave of F-35 cancellations. They must all be aware they are potentially buying bricks. The time to do it, thus, is now - the
by rich_sasha 2y ago
I wonder if we'll see a coordinated wave of F-35 cancellations. They must all be aware they are potentially buying bricks. The time to do it, thus, is now - the situation isn't improving while time and money are wasted.
But that's an enormous political escalation.
Or maybe Europeans, as "founding members", are able to support the planes on their own? I doubt it though. The engine alone is US made, ans that alone is probably unmaintainable without their support.
- ExoticPearTree 2y agoIt is not going to happen. There is no european manufacturer or a consortium that can build a similar airplane with comparable capabilities. They can't even match the F-22 which is more than two decades old. The only way Europe can match Russia/China is to keep buying american made weapons. Maybe in 20-30 years the situation will be different and Europe will have the same capabilities of the US, but until then... buy, baby, buy!
- lou1306 2y agoAny warplane that _works_ has comparable, nay even better capabilities than a brick.
- generic92034 2y agoThere are three superpowers, only one of which has shown no hostility towards Europe. Draw your conclusions.
- cutemonster 2y agoThere are two. Russia is not a super power. Putin has nukes, apart from that Russia is a pretty irrelevant country. More like this: Two super powers, and a terror nukes nation.
- generic92034 2y agoIt does not really change my argument, if you exclude Russia from the group. It was about possible alignment options Europe now has. However, any power able to incinerate large parts of the planet is a bit more than a regional power, in my eyes.
- cutemonster 2y agoWhen Putin can't take back Kursk, it seems odd to call Russia a super power. But yes, agree with you about China. Putin wants people to think Russia is a super power, when it's instead a corrupted inefficient mafia state. Look at research or startups coming from there (not much) or it's economy - the country is not interesting any longer (Putin has damaged it that much). Except for Putin attacking Ukraine, and his nukes and troll farms. If Pakistan starts threatening other countries with nuclear war, and tries to invade a neighbor but mostly fails, is it then suddenly a super power? Maybe "terror power" could be a new word
- catlover76 2y ago> Putin has nukes, apart from that Russia is a pretty irrelevant country. Clearly, it's not irrelevant if it's been able to drive a wedge between the US and Europe like this.
- SJC_Hacker 2y agoChina is a economic superpower but not a military one, at least not yet. Their blue water navy is not credible.
- brabel 2y agoI wish the EU agreed with you. That would surely mean they would not want to go on a 800 billion Euro spend of my taxpayer money to deter an "irrelevant country".
- disgruntledphd2 2y agoFundamentally, it's not just about Russia. It's about not being carved up by the US and China.
- philipov 2y agoUS, China, who else are you calling a superpower? Cause Russia is not a superpower.
- generic92034 2y agoIt does not really change my argument, if you exclude Russia from the group. It was about possible alignment options Europe now has. However, any power able to incinerate large parts of the planet is a bit more than a regional power, in my eyes.
- ben_w 2y agoFWIW, given everything else that we've seen from Russia in this undeclared(!) war, I'm moderately confident the Russian nukes and delivery mechanisms are sub-par. (Typing "sub" reminded me of the Kursk nuclear submarine that sank itself…)
- ExoticPearTree 2y agoIt needs only a few to launch successfully to engulf Europe in flames. So, even with subpar equipment, out of all of the 1700+ launch vehicles a few will still launch.
- ben_w 2y agoKinda. Some of the P(weapon failure) is constant: from what I hear, a certain fraction of Soviet and US systems (and presumably everyone else's) just don't work. If that was all it was, then you would be correct. But: some failures come with age, and require ongoing maintenance to retain function. For example, I expect all the tritium has decayed, and also that in many cases the money that was supposed to get spent replacing the tritium was instead spent on a fancy yacht or a football team or a seat in the UK's House of Lords etc. And I don't know how good modern anti-missile weapons are, but I would expect them to have improved; conversely, despite Russia's talk about new hypersonic missiles, what they've shown hasn't been very impressive, and they've even used up some of their old nuclear-capable missiles while attacking Ukraine.
- rh219ag 2y agoYes, that's why the U.S. wants to control Arctic trade routes from China to Europe. The Ukraine war was "successful" in destroying the possibility of railways between the EU and China. The EU, ever the good vassal, now ramps up the rhetoric against Russia which is exactly what Hegseth wanted in the open. The EU is still playing the U.S. deep state script and it is very likely that all the Trump pressure and insults are carefully planned political theater. If the above conjectures are wrong and Trump is serious about peace with Russia, then the EU needs to pivot quickly to China and at least maintain reasonable diplomatic relations with Russia.
- generic92034 2y ago> The EU is still playing the U.S. deep state script and it is very likely that all the Trump pressure and insults are carefully planned political theater. I find that becoming exceedingly unlikely. Trust has been destroyed, there is no easy recovery from that.
- 5azehG 2y agoSo many odd things have been occurring in the past month that I don't know what to believe any longer. First, ex-neocon Rubio admitted on the Megyn Kelly show that the world is now multi-polar. Even if he believes that, why would he say so unless it's for show. Then there is Lindsey Graham. In 2016 he gave warlike speeches to the Azov Batallion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ4e1A-LZEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ4e1A-LZEA In 2025 he throws Zelensky under the bus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18oqMGLWcRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18oqMGLWcRA Graham and probably Rubio are still neocons. Trump must be really powerful to keep all this under control. Then there is the U.S. arms lobby, which is uncannily quiet even though they'll lose a ton of business when NATO becomes irrelevant. Then there are no reactions to Polish nuclear ambitions, which is weird unless the whole thing is scripted. So there are two theories. Either Trump is carving up the world or he is acting.
- jmpman 2y agoElon Musk threatens to spend millions against any republican who deviates from Trump’s policies. Without that threat, the republicans would speak up against this assault on American interest and values. I wonder more if Elon has been compromised than Trump. Or if Russia threaten to trigger the Kessler syndrome, destroying all of Elon’s aspirations of getting off this rock (I’m still skeptical if he’s telling the truth about that), and instructed him to stop the war.
- mongol 2y agoA good airplane from an unreliable supplier is not a good airplane.
- dv_dt 2y agoIt may kill human piloted powered combat aircraft in favor of missiles and drones
- ttyprintk 2y agoThat’s what I expect: long careers in NATO for Ukrainian veterans who can extrapolate from the high-point of USA and Russian arms.
- SJC_Hacker 2y agoDrones can't replace a human in the cockpit. Remote piloted are subject to EW. Autonomous are not quite there yet. May be in ten years, maybe not.
- convolvatron 2y agogiven the extreme 'benefits' of autonomous weapons (cheap, can be produced in arbitrary numbers, easier logistics, fewer parents mourning their children in your country, vastly easier production), we should expect them to be fielded before they are really ready.
- dv_dt 2y agoId agree with ten years to never for a 1:1 100% replacement - but Im not sure that is the required threshold for drones to replace a development budget item for upgrading to an next x-gen manned fighter.
- simmerup 2y agoNot to pile on but you say we should buy the F-35 to go toe to toe against Russia… America is currently doing everything for Russia! If we actually used the F35 against Russia right now Trump would probably immediately do everything in his power to stop that, just like he’s exerting pressure everywhere else he can in Russias favour Honestly I’ll personally be buying as little American as possible going forwards
- chgs 2y agoEuro companies need to be moving off companies like Amazon swiftly, they’re under the boot of the new leadership. There’s a few years before even the current Russian leadership can change us rhetoric to be actively hostile to Europe, but it’s coming.
- casenmgreen 2y agoI suspect it is going to be done to them. It seems to me Donald is beheld in some way to Vladimir; what's being done now to my eye is too specifically about setting up UA for second RU invasion. Donald then I think, step by step, is going to ally with Vladimir. 1. US aid to UA stops (done). 2. USA leaves NATO (on the way). 3. US troops in Europe leave or move to Hungary (floated). 4. Hungary is ejected from EU due to Orban obstructing everything he can. 5. Hungary becomes RU satellite state (maybe with many tens of thousand of US troops). 6. USA lifts its sanctions, placing it directly in conflict with Europe. 7. Donald invokes Insurrection Act, military units can now be used for civil policing (this is why top military brass and specifically top military lawyers removed). 8. Europe puts boots on ground and air cover over UA. 9. To "encourage peace", Donald now disables support for US weapon systems being used by Europe in UA. At this point, F-35 is history whether or not EU has dropped them or not. 10. Protests in USA, military used, people die, Donald suspends Constitution "to restore order and combat subversive elements". 11. No more elections. All court cases underway made irrelevant.
- geetee 2y agoOr it doesn't happen like that
- scrollaway 2y agoAnyone with a working memory of a couple of years remembers people like you who said a variety of excuses to the tune of "it won't be that bad", "you're exaggerating" and "it won't happen like that". Of course, all of them were wrong. Short of WW3 between Europe and the US, many awful things that were predicted have come true. DT has severely weakened the USA, weakened the stock market, damaged US reputation and trust in the US army, dismantled many departments, put useless shills in most important positions, pulled out of Ukraine, stopped aid to Ukraine, sucked up to Putin, and turned it all into a country that most people in Europe consider a hostile enemy (myself included). So. For the sake of your fellow citizens, quit the excuses.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- grayhatter 2y agoNah, Swedish aerotech already out matches both Russia in terms of production capacity, arguably 6th if you ignore stealth, weapons range and weapons reliability. And already beats China in terms of technology, they're just now producing 5th gen airframes with copied tech, where Sweden isn't just following. The EU without the US can already produce 5th gen, the selling point of the F35 was 6th gen compatible with 7th gen (NGAD). Russia is still flying more 4th then 5th gen fighters, because they can't get their bricks off the ground. Why would the EU want to copy the same mistakes of their enemy?
- konart 2y ago>Russia is still flying more 4th then 5th gen fighters Just like any other military including the US, no?
- grayhatter 2y agoNo, because the US could fly them, (assumedly), but doesn't. Where my understanding is Russia can't keep their fleet maintained let alone produce more. You don't use gorilla air tactics and bomb civilian infrastructure if you have other options. Russia is smart enough to know the value of winning hearts and minds, but they don't. Why not? Because they can't is the only reasonable conclusion I've seen I don't have access to perfect information, but I find the reports that Russia is unable to maintain their entire fleet creditable, and believe and/or trust the experts who confirm this analysis.
- konart 2y agoAs far as I know the US military still has more 4gen jets than 5gen. Obviously Russia has no 5gen at all (or just a few 5gen Su-57, if we going to name them 5gen). Anyway, my point is that as of now Russia has no need for gen5 and can't afford it anyway, just like about anyone else except for the US and a few countries that have them but at the same time have to rely on the US anyway.
- ExoticPearTree 2y agoDo you have any data to back this claim up? The Grippen looks awful.
- acdha 2y agoThe Rafale has claimed F-22 kills, but also consider that the competition here isn’t a straight up war against the United States but rather against Russia. As we’ve seen in the invasion of Ukraine, they don’t need advanced 6th generation fighters to handily best Russian forces using Soviet-era technology, and drones are FAR more significant in that kind of combat. Even if the F-35 was better at those types of missions, the high cost of the aircraft and support suggest that this might simply accelerate the shift away from human-piloted aircraft. If your threat model did include a war within former NATO members, the F-35 is the worst possible choice so another way of thinking about this is that they should pick the best option which is actually available. That would mean things like swarm attacks and strikes on the airfields where those stealthy but extremely fragile planes are housed. Even if the public range is significantly low, they’d need a base closer than Greenland to strike European targets.
- delfinom 2y agoBut the F-35 is functionally useless. If Russia, being the only threat to Europe invades, the US will shut down the F-35s.
- lumost 2y agoEurope had no reason to spy on the US before, why shouldn't the EU produce a carbon copy of the F-35? There is already a plant making them in Germany. If the US is tearing up treaties then why can't the EU tear up their promise of not stealing military technology?
- louthy 2y agoWhat exactly do you think are so special about American made products? The only reason that America’s allies have bought them in the past is because of Pax Americana. That’s about to end if not has ended already. BAE Systems along with other European arms/aerospace manufacturers are perfectly capable of making competing products.
- ExoticPearTree 2y ago> What exactly do you think are so special about American made products? They are more battle-tested than any other. America has been involved in a war or another pretty much continuously since the end of WWW2.
- louthy 2y agoAlongside its allies, mostly. Thanks JD. Not that they’re going to be allies much longer.
- ExoticPearTree 2y agoWhich allies fought alongside in every conflict the US participated in? With the exception of the blunders in Iraq and Aghanistan where everybody jumped on the “lets conquer faraway countries” bandwagon. In Syria the US bombs things at their will, same in Somalia. In all Latin America conflicts the US went at it alone.
- louthy 2y agoHonestly, go and look it up yourself, you’re not engaging in this thread constructively. You’re simply parroting MAGA talking points. I didn’t say “every”, I said “mostly”. Maybe pay attention to Greece, Korea, Libya, Kosovo, Serbia, Yemen, Syria (1982), Iran, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, WW1, WW2 The fact that even as we bicker on this forum British and American forces are in Yemen pretty much says everything.
- deleted 2y ago
- ta988 2y agoAbsolutely every European country can make something better than a brick. And there are high quality planes like the Rafale that aren't PaaS (Planes as a Service) where the owner can unilaterally stop you from using it.
- ExoticPearTree 2y agoYou did read the article saying the US is not supplying "software updates" to the F16s and the planes themselves fly just fine, right?
- spacedcowboy 2y agoI think the comment is in reaction to the F35 ones above it. Without activated software, these are bricks. And no country wants to wake up to a set of bricks when they really need warplanes all of a sudden.
- wood_spirit 2y agoA plane without up to date countermeasures is not fit for purpose. They will be ineffective or even unusable in weeks.
- wafflemaker 2y agoDon't forget the F-35 is the best plane for the PREVIOUS war. The current and the NEXT war will be fought with drones. And Ukraine is one of the countries that has the best drone industry. Maybe we (as a Pole living in Norway) can't have state of the art jets, but in practice don't need them? We (as the whole eastern block - Scands, Balts, Poland, Romania and Ukraine) should cancel our orders of F-35 and focus on developing our drone and strategic missile industry. And focus on investing, developing and buying from our closest allies - the eastern block. Not on the countries that don't care because they are either too far from Russia (Spain, Italy) or have vested geopolitical interest in alllying with them (Germany). France and UK might want to join to balance out Germany. At least that's what I understand from hearing smarter than me discuss the current situation.
- nradov 2y agoWhich next war? The type of small, short range drones currently being used in Ukraine and Russia won't be of much use in a major regional conflict with China. Ranges will be orders of magnitude longer and communication links for drone control won't be reliable. The main reason that Ukraine and Russia have had to rely so heavily on drones is that they had no better alternative. The air forces on both sides are shit with zero (or effectively zero) 5th generation aircraft that can survive in a contested environment. The F-35 was designed for that mission and would at least have a chance.
- stackedinserter 2y ago> The air forces on both sides are shit with zero (or effectively zero) I wouldn't call Russian AF "shit". The УМПК (JDAM) bombs crushed formidable defense of Avdeevka and now hit AFU hard in Sudja. Ka-52 helicopters stopped counteroffensive a year ago. Surely, sky is contested, but it's still important component that hurts Ukraine very hard. > have had to rely so heavily on drones is that they had no better alternative What would be an alternative to wing reconnaissance drones? What can hyper-equipped US armed forces offer as a replacement FPV and fiber-optics FPV attack drones? Yeah they have Reapers and other fancy expensive gear for the first 3-4 weeks of active war, then what?
- ljm 2y agoI mean, if any other country spent 700+ billion a year on corporate welfare to defence contractors they’d have some impressive tech too. If nobody wants to buy any of that shit because of the knock-on effects of Trump’s self-sabotage and they start investing elsewhere, then those defence companies will sooner distance themselves from the US as well. Unless they’re in on whatever the administration is cooking up the money is still going to speak louder.
- jajko 2y agoNo, thank you we are not idiots. Out fighters are just fine, as long as we don't have to fight US. BTW you don't seem to understand military well - F22 is much better plane than F35, but abysmally complex to do and expensive, thats why the low numbers. F35 has way too many compromises ie for us navy. Also, as Ukraine war shows fighter jets are not that important for waging war if situation is more like peer vs peer, and not US blowing shepherds and weddings into pieces. Sure, they lob a bomb or two, sometimes launch a rocket but all from as much distance as possible. What wins such wars these days is artillery, massive amount of infantry and millions of various drones.
- bad_haircut72 2y agoAustralia ought to start paying tribute to China instead of USA and invest in chinese subs rather than USA ones which will never be delivered anyway
- mc32 2y agoThe devil you know… No one would ever trust China, not Vietnam, not anyone unwilling to take orders from them. The terms would be heavy.
- bad_haircut72 2y agoLike all things it depends on the terms, in my mind though China would probably be incentivized to give us a good deal - Im sure they would be very amused delivering real hardware while the USA continues to demonstrate their incompetence at shipbuilding. It would also signal that Australia wants to sit out any USA/China war, which might be hard to do politically (which is maybe why Im not PM) but its certainly the position I hope Aus ends up taking should these 2 buffoons start a real blue
- spiderfarmer 2y agoLet’s switch suppliers a second time?
- bad_haircut72 2y agoWe need to pay the money to USA as tribute so its a write-off anyway, but I have low confidence we will ever see working hardware from it. However I bet China would actually prioritise delivery of some new subs if we pivoted to using them as our naval supplier, to win mindshare in the west as an alternative to America or Russia as an arms supplier. and we set up the next 100 years of paying off bigger countries to leave us alone, which honestly worked well enough the last 100 years
- Aloisius 2y agoEh. They aren't meant to be delivered for at least 5 years by which point US politics will have swung the other direction again.
- KeplerBoy 2y agoEurope can't even maintain some Eurofighter fleets without US support. The Austrian model for example needs a crypto key for secure communications from a US company for every flight.
- nradov 2y agoThe US cryptography key is only needed for NATO Link 16 communications, not for regular flight operations. This is totally normal because Austria isn't a full NATO member. They are part of the NATO Partnership for Peace program which allows for limited levels of cooperation.
- KeplerBoy 2y agoAll possible, I'm not familiar with the details. But right now the fact that there US citizens (apparently civil contractors, not military personell) stationed at austrian air bases to enable some functionality is a big deal. This is a big deal because the wish-wash Austrian Neutrality is crucial to Austrian Identity.
- nradov 2y agoHow is it a big deal? If Austria wanted full access to NATO technology then they should have joined NATO. They chose not to, and now they have to accept the consequences of that choice. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.
- KeplerBoy 2y agoIt's the usual hypocrisy. There never was money for the military, neutrality ever popular and nobody thought about it back when things seemed more stable. Now that things are changing, it's a big deal. Maybe we join Nato, maybe Europe get it's own shit together. We'll see.
- holowoodman 2y agoThere are still doubts as to whether the new Trumpian reality is permanent. Politicians in Europe are still hoping that this is all a bad dream. So I guess the orders will somehow (by delaying payments, inventing some requirements, finding problems in deliveries that have to be endlessly discussed and fixed, ...) be delayed for 4 years. If the next president is still looking as anti-European as Trump, orders will for sure be cancelled.
- spiderfarmer 2y agoStill. None of the desired 800B of investment in defense equipment and technology can have US suppliers after the last couple of weeks. Even if the US eventually gets rid of this cancerous development.
- rich_sasha 2y agoAs a side thought: it is oft remarked in the defence industry circles how buying local might be more expensive but more of the money stays at home. Quite apart from any sovereignty arguments, cash spent at home goes to purchase of hopefully local components, materials, all along paying for local salaries, which drives local economies. And this is taxed along the way too, as income tax, VAT and ultimate corporate tax. I wonder if that's really true to a significant amount, and if so, how much does that matter. Eg if I can buy something for X abroad, or c*X locally, for what value of c is this overall breakeven?
- nine_k 2y ago"We are delaying our $N billion order until the administration ceases to act insane" would be quite a signal for big business elites in the US. (Sadly, sanity of the opposite political party was / is also highly questionable.)
- crote 2y agoI doubt "until the administration ceases to act insane" is going to be enough. The current administration has proven to be untrustworthy, so nothing they say is going to restore trust in the US. On top of that, what guarantees could the US give that a future Trump 2.0 isn't going to break on their first day? The problem is systemic: The US doesn't have a functioning democracy. FPTP, gerrymandering, unchecked campaign financing, the electoral college? It just isn't working, and the US is permanently stuck in a dysfunctional two-party system. If that doesn't get fixed (and let's be honest, it won't), the rest of the world won't be trusting the US until it can demonstrate a few decades of continuous trustworthy leadership after Trump is gone.
- sidewndr46 2y agoThe European country best suited to support the F-35 is France. Which also isn't a member of the program due to that reason.
- noisy_boy 2y agoWon't that go against their homegrown Rafale fighter jet?
- timeon 2y agoIs there any other country in Europe that kept its own sovereignty like France? Maybe Sweden and Finland (if we do not consider nuclear cover)?
- boricj 2y agoWe're uniquely suited to not support the F-35. Not unless you swap out the engine for a Safran one, change the avionics for Dassault's, rip out the rest of the electronics for the Thalès stuff and replace the ordnance with MBDA's. We'd keep the frame, but Serge Dassault and Charles de Gaulle would probably smite any French mechanic coming within 20 feet of a F-35 to do anything but dismantle one for its secrets.
- sidewndr46 2y agoWhich is exactly the steps a European power needs to take in order to support an F-35 or similar aircraft. Remove the foreign made equipment you can't support and put your own domestic equipment, or at least put something sourced from the EU on it
- nradov 2y agoOn the F-35 program, ability to perform local support isn't so much based on being a "founding member" but rather program partnership level. The only other Level 1 partner is the UK. As Level 2 we have Italy and the Netherlands. All other countries are down at Level 3 (most heavily dependent on US support), except for Israel which is sort of a special case with a unique variant and special rules about local control. Ultimately though, you're correct that the F-35 will quickly turn into a brick for every export customer without active US support. The other factor is the NATO nuclear sharing arrangement. The F-35A is the only new aircraft certified to carry the US nuclear weapons under that arrangement, so that impacts Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Netherlands. Germany looked into certifying the Eurofighter Typhoon for the nuclear strike mission but decided that they couldn't afford it, and bought the F-35A instead. Of course, if the US pulls back from NATO and ends nuclear sharing then that concern would become moot and some of those countries would be likely to develop their own nuclear weapons.
- lukan 2y ago"Germany looked into certifying the Eurofighter Typhoon for the nuclear strike mission but decided that they couldn't afford it, and bought the F-35A instead" I remember the story rather like this: US: "you want to certify your fighter for nuclear devices" Germany: "yes" US: "ooh, that will be expensive and takes a loooong time. Don't you want to just buy our F35 instead?" And germany basically did. With the implicit understanding, to buy a piece of nuclear protection with that. Well, all gone ... so there are really only some voices left, wanting to keep buying the expensive, potentially useless bricks.
- nradov 2y agoYes, that's basically accurate. Since the end of the Cold War, Germany has always taken the cheapest possible military option in order to fund their precious social programs and treated the military as just another government jobs program. While I think the current US administration's moves to cut off our allies are deeply stupid and the moral equivalent of treason, Germany has only itself to blame for creating such a dependency. Alliances are always temporary and now Germany will have to face reality.