Buy, make and domestically develop drones, lots and lots of drones.
So the question becomes whether these countries truly want to move off of the platform, or if this is all more of a bargaining chip in the trade negotiations.
JD Vance pretty much single-handedly destroyed most trust in the US in with his speech at the Munich Security Conference. Europe (and probably Canada and Australia) were shaken for days after it and realized that the US is not a reliable ally (or even not an ally) anymore. This was confirmed by the disastrous meeting with Zelensky in the White House and the US stopping to provide intelligence to Ukraine and F-16 updates (F-16s which were provided by European countries, not the US).
The pathetic little show you saw at the White House last week (with Macron, Mertz, etc.) is just a strategy to appease the US as long as needed so that the Europe can speed up its own weapon's production, increase independence, etc. It's damage control. The reason countries have stopped buying the F-35 is because nobody trusts the US anymore. And one or two sane presidents are not going to fix it (the US elected Trump a second time after all).
Outsourcing your defense is stuupiiid.
Europe should be thanking Trump for waking them up to the reality that has always been the case through his boorish negotiation.
From an European perspective, the entire purpose of NATO from 1992 to 2022 was to prevent wasting too much money on defense. Because, for some reason, Americans were willing to do it instead.
Then Russia invaded Ukraine, and the calculus changed. Now European countries are rebuilding their defensive capabilities, while Russia is still bogged down in Ukraine. Given the lack of credible short-term threats, limiting defense spending was clearly the right choice until 2022.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pd...
Now that we are not allies anymore we need to wastefully build up our own command, space and air capabilties resulting in duplicated effort.
It's embarrassing for Europe that Ukraine is relying on the US instead of Europe
Europe has spent more on military aid to Ukraine than the US now.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-tr...
Even though the US vowed to protect Ukraine in the Budapest Memorandum.
It's embarrassing for Europe how little they contribute to NATO
Before Trump, non-US NATO spent 425 billion and the US 654 billion:
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pd...
So it’s true that Europe/Canada spent less, but it comes with a bit fat asterisk that the US also wants to project power in the pacific/Asia, whereas European defense is primarily focused on avoiding Russian aggression (+ peace missions + supporting the US in various operations to give them more legitimacy).
Europe should be thanking Trump for waking them up to the reality that has always been the case through his boorish negotiation.
That credit should go to Putin, European spending has grown rapidly since the annexation of crimea.
The credit the Trump should get: stop buying US weapons as quickly as we can and focus on non-US alternatives. It’s going to take a while, but US material has certainly become less attractive.
But yeah so far Trump has been relatively true to his word, as far as it goes. Not really practically but going further down the road of a dare I say fascist outlook. I think Europeans still can’t believe it’s happening, much less intentionally so.
Easy to deal with? We basically subsidize your entire existence. The fact that you can't understand this is exactly why this administration is doing this. We have too many problems at home to be daddy with a credit card.
At every level Europe is getting in the way of the US mindset of building and pushing forward. You "regulate" our tech companies, which let's be honest here, is a euphemism for extortion. You try to destroy moats that innovators have risked everything to build, not in the name of competition or an egalitarian society, because you believe that excellence is not worthy of being rewarded. Your culture has the mindset that excellence is not a product of hard work and determination, it's a product of luck and nepotism, so any hint of excellence gets taken away and diminished. It's a coping mechanism for your own lack at a society scale. Your people are snobby and literally think you're better than us while we pump trillions into your economies.
And what do you have to offer us? Tourist destinations and luxury goods? No thanks.
Without us it will quickly become apparent what your society is behind all of that exuberance and arrogance. Your right wing will become a problem again in decades and you will revert back to the endless wars with your neighbors in territorial disputes.
We have too many problems at home to be daddy with a credit card.
First, this is rich for a country living on borrowed money (that they can only get away with because the rest of the world uses it as the default currency).
Second, a lot of the problems of the US are caused by the lack of proper wealth redistribution, lack of efficient health care (no, the US doesn’t subsidize European healthcare, European countries spend far less on healthcare with better outcomes). It’s not solved by throwing lifelong allies under the bus and trading the for some dictator friends.
Finally, the security situation also arisen because the US did not want European militaries to become too powerful and has pushed a lot to be dependent on the US and US tech. For instance, countries have to buy US fighters for nuclear sharing, etc. The primary exception is France because they never wanted to be reliant and have their own nuclear force, etc.
Also let’s not forget Article 5 was only invoked once (by the US) and we were happy to help, because that’s what friends do. We have been in Afghanistan for over 20 years as a result and a lot of our soldiers died and were injured.
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.
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.
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
proof
noun
UK /pruːf/
US /pruːf/
proof noun (SHOWING TRUTH)
a fact or piece of information that shows that something
exists or is true
An administration acting as an asset would:
- Dismantle alliances (undermining military cooperation, trade disputes, questioning mutual defence).
- Give concessions without return (walking away from long-negotiated agreements, reducing deployments unilaterally).
- Sideline national security and intelligence professionals who oppose the adversary’s interests.
- Stoke domestic instability that distracts and weakens national unity.
When these patterns converge, you don’t need classified files to hear the smoke alarm. My point stands: U.S. weapons are a hard sell when its own foreign policy works against its strategic interests.
Btw. Your command of English is very good, comrade.
Beyond that, is there a viable competitor available for an US allied nation to purchase?
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.
Will it though? Underestimating your (potential) enemies might not be the smartest idea. Of course as the war in Ukraine has shown jet fighters might not even be that relevant anymore if you can't take our your opponents air defenses.
Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen. None are as good as the F35, but all are better alternatives to a bricked airplane.
Trump already demonstrated how even older models (F16 given by Europeans) can be bricked in Ukraine simply by not providing support.
Fictitious scenarios: let's say the US sells F35 to Taiwan. China tries to invade Taiwan. Taiwan wants to use the F35 to fight Chinese forces. China makes a deal with the US to limit the economic impact on the US of the invasion of Taiwan, and the US president of the time thinks maintaining a good trade relationship with China is more important than Taiwan remaining an independent democracy, and will therefore curb Taiwan's ability to use those F35. Not completely far fetched. Doesn't mean Taiwan has gone rogue.
The US tries to keep good relationship with Pakistan, while at the same time considering selling some weapons to India. You can imagine why India would prefer the older French Rafale (the French are much less demanding about what you do with their weapons, though there is the precedent of helping the UK with the Exocet it sold to Argentina during the Falklands war). The middle east is also full of those complex relationships.
Not available yet, but Korean KF-21 and Turkish Kaan/TF-X (which Spain is thinking about buying/co-producing IIRC), though they're both considered 4.5th gen fighter jets rather than 5th like the F-35.
US allied is a concept that is quickly losing its meaning. As the current administration no longer treats allies as allies, most European fighters are more viable
Second for the on-board radars to evade detection they need to be reprogrammed with the latest updates regularly. Not so much because the programming has a kill switch but because otherwise "adversaries" could still turn out to have rockets that can home in on an F-35.
And even in the case of the US, you don't have to shoot down that many F-35s to get them all.
Honestly, it's just absurd to think that any jet fighter is somehow low maintenance. The issue here isn't the f35, it's the host country becoming a unreliable/hostile partner.
And what if you look at the equivalent force it's competing with on the market? It's a bit pricey once you factor in CAS and supersonic interceptors to fill the gaps.
> The issue here isn't the f35, it's the host country becoming a unreliable/hostile partner.
Here? The issue is the F-35. What happened to Pakistan's F-16s when America became an unreliable/hostile partner to them? They kept flying them for decades, that's what happened. Same with Ukraine's Su-27s, Iran's F-14s, North Korea's MiG-29s... plenty of countries keep other nation's keepsakes in the air. The jet abides.
The F-35 has to be bought as a subscription package, you can't "own" features like sensor fusion without the US' consent. All but one nation has been denied the right to modify the airframe, everyone else is basically just renting the jet with permission to go eat an R-77T when the time comes.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/21/trump-boeing-stealt...
[2] https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2025-03-2...
The exact transcript is here:
[3] https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/transcript/donald-trump-...
All of these are in the top-10 first results when you search for this.
Of course it's also a quote from Trump, so who knows how much of it is from his random sentence generator. Although I'd guess he's quoting another official or someone from the defence industry.
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.
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.
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...
[2] https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/features/2025/canada-interna...
[3] https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2025-03-18/d...
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.
Don't forget to upvote if you comment, unless you want the post to be buried?
119. The F-35 is losing the trade war (jalopnik.com)
45 points by rntn 1 hour ago | unvote | flag | hide | 65 commentsAlso 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".
bigyabai•3h ago
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.
n4r9•3h ago
bigyabai•3h ago
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•3h ago
mrweasel•2h ago
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.
xdennis•2h ago
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•3h ago
Who could’ve ever foreseen these consequences? /s
siliconc0w•3h ago
scott_w•3h ago
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•3h ago
bigyabai•3h ago
scott_w•3h ago
cpursley•3h ago
stoltzmann•3h ago
"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•2h ago
bigyabai•3h ago
In any case, you're really just proving my point. Yes, an F-35 can "win" a conflict in a day by flying into enemy airspace undetected and bombing their presidential convoy. That's the sort of interventionist politicking that sickens everyone who isn't American or Israeli.
colinb•2h ago
I don't actually know enough to hold an informed opinion on the F35 and all this other war-porn [though my inner 10 year old thinks it is kinda technically cool] but the politics you bring forth are sickening to anyone who tries to remember /all/ the bad things, not just the ones done by people we don't like.
izacus•3h ago
richardw•3h ago
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•2h ago