7 ms·

The F-35 is losing the trade war

71 points by rntn 1y ago

bigyabai 1y ago
taps the sign The F-35's Defining Characteristic Is Surviving Hostile Airspace Most nations don't need an F-35. They want to protect their own airspace, intercept potential threats and minimize the cost-per-mission for their operations. The sort of power projection afforded by a Joint Strike Fighter just isn't worth the cost to most nations - unless you're intent on molesting hostile airspace it's kinda a waste of taxpayer money. The existence of the F-35 is a byproduct of imperial ambition that few peer powers can match.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- n4r9 1y ago
  Which aircraft models would be more suitable for European countries to give a deterrent against potential threats like Russia?
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    The F-16 is cheap, attritable, highly available, and occupies a similar multirole mission profile as the F-35. It should be able to launch the same standoff munitions, albeit from a slightly further distance to avoid detection. It's likely they can be bought secondhand for ~1/10th the price of an F-35 and equipped with MBDA Meteor/IRIS missiles for a mean air patrol payload. More realistically though, I'd imagine many European nations are eying twin-engine multirole fighters like the Rafale and Eurofighter. These have a larger range and payload than the F-35, bigger radars and pylons and the all-important high top-speed (mach-2 intercepts are a must-have bordering Russia). These can be had cheaper than the F-35 and are generally better suited to a high intensity inland conflict.
    - maciejw 1y ago
      Thailand invested in Swedish Gripen recently.
  - mrweasel 1y ago
    While I'd generally say that the F-35 is probably the best (one of the best) option for countries like my own (Denmark), who need/want a plane that can do a bit of everything, we also need to see what's happening in Ukraine. If you have a large country and can hide your airfields hundreds of kilometers from the front, the F-16, Rafale, EuroFigther and the F-35 are all fine, but you have more options with the F-35. If you're a small country, like the Baltics, or Denmark, they are a silly choices if you expect to fight a battle at home. You simply don't have anywhere to service the planes after missiles and drones take out your three airfield equipped for the F-35. In those cases the SAAB Gripen is a much better choice. You can service is straight of a highway with basic tools and conscripts. It's also a plane designed to fight Russia, so if that the enemy you expect, it's fine.
    - monkeyshelli 1y ago
      The Finnish Air force has nice videos on highway strip operation exercises with F-35A and Eurofighter Typhoon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fD6D4rjCPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fD6D4rjCPg
    - yyyk 1y ago
      >after missiles and drones take out your three airfield equipped It's not so simple to 'take out' an airfield. Actually it's very tough.
  - xdennis 1y ago
    > Which aircraft models would be more suitable for European countries to give a deterrent against potential threats like Russia? Ironically, S300's from Russia. That's what Ukraine used to deny Russia air superiority. You can fight the orcs with orc weapons but you cannot fight them with American made airplanes because the US can stop support at any time.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  It’s kind of wild to watch the US squander its allies trust and therefore ability to project force globally as every other country that would’ve bought this weapons platform finds an alternative, leaving the US to shoulder the entire program cost burden. Who could’ve ever foreseen these consequences? /s
- siliconc0w 1y ago
  It also compromises your sovereignty since you cannot operate them without US assistance. These days that is a deal breaker.
  - scott_w 1y ago
    I think this is the biggest factor. Comments about the USA potentially cutting access to software updates could have cooled interest. The UK is the only country that can operate F-35 semi-independently (our government bought the system to run our own updates). I’ve seen people point out that the F-35 is still better than anything else you could buy but an inferior jet is probably better than an F-35 with no targeting information!
- scott_w 1y ago
  I think you’re missing something huge: when you’re under attack, YOUR OWN AIRSPACE can become hostile if you don’t fight to gain air superiority. NATO doctrine prioritises air superiority for good reason.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    No number of stealth planes will help you regain the advantage in that scenario if your ground assets can't support them. If your own airspace is hostile and your ground radars/SAM systems are disabled, then your CAP/supremacy mission has already failed.
    - scott_w 1y ago
      The two aren’t separate. If your jets can’t defend your ground assets then they’re likely to go boom. One way you can do this is to send your jets into enemy airspace and make their ground assets go boom, forcing them to keep jets in their own territory to stop that.
      - cpursley 1y ago
        How can a jet protect ground assets in the age of hypersonic weapons systems and drones? Anyways, isn't that the job of ground air defense?
        stoltzmann 1y ago
        By for example destroying the enemy launch platforms. By intercepting enemy flights that would deploy those weapons. And specifically in case of F-35s, also by providing ELINT. "Hypersonic" weapons used in current conflicts are nothing more than a glorified long range missiles that are useless if you can't launch them from the air. They're also currently statistically not significant due to their low amounts.
        cpursley 1y ago
        They seem to be taking out their targets (IRIS-T the other day went boom - was taken out by a sea based variant). We should probably consider getting some of those glorified systems going and to our allies as well. Ditto on the air defense side where we lag. While jet-planes are cool, pilotless systems are the future and that ranges from ML-enabled drones to faster arrows.
- izacus 1y ago
  Can you explain this "don't need" concept?
- richardw 1y ago
  Temporarily. At some point all the allies need world class kit. They just can’t buy it from the US exclusively. But they have committed to higher defence spending. That problem solves itself over time, especially when the world’s researchers are now looking for a safer home than under this administration. TL;DR: you don’t need a world class jet when you trust your partner 100%. Anything less than 100, collaborate fast to overcome the limitation.
- abletonlive 1y ago
  Insanely short sighted. If all you need to do is "intercept potential threats" instead of dealing with a real threat when it becomes apparent then just send a balloon.
daviding 1y ago
Up here in Canada it's a question of trust, or rather the lack of it. Things are unlikely to ever go back to the way things were. Buy, make and domestically develop drones, lots and lots of drones.
- samdoesnothing 1y ago
  Maybe if there was some political will for building stuff but there isn't. Canada should be an absolute AI and energy powerhouse, but our politicians are some of the most incompetent buffoons on the planet.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    I don't know enough about Canada to know if this is a reasonable take or not, but I think you'd get downvoted less if you took a few sentences to articulate what the politicians' main failings are.
    - samdoesnothing 1y ago
      That would take more than a few sentences, but in general there is a lack of willingness to build new infrastructure. Canada has endless opportunities to both export energy (and not just oil!) and use it domestically - we should be utilising this untapped potential to build datacenters and invest in AI companies and research. Instead we can't even build new houses or hospitals for our exploding population.
  - biglyburrito 1y ago
    Also, there's Alberta.
    - samdoesnothing 1y ago
      I wish Alberta would diversify their industry but at least they have the right idea re. building and expanding our energy exports.
- 1y ago
varispeed 1y ago
It's not the trade war, but the fact US administration is run by Russian assets. E.g. it's pure coincidence that few months into Trump's rule, Russia suddenly can overcome Patriot systems. Basically US industry is compromised and nobody with brain cells is going to buy American weapons any time soon.
- doublerabbit 1y ago
  I saw this too. America pretty much selling, giving away their near-deprecated toys.
- mnky9800n 1y ago
  Can you say where you read about Russia suddenly overcoming patriot systems
  - varispeed 1y ago
    https://www.twz.com/land/ukraines-patriots-now-struggling-with-enhanced-russian-ballistic-missiles https://www.twz.com/land/ukraines-patriots-now-struggling-wi...
- whatsupdog 1y ago
  [flagged]
- themafia 1y ago
  Perhaps Ukraine's military is not as good at keeping secrecy as the US would be against Russia. Maybe we don't need to invent entire international conspiracy theories to explain something this basic. Weapon systems have a shelf life. The longer they're deployed in the field the shorter that life is.
- hagbard_c 1y ago
  > the fact US administration is run by Russian assets. fact noun [ C or U ] UK /fækt/ US /fækt/ something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information Could you provide the proof for the current US administration being staffed by Russian assets? By proof I do not mean '...as seen on TV...' or '...as written in The Guardian...' or '...as said on MSBNC...' but proof: proof noun UK /pruːf/ US /pruːf/ proof noun (SHOWING TRUTH) a fact or piece of information that shows that something exists or is true If you can not produce such proof - which would be odd given that you proclaimed this to be a fact - I suggest you refrain from using such inflammatory terminology to keep the discourse from erupting into even more partisan hackery.
jfernandezr 1y ago
The article doesn't mention it, but there is an increasing worry that the USA could remotely disable some jet functionalities at will, or that any basic operation should be monitored and approved by them. So, this is not a reliable weapon that any country would like, unless the politicians agree to be vassals for life.
- 7jjjjjjj 1y ago
  Even if there isn't a literal kill switch, there might as well be. Without a constant stream of maintenence and operations support from the USA there things are no good.
  - scott_w 1y ago
    Yep, I think people arguing “there is no kill switch” miss this point. There doesn’t need to be if the lack of updates makes an F-35 an expensive, inferior version of a jet they could buy elsewhere!
    - antonymoose 1y ago
      Sure, but in any case the nations buying the F-35 are so tied at the hip to the United States it would be fantasy to expect them to break off in any meaningful timeframe relative to the lifespan of the plane. Beyond that, is there a viable competitor available for an US allied nation to purchase?
      - spwa4 1y ago
        Military procurement is not about what is the best system, it is about who gets the money. Plus every other party has far inferior fighters to "the West" anyway. And then you calculate ... you are not going to successfully defend against the F-35 in a war with the US. Not going to happen. Against Russia/China or anyone else ... every fighter jet will do fine, so take the cheapest. The US got guaranteed this business because of international treaties ... which Trump has abandoned. But no worries, I'm sure he'll just make a "deal" and fix things again, right? Meanwhile I suggest you invest in EU weapons manufacturers, who are a lot cheaper than the US ones.
Bratmon 1y ago
The irony is that if the countries that pull out of the F-35 program buy jets that actually function instead (and aren't just a $2 trillion piece of scrap metal), this trade war might be what saves democracy.
- mrweasel 1y ago
  That's just not what's happening, at least for some of the countries. Spain is rejecting the F-35 for the EuroFigther (which is the plane they already operate) and Tempest (which doesn't exists yet). So in that case it's not that they are buying jets from competitors, they just aren't buying anything. In this case it feels much more like the Spanish government not really wanting to spend the money, or can't afford it, and Trump is just a convenient scapegoat.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    Why would you transact with a country for defense infrastructure that will use force against you whenever they deem it necessary for leverage and power in a transaction? Better to replan and retool for sovereignty even if it means you lack some capability in the near term.
- mpyne 1y ago
  F-35 functions fine, lots of its problems relate to things like its logistical tail and associated IT system pain points that you'd have to solve with a different plane than F-35 either way, but I can't argue against the fact that a lot of countries are having to wake up to the reality of meeting their defense needs in much different ways than you'd have thought in 2015.
  - Bratmon 1y ago
    Note that this is an example of what F-35 project managers consider to be "functioning fine": https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/27/us/alaska-f-35-crash-accident-report-hnk-ml https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/27/us/alaska-f-35-crash-accident...
atoav 1y ago
In most European countries I have traveled to during the past months the popular opinion regarding the US is that we have to operate under the worst-case-assumption that the US won't assist or would even actively use their tech as leverage in the case of a conflict. That was unthinkable a year ago, but it is now. Given that it is probably better to roll your own in the mid/long term and not rely overly on US tech.
- cm2187 1y ago
  Though technically France always worked on that assumption. Or rather, that the US would support France against a soviet invasion up to a certain level, but wouldn't risk a nuclear war for France's pretty eyes. Hence the will to have no other finger than the French president's finger on its red button. And to be honest that's the only way it can ever be. I don't understand France's talk about extending its nuclear deterence to the rest of Europe. Those european countries can no more rely on France than France can rely on the US in those extreme scenarios. Nuclear deterence is like the bee's sting. It will die if it uses it, but it's because you know it will use it that you tread carefully.
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    I think it's very simple. France hinted at placing its own nuclear bombers closer to the Russian border. That does not require that other European countries trust France. It's just France shifting its nuclear posture a bit more to the East.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      Does France have submarines with nuclear weapons? I’m not sure how much of a deterrent nuclear bombers are compared to ICBMs, but it’s better than not having them.
      - cm2187 1y ago
        My understanding is that jetfighters with nuclear weapons are meant to deliver an ultimate warning by nuking the invading army. ICBM are what comes next (unless the enemy went ICBM first). That being said this all assumed that Russia had a strong air-defence. The various strikes that Ukraine has been able to make on Russian territory seems to have challenged that idea. I don't know how confident Putin feels he could block such attack, so that adds to the dissuasion too. The thing with nukes is that it only takes one missile to go through.
jimnotgym 1y ago
I always thought Trump missed an important concept with his 'who pays for NATO' rhetoric. A huge amount of NATO spending from Europe was going to US arms companies, so the US benefited massively. Now the US is an unreliable ally, that money will go back into Europe. And even when Trump is gone, governments will still remember that their sovereignty can't depend on the whims of the US. This damage will last a generation. Personally I think this will be an eventual benefit for Europe, who seem quite capable of making advanced weapons when they have to.
- leoh 1y ago
  Sounds about right.
Animats 1y ago
It's a real issue. The overall world reaction to Trump's policies has been to take steps to do without the US. That's just getting rolling, but it's happening. Canada exports oil to China now.[1] China's trade with Asia is up, and trade with the US is down.[2] Supply chains are slowly changing to cut the US out of the loop. The US is seen as an unreliable trading partner. It's hitting software. "Dutch Parliament Calls for End to Reliance on US Software".[3] [1] https://www.ualberta.ca/en/china-institute/research/analysis-briefs/2025/tmx-oil.html https://www.ualberta.ca/en/china-institute/research/analysis... [2] https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/features/2025/canada-international-trade/ https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/features/2025/canada-interna... [3] https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2025-03-18/dutch-parliament-calls-for-end-to-reliance-on-us-software https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2025-03-18/d...
pointlessone 1y ago
It’s not about trade. Trump and his administration pulled Ukraine aid on multiple occasions. They halted intelligence sharing for like a day and a half and that let Russia retake Kursk region. Once a solid partner Trump turned USA into an unpredictable dependency that can change allegiance at a drop of a hat. And "the best weapons” USA sells are best not because of hardware but because of the services that pull the hardware together. Patriots, F-35, even Abrams are all so good because they’re all networked and work together. If the service is cut it all become much more expensive and so much less usable than competition from Europe. So while technically Mirages, Grippens, Typhoons, and whatnot are a bit less advanced than F-35, now they seem much more reliable.
neilv 1y ago
[flagged]
noxer 1y ago
The article seems deliberately misleading for example the "F-5s, which the U.S. Air Force retired out of service in 1990" is of course still in use in the Navy and Marine as well as in China, South Korea, Iran, Brazil and probably other countries. Also the F-35 is an always was highly controversial in Switzerland from the very first day it was publicly considered that was around 2017. In 2020 the people voted in favor of the F-35 with 50.1% support. So the reality is that any and all reasons to stop or delay the purchase of these jets will be uses by the parties that opposed the purchase, it has little to nothing to do with the so called "trade war".
more_corn 1y ago
Super weird that our allies don’t want to do business with us after we enacted strong-arm trade war tactics. It’s almost like people will choose not to trade with a bully if they have the choice.
daft_pink 1y ago
the average american really couldn’t care less what plane other countries fly. but if you look at conflicts around the world recently, american weapons are absolutely annihilating russian and chinese weaponry. from Israel to India to Ukraine, US weapons are generally expensive, but well worth it. would you really want your soldiers to be fighting for their lives with anything other than the best?
tim333 1y ago
It's not just trade. It's a question of whose side the US president is on in a conflict with the world's main aggressor, Russia. I note there have been red carpets and clapping for Putin and a fair bit of aggression towards Zelensky there.

71 points by rntn 1y ago

taps the sign The F-35's Defining Characteristic Is Surviving Hostile Airspace Most nations don't need an F-35. They want to protect their own airspace, intercept potential threats and minimize the cost-per-mission for their operations. The sort of power projection afforded by a Joint Strike Fighter just isn't worth the cost to most nations - unless you're intent on molesting hostile airspace it's kinda a waste of taxpayer money. The existence of the F-35 is a byproduct of imperial ambition that few peer powers can match.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
n4r9 1y ago
Which aircraft models would be more suitable for European countries to give a deterrent against potential threats like Russia?
- bigyabai 1y ago
  The F-16 is cheap, attritable, highly available, and occupies a similar multirole mission profile as the F-35. It should be able to launch the same standoff munitions, albeit from a slightly further distance to avoid detection. It's likely they can be bought secondhand for ~1/10th the price of an F-35 and equipped with MBDA Meteor/IRIS missiles for a mean air patrol payload. More realistically though, I'd imagine many European nations are eying twin-engine multirole fighters like the Rafale and Eurofighter. These have a larger range and payload than the F-35, bigger radars and pylons and the all-important high top-speed (mach-2 intercepts are a must-have bordering Russia). These can be had cheaper than the F-35 and are generally better suited to a high intensity inland conflict.
  - maciejw 1y ago
    Thailand invested in Swedish Gripen recently.
- mrweasel 1y ago
  While I'd generally say that the F-35 is probably the best (one of the best) option for countries like my own (Denmark), who need/want a plane that can do a bit of everything, we also need to see what's happening in Ukraine. If you have a large country and can hide your airfields hundreds of kilometers from the front, the F-16, Rafale, EuroFigther and the F-35 are all fine, but you have more options with the F-35. If you're a small country, like the Baltics, or Denmark, they are a silly choices if you expect to fight a battle at home. You simply don't have anywhere to service the planes after missiles and drones take out your three airfield equipped for the F-35. In those cases the SAAB Gripen is a much better choice. You can service is straight of a highway with basic tools and conscripts. It's also a plane designed to fight Russia, so if that the enemy you expect, it's fine.
  - monkeyshelli 1y ago
    The Finnish Air force has nice videos on highway strip operation exercises with F-35A and Eurofighter Typhoon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fD6D4rjCPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fD6D4rjCPg
  - yyyk 1y ago
    >after missiles and drones take out your three airfield equipped It's not so simple to 'take out' an airfield. Actually it's very tough.
- xdennis 1y ago
  > Which aircraft models would be more suitable for European countries to give a deterrent against potential threats like Russia? Ironically, S300's from Russia. That's what Ukraine used to deny Russia air superiority. You can fight the orcs with orc weapons but you cannot fight them with American made airplanes because the US can stop support at any time.
toomuchtodo 1y ago
It’s kind of wild to watch the US squander its allies trust and therefore ability to project force globally as every other country that would’ve bought this weapons platform finds an alternative, leaving the US to shoulder the entire program cost burden. Who could’ve ever foreseen these consequences? /s
siliconc0w 1y ago
It also compromises your sovereignty since you cannot operate them without US assistance. These days that is a deal breaker.
- scott_w 1y ago
  I think this is the biggest factor. Comments about the USA potentially cutting access to software updates could have cooled interest. The UK is the only country that can operate F-35 semi-independently (our government bought the system to run our own updates). I’ve seen people point out that the F-35 is still better than anything else you could buy but an inferior jet is probably better than an F-35 with no targeting information!
scott_w 1y ago
I think you’re missing something huge: when you’re under attack, YOUR OWN AIRSPACE can become hostile if you don’t fight to gain air superiority. NATO doctrine prioritises air superiority for good reason.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  No number of stealth planes will help you regain the advantage in that scenario if your ground assets can't support them. If your own airspace is hostile and your ground radars/SAM systems are disabled, then your CAP/supremacy mission has already failed.
  - scott_w 1y ago
    The two aren’t separate. If your jets can’t defend your ground assets then they’re likely to go boom. One way you can do this is to send your jets into enemy airspace and make their ground assets go boom, forcing them to keep jets in their own territory to stop that.
    - cpursley 1y ago
      How can a jet protect ground assets in the age of hypersonic weapons systems and drones? Anyways, isn't that the job of ground air defense?
      - stoltzmann 1y ago
        By for example destroying the enemy launch platforms. By intercepting enemy flights that would deploy those weapons. And specifically in case of F-35s, also by providing ELINT. "Hypersonic" weapons used in current conflicts are nothing more than a glorified long range missiles that are useless if you can't launch them from the air. They're also currently statistically not significant due to their low amounts.
        cpursley 1y ago
        They seem to be taking out their targets (IRIS-T the other day went boom - was taken out by a sea based variant). We should probably consider getting some of those glorified systems going and to our allies as well. Ditto on the air defense side where we lag. While jet-planes are cool, pilotless systems are the future and that ranges from ML-enabled drones to faster arrows.
izacus 1y ago
Can you explain this "don't need" concept?
richardw 1y ago
Temporarily. At some point all the allies need world class kit. They just can’t buy it from the US exclusively. But they have committed to higher defence spending. That problem solves itself over time, especially when the world’s researchers are now looking for a safer home than under this administration. TL;DR: you don’t need a world class jet when you trust your partner 100%. Anything less than 100, collaborate fast to overcome the limitation.
abletonlive 1y ago
Insanely short sighted. If all you need to do is "intercept potential threats" instead of dealing with a real threat when it becomes apparent then just send a balloon.

daviding 1y ago

Up here in Canada it's a question of trust, or rather the lack of it. Things are unlikely to ever go back to the way things were. Buy, make and domestically develop drones, lots and lots of drones.

samdoesnothing 1y ago
Maybe if there was some political will for building stuff but there isn't. Canada should be an absolute AI and energy powerhouse, but our politicians are some of the most incompetent buffoons on the planet.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  I don't know enough about Canada to know if this is a reasonable take or not, but I think you'd get downvoted less if you took a few sentences to articulate what the politicians' main failings are.
  - samdoesnothing 1y ago
    That would take more than a few sentences, but in general there is a lack of willingness to build new infrastructure. Canada has endless opportunities to both export energy (and not just oil!) and use it domestically - we should be utilising this untapped potential to build datacenters and invest in AI companies and research. Instead we can't even build new houses or hospitals for our exploding population.
- biglyburrito 1y ago
  Also, there's Alberta.
  - samdoesnothing 1y ago
    I wish Alberta would diversify their industry but at least they have the right idea re. building and expanding our energy exports.
1y ago

varispeed 1y ago

It's not the trade war, but the fact US administration is run by Russian assets. E.g. it's pure coincidence that few months into Trump's rule, Russia suddenly can overcome Patriot systems. Basically US industry is compromised and nobody with brain cells is going to buy American weapons any time soon.

doublerabbit 1y ago
I saw this too. America pretty much selling, giving away their near-deprecated toys.
mnky9800n 1y ago
Can you say where you read about Russia suddenly overcoming patriot systems
- varispeed 1y ago
  https://www.twz.com/land/ukraines-patriots-now-struggling-with-enhanced-russian-ballistic-missiles https://www.twz.com/land/ukraines-patriots-now-struggling-wi...
whatsupdog 1y ago
[flagged]
themafia 1y ago
Perhaps Ukraine's military is not as good at keeping secrecy as the US would be against Russia. Maybe we don't need to invent entire international conspiracy theories to explain something this basic. Weapon systems have a shelf life. The longer they're deployed in the field the shorter that life is.
hagbard_c 1y ago
> the fact US administration is run by Russian assets. fact noun [ C or U ] UK /fækt/ US /fækt/ something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information Could you provide the proof for the current US administration being staffed by Russian assets? By proof I do not mean '...as seen on TV...' or '...as written in The Guardian...' or '...as said on MSBNC...' but proof: proof noun UK /pruːf/ US /pruːf/ proof noun (SHOWING TRUTH) a fact or piece of information that shows that something exists or is true If you can not produce such proof - which would be odd given that you proclaimed this to be a fact - I suggest you refrain from using such inflammatory terminology to keep the discourse from erupting into even more partisan hackery.

jfernandezr 1y ago

The article doesn't mention it, but there is an increasing worry that the USA could remotely disable some jet functionalities at will, or that any basic operation should be monitored and approved by them. So, this is not a reliable weapon that any country would like, unless the politicians agree to be vassals for life.

7jjjjjjj 1y ago
Even if there isn't a literal kill switch, there might as well be. Without a constant stream of maintenence and operations support from the USA there things are no good.
- scott_w 1y ago
  Yep, I think people arguing “there is no kill switch” miss this point. There doesn’t need to be if the lack of updates makes an F-35 an expensive, inferior version of a jet they could buy elsewhere!
  - antonymoose 1y ago
    Sure, but in any case the nations buying the F-35 are so tied at the hip to the United States it would be fantasy to expect them to break off in any meaningful timeframe relative to the lifespan of the plane. Beyond that, is there a viable competitor available for an US allied nation to purchase?
    - spwa4 1y ago
      Military procurement is not about what is the best system, it is about who gets the money. Plus every other party has far inferior fighters to "the West" anyway. And then you calculate ... you are not going to successfully defend against the F-35 in a war with the US. Not going to happen. Against Russia/China or anyone else ... every fighter jet will do fine, so take the cheapest. The US got guaranteed this business because of international treaties ... which Trump has abandoned. But no worries, I'm sure he'll just make a "deal" and fix things again, right? Meanwhile I suggest you invest in EU weapons manufacturers, who are a lot cheaper than the US ones.

Bratmon 1y ago

The irony is that if the countries that pull out of the F-35 program buy jets that actually function instead (and aren't just a $2 trillion piece of scrap metal), this trade war might be what saves democracy.

mrweasel 1y ago
That's just not what's happening, at least for some of the countries. Spain is rejecting the F-35 for the EuroFigther (which is the plane they already operate) and Tempest (which doesn't exists yet). So in that case it's not that they are buying jets from competitors, they just aren't buying anything. In this case it feels much more like the Spanish government not really wanting to spend the money, or can't afford it, and Trump is just a convenient scapegoat.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  Why would you transact with a country for defense infrastructure that will use force against you whenever they deem it necessary for leverage and power in a transaction? Better to replan and retool for sovereignty even if it means you lack some capability in the near term.
mpyne 1y ago
F-35 functions fine, lots of its problems relate to things like its logistical tail and associated IT system pain points that you'd have to solve with a different plane than F-35 either way, but I can't argue against the fact that a lot of countries are having to wake up to the reality of meeting their defense needs in much different ways than you'd have thought in 2015.
- Bratmon 1y ago
  Note that this is an example of what F-35 project managers consider to be "functioning fine": https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/27/us/alaska-f-35-crash-accident-report-hnk-ml https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/27/us/alaska-f-35-crash-accident...

atoav 1y ago

In most European countries I have traveled to during the past months the popular opinion regarding the US is that we have to operate under the worst-case-assumption that the US won't assist or would even actively use their tech as leverage in the case of a conflict. That was unthinkable a year ago, but it is now. Given that it is probably better to roll your own in the mid/long term and not rely overly on US tech.

cm2187 1y ago
Though technically France always worked on that assumption. Or rather, that the US would support France against a soviet invasion up to a certain level, but wouldn't risk a nuclear war for France's pretty eyes. Hence the will to have no other finger than the French president's finger on its red button. And to be honest that's the only way it can ever be. I don't understand France's talk about extending its nuclear deterence to the rest of Europe. Those european countries can no more rely on France than France can rely on the US in those extreme scenarios. Nuclear deterence is like the bee's sting. It will die if it uses it, but it's because you know it will use it that you tread carefully.
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  I think it's very simple. France hinted at placing its own nuclear bombers closer to the Russian border. That does not require that other European countries trust France. It's just France shifting its nuclear posture a bit more to the East.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    Does France have submarines with nuclear weapons? I’m not sure how much of a deterrent nuclear bombers are compared to ICBMs, but it’s better than not having them.
    - cm2187 1y ago
      My understanding is that jetfighters with nuclear weapons are meant to deliver an ultimate warning by nuking the invading army. ICBM are what comes next (unless the enemy went ICBM first). That being said this all assumed that Russia had a strong air-defence. The various strikes that Ukraine has been able to make on Russian territory seems to have challenged that idea. I don't know how confident Putin feels he could block such attack, so that adds to the dissuasion too. The thing with nukes is that it only takes one missile to go through.

jimnotgym 1y ago

I always thought Trump missed an important concept with his 'who pays for NATO' rhetoric. A huge amount of NATO spending from Europe was going to US arms companies, so the US benefited massively. Now the US is an unreliable ally, that money will go back into Europe. And even when Trump is gone, governments will still remember that their sovereignty can't depend on the whims of the US. This damage will last a generation. Personally I think this will be an eventual benefit for Europe, who seem quite capable of making advanced weapons when they have to.

leoh 1y ago
Sounds about right.

Animats 1y ago

It's a real issue. The overall world reaction to Trump's policies has been to take steps to do without the US. That's just getting rolling, but it's happening. Canada exports oil to China now.[1] China's trade with Asia is up, and trade with the US is down.[2] Supply chains are slowly changing to cut the US out of the loop. The US is seen as an unreliable trading partner. It's hitting software. "Dutch Parliament Calls for End to Reliance on US Software".[3] [1] https://www.ualberta.ca/en/china-institute/research/analysis-briefs/2025/tmx-oil.html https://www.ualberta.ca/en/china-institute/research/analysis... [2] https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/features/2025/canada-international-trade/ https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/features/2025/canada-interna... [3] https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2025-03-18/dutch-parliament-calls-for-end-to-reliance-on-us-software https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2025-03-18/d...

pointlessone 1y ago

It’s not about trade. Trump and his administration pulled Ukraine aid on multiple occasions. They halted intelligence sharing for like a day and a half and that let Russia retake Kursk region. Once a solid partner Trump turned USA into an unpredictable dependency that can change allegiance at a drop of a hat. And "the best weapons” USA sells are best not because of hardware but because of the services that pull the hardware together. Patriots, F-35, even Abrams are all so good because they’re all networked and work together. If the service is cut it all become much more expensive and so much less usable than competition from Europe. So while technically Mirages, Grippens, Typhoons, and whatnot are a bit less advanced than F-35, now they seem much more reliable.

neilv 1y ago

[flagged]

noxer 1y ago

The article seems deliberately misleading for example the "F-5s, which the U.S. Air Force retired out of service in 1990" is of course still in use in the Navy and Marine as well as in China, South Korea, Iran, Brazil and probably other countries. Also the F-35 is an always was highly controversial in Switzerland from the very first day it was publicly considered that was around 2017. In 2020 the people voted in favor of the F-35 with 50.1% support. So the reality is that any and all reasons to stop or delay the purchase of these jets will be uses by the parties that opposed the purchase, it has little to nothing to do with the so called "trade war".

more_corn 1y ago

Super weird that our allies don’t want to do business with us after we enacted strong-arm trade war tactics. It’s almost like people will choose not to trade with a bully if they have the choice.

daft_pink 1y ago

the average american really couldn’t care less what plane other countries fly. but if you look at conflicts around the world recently, american weapons are absolutely annihilating russian and chinese weaponry. from Israel to India to Ukraine, US weapons are generally expensive, but well worth it. would you really want your soldiers to be fighting for their lives with anything other than the best?

tim333 1y ago

It's not just trade. It's a question of whose side the US president is on in a conflict with the world's main aggressor, Russia. I note there have been red carpets and clapping for Putin and a fair bit of aggression towards Zelensky there.