The F-35 is losing the trade war

Do Countries Really Need the F-35?

• Several commenters argue most nations want cost-effective air defense and interception, not stealthy power projection into heavily defended airspace.
• Cheaper multirole jets (F‑16, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen) plus modern missiles are seen as more appropriate for many European states.
• For small, frontline countries (Baltics, Denmark), survivable dispersed basing (e.g., Gripen off highways) is viewed as more realistic than a few vulnerable F‑35 bases.
• Others counter that air superiority over your own territory often requires the ability to strike into enemy airspace, which favors something like the F‑35.

Jets vs Missiles, Drones, and Air Defense

• Debate over how much manned fighters matter in an era of drones, cruise missiles, and “hypersonic” weapons.
• One side: jets can’t stop massed rockets/FPV drones; ground-based air defense and long‑range fires matter more.
• Other side: fighters kill launch platforms, support bombers, and provide critical electronic intelligence; guided munitions alone are not enough.

Sovereignty, “Kill Switches,” and Software Dependence

• Strong concern that F‑35s are effectively “rented”: mission data, software updates, and some maintenance must come from the US.
• Even without a literal kill switch, cutting updates/support could degrade stealth, targeting, and networking, turning a premium jet into an inferior asset.
• Mission Data Files from US facilities are cited as a structural dependency.
• Some argue all modern high‑end systems create similar dependence; the real problem is the supplier becoming politically unreliable.

Erosion of Trust in the US as Supplier and Ally

• Multiple comments tie waning F‑35 interest to broader distrust of US reliability: Trump‑era trade wars, threats to NATO, Ukraine aid interruptions, and public rhetoric at European forums.
• View in parts of Europe/Canada: assume the US may not help in a crisis and may use tech as leverage; build your own or buy non‑US systems.
• Others say this outcome (Europe rearming and reducing dependency) is exactly what some in Washington wanted.
• A minority push more extreme claims (US leadership as “Russian assets”), which others challenge as unproven and conspiratorial.

Impact on Procurement and European Defense Industry

• Examples raised: Spain favoring Eurofighter and future Tempest; Swiss opposition to F‑35; Canada debates Gripen vs domestic options.
• Argument that lost F‑35 sales will redirect billions into European or non‑US fighters and drones, accelerating local capability and sovereignty.
• Several see this as strategically good for Europe but strategically shortsighted for the US arms industry.

F‑35 Capability vs Cost and Practicality

• Supporters: F‑35 is unmatched in stealth and sensor fusion; cheaper (unit cost) than many think; dominates exercises and can penetrate top‑tier air defenses.
• Critics: extremely high maintenance burden, complex logistics/IT systems, and limited sorties per day make it fragile in high‑intensity war or with disrupted supply chains.
• Disagreement remains on whether its advantages outweigh these operational and political risks, especially for smaller nations.