The F-35 is losing the trade war
jalopnik.com
jalopnik.com
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.
How many J-35s does China have?
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.
One of the design variants of the F-35 is designed to penetrate air support, no?
That means enough propellor powered cruise missiles to guarantee US air defense penetration is (a lot) cheaper than ONE F-35 (and they can still go ~500km/h), jet-powered ones cheaper than 2, maybe 3 and that's not counting equipping the F-35 with something to shoot, and of course there's the suspicions that F-35s have kill switches that Trump half-confirmed (yet another brilliant move there, Mr. Orange President).
How many of those interceptor rockets are available to be loaded into actual equipment in less than the 6 hours it takes jet powered cruise missiles to reach the US? I don't know, but let's go with 10%. In other words: the defense that Israel mounted against Iran is pretty much same effective defense the US would have if Russia started ... The US wouldn't be able to shoot down more of those, even if Russia had 100x more rockets than Iran.
Oh you want to shoot them down using bullets? Ok, halfway we have those cruise missiles switch to a ballistic trajectory. At that point it will be difficult to shoot them down, but that's not really the point. They're ballistic, and the problem with ballistic rockets is that they're like an (explosive) rock. You can shoot it ... but that only causes momentum exchange ... it doesn't actually give the rocket a different trajectory. In other words: it'll still hit it's target, just with less accuracy (and if the guidance remains intact, not even that). You have to hit it hard enough to get it to break up, which means rockets, which the US doesn't have enough of. Which nobody has enough of.
(this is a theme that will come up often once hamas or hezbollah start firing rockets at Israel again. The new laser interceptors have to hit the rockets BEFORE they're ballistic, in other words, what they do is make hamas fired rockets hit Gaza or South Lebanon ... Guess who will be blamed for intercepted rockets hitting houses, hospitals and kindergartens in Gaza and Lebanon?)
Guided munitions are a piece of the puzzle but I don’t think we’ve seen evidence that they can fully replace the ability to point to something on a map, fly planes over and make that thing not be on the map any more.
Wasn't it because the only optional they had if they wanted to do any damage was the GBU-57 (which probably wasn't close to being enough but still..)?
Cruise missiles are offer pretty decent precision for ground targets (supposedly around 5 meters).
The thing is, we can sit here on HN thinking we’re so clever but ACTUAL MILITARY LEADERS want to use F-35s so they clearly have insight and knowledge that we don’t.
Historically they are rarely very good at being able to tell how the next war is going to be fought.
Sure I suppose most generals these days are much smarter than the ones leading the French army back in 1940 (or pretty much anyone at the outbreak of WW1) but that's a very low standard..
Is the fact they aren't good at knowing how the next war will be fought because they're bad at it or because that's a hard problem?
Put more specifically: if you were to fight that next war, do you think you'd do a better job than Admiral Sir Tony Radakin or General Randy George?
Sometimes either, sometimes both. Historically it wasn't uncommon for mean who were exceptionally incompetent and ill suited to the position to end up leading the militaries of major powers (e.g. Gamelin, Cadorna, Fredendall and plenty of others)
Whether I would do a better job [obviously I wouldn't] seems entirely tangential and a pointless argument in general (especially considering I didn't even make any particularly strong claims. I certainly never claimed that the F35 is not the best fighter jet that's available currently).
Regardless decisions related to things like this are not made by individuals and are usually highly political, based on compromises and several decades in advance.
This was the precursor to the statement you objected to. It seems pretty central to my point: we only have access to public data and have no experience leading any military campaign. I’m willing to have a discussion to learn more but I’m ultimately going to trust that military people are looking at drone warfare in Ukraine and still trust the F-35 to be good value for money.
> based on compromises and several decades in advance.
Using drones in war has been a theoretical possibility since at least 2010, so I believe it’s definitely factored into their thinking.
Well.. I trust they wouldn't be telling us even if they didn't.
NATO doctrine is to start by controlling the skies. I can see a world where a lot of the strategies we see start to crumble when a jet or bomber can pick off key targets at will on and off the battlefield.
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
As I and others point out: the problem is if you do something Trump doesn’t like and he cuts off the extra features that make the F-35 better than anything else you can get. At that point you just paid millions for an expensive paperweight.
The F-35 is the only genuinely stealthy aircraft any country outside the USA has access to (other than China, and the efficacy of its stealth technology isn't known). F-35 stealth is a game changer, as seen in every exercise in which they're involved.
It’s hard to know for sure, though. The only true information we’ll get is when it’s used in a hot war and hints if or when countries reduce orders.
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.
Consider for example when one of the radar elements in the f35 burns out, among the thousands that are there. Where in Pakistan does on obtain custom GaN radar ASICs that integrate with the f35?
One strong reason why Germany got a batch of F-35 instead of the very capable and EU manufactured Typhoon is the fact that the F-35 is certified to carry nuclear bombs, and the Typhoon need certification for this particular mission capability. (The ordonance in this case is US tech).
Source: Luftwaffe
[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.
It's surprising any were sold outside the US at all.
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2023/01/20/bae-systems-receive...
Buy, make and domestically develop drones, lots and lots of drones.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-accused-of-axing-avr...
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.
And I bet a significant proportion of that 425 billion was spent on US weapons. I wonder if anyone has that number
Is it? Especially in 2025.
It is embarrassing how little of (very old) heavy equipment USA provided to Ukraine. North Macedonia provided same amount of main battle tanks as USA, Poland provided ten times more. And zero fighter jets.
Anyway, people of Ukraine are thankful for any support and USA was the biggest donor during first years of the war.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t think France would ever strike first with nukes, even against Russia invading France itself. Conventional munitions and bombs are justifiable, but I can’t see France nuking any EU country that is being invaded by Russia or anyone else, even as a last resort. There’s nothing to gain militarily by doing so, and it would only give their enemies justification to escalate.
I honestly don’t know much about French nuclear doctrine and policy, so I would be happy to be corrected or pointed in the right direction.
Nuclear weapons as an ultimate warning is the doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol_moyenne_port%C3%A9e
Whether it would be followed in practice is anyone's guess. But place yourself in the shoes of the invading country. You are basically facing the same question. Would France ultimately use nuclear weapons? You may think that they will likely not. But if they do, that's a path to having your cities and basically your civilisation wiped out. So at what percentage probability are you still happy to try your luck at invading France? Unless you are a Hitler or Stalin, who were happy to spend tens of millions of their own population without a second thought, there is no scenario where a rational leader will be taking that risk. And therefore deterence is achieved.
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...
It's only known to function fine when your supply chains are not under attack.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/27/us/alaska-f-35-crash-accident...
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/27/us/alaska-f-35-crash-accident...
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.
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.
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.
It's not so simple to 'take out' an airfield. Actually it's very tough.
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.
Who could’ve ever foreseen these consequences? /s
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!
"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.
EDIT: replaced “boomers” with “bombers.” Not sure my grandmother is going to be blowing up much materiel…
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.
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.
It makes things much easier and you can project much further than with artillery. Just ask Iran.
> and you most definitely can't rely on a jet to defend against rocket artillery or FPV drones.
You don’t need to. You use them to make the guns and pilots go boom.
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.
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.
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.
I note there have been red carpets and clapping for Putin and a fair bit of aggression towards Zelensky there.
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".
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?