Portugal nixes F35 order cos of trump

[LiamB80]

The first woman I ever felt comfortable enough with to let lick my butthole was from Portugal.

[SpaceKadet]

14 minutes ago, bubblegum said:

Clever Thailand going for the Swedish Gripen.

Thailand had 12 Gripens since 2011, well, 11 now since one splashed a few years ago, based in Surat Thani.

Excellent choice for a country like Thailand.

 

Such a beautiful aircraft! Russia, beware!

 

[Captain Flack]

Flame post removed, lets discuss the topic and not other posters.

[SLOWHAND225]

1 hour ago, Yolando said:

 

 

 Boeing doesn't make the F35.  

Right. LHM does. No idea where I got that

[SLOWHAND225]

3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Ask the Iranian Air Defense Commanders and the manufacturers of the Russian AD systems.

 

Ask the guys that fly them and the guys that work on them. 
The F22 is a better fighter all the way around.

 

 

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

If that's the case, and it's not a loss for America, I guess you believe that the balance of payments and the loss of US jobs doesn't matter. So why exactly is Trump imposing tariffs?

 

No, its not.
The  F35 program has been in trouble from day one, with any luck it will be phased out soon.
Jobs are a nothing burger, they'll still be working.

[SpaceKadet]

2 minutes ago, SLOWHAND225 said:

 

Ask the guys that fly them and the guys that work on them. 
The F22 is a better fighter all the way around.

 

 

 

No, its not.
The  F35 program has been in trouble from day one, with any luck it will be phased out soon.
Jobs are a nothing burger, they'll still be working.

I will tend to agree with you.

F-35 is a piece of Sh*t, but F-22 is much better aircraft and in the top 10 IMO.

[Yagoda]

4 minutes ago, SLOWHAND225 said:

Ask the guys that fly them and the guys that work on them. 
The F22 is a better fighter all the way around.

 

Well the F35 isnt a "Fighter" qua fighter its a weapons system. Of course the guys that flyF22s prefer them LOL. I wouldnt want to be on the receiving end of either.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, SLOWHAND225 said:

 

Ask the guys that fly them and the guys that work on them. 
The F22 is a better fighter all the way around.

 

 

 

No, its not.
The  F35 program has been in trouble from day one, with any luck it will be phased out soon.
Jobs are a nothing burger, they'll still be working.

Even if they'll still be working, what are the larger implications for the US arms industry? Why would former allies buy from a country that now treats them like they're adversaries? Disengagement is coming. It can't happen all at once but I don't see how anyone can rationally predict it won't happen.

[LosLobo]

The F-35 World Alliance includes the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Israel, and Singapore. While Lockheed Martin is the lead manufacturer, the F-35 programme is a multinational effort. Each participating country has secured contracts for local production of essential aircraft components, making it a globally integrated project rather than a solely U.S.-made fighter.
 

The F-35 project has been in motion for almost 25 years, with aircraft already delivered, in final assembly, or still in production. At this stage, cancelling an order would be a monumental catastrophe—not just for the purchasing country, but for the entire programme, especially the U.S. With so many nations tied into manufacturing contracts and supply chains, backing out now would cause economic, strategic, and industrial fallout across the board.
 

The total cost of the F-35 programme for just the Alliance, including procurement, maintenance, upgrades, and sustainment over its lifetime, is estimated to exceed $1.7 trillion—making it the most expensive defence programme in history. This underscores why no country can afford a sudden withdrawal without severe consequences.
.

The only real threat to the F-35 programme isn’t an enemy nation—it’s the very unstable 'stable genius'.

[placeholder]

28 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

The F-35 World Alliance includes the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Israel, and Singapore. While Lockheed Martin is the lead manufacturer, the F-35 programme is a multinational effort. Each participating country has secured contracts for local production of essential aircraft components, making it a globally integrated project rather than a solely U.S.-made fighter.
 

The F-35 project has been in motion for almost 25 years, with aircraft already delivered, in final assembly, or still in production. At this stage, cancelling an order would be a monumental catastrophe—not just for the purchasing country, but for the entire programme, especially the U.S. With so many nations tied into manufacturing contracts and supply chains, backing out now would cause economic, strategic, and industrial fallout across the board.
 

The total cost of the F-35 programme for just the Alliance, including procurement, maintenance, upgrades, and sustainment over its lifetime, is estimated to exceed $1.7 trillion—making it the most expensive defence programme in history. This underscores why no country can afford a sudden withdrawal without severe consequences.
.

The only real threat to the F-35 programme isn’t an enemy nation—it’s the very unstable 'stable genius'.

The thing is, it would be a greater disaster if these countries continued with the purchases only to have the US effectively brick them if it so chooses. And what percentage, by value, of the components are going to be manufactured outside of the USA?  Got any figures for that?  Might this not just be a case of throwing good money after bad?

And, it doesn't address the issue of why countries should purchase new weapons systems from the USA. Why would they expose themselves to that risk? Especially given that with Trump's imposition of tariffs, the economic stimulus  from buying weapons is best kept at home. 

[rough diamond]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The thing is, it would be a greater disaster if these countries continued with the purchases only to have the US effectively brick them if it so chooses.

What do you mean by "brick them"?

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, rough diamond said:

What do you mean by "brick them"?

Make them useless. These things come equipped with an awful lot of high advanced electronics. 

[LosLobo]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The thing is, it would be a greater disaster if these countries continued with the purchases only to have the US effectively brick them if it so chooses. And what percentage, by value, of the components are going to be manufactured outside of the USA?  Got any figures for that?  Might this not just be a case of throwing good money after bad?

And, it doesn't address the issue of why countries should purchase new weapons systems from the USA. Why would they expose themselves to that risk? Especially given that with Trump's imposition of tariffs, the economic stimulus  from buying weapons is best kept at home. 

Around 25–30% of the F-35's total value is produced outside the U.S., with components sourced from the partner countries. The U.S. is still the dominant player, but nations like the UK, Italy, and Japan play a key role in providing critical parts such as wings, fuselages, and avionics.

The U.S. couldn’t do it alone, not without serious delays or costs ballooning beyond what’s manageable.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, SpaceKadet said:

Thailand had 12 Gripens since 2011, well, 11 now since one splashed a few years ago, based in Surat Thani.

Excellent choice for a country like Thailand.

 

Such a beautiful aircraft! Russia, beware!

 

It is also cheaper to buy, far cheaper to use per flying hour, needs far less maintenance and is not reliant on fixed airbases which are vulnerable in a war situation. Spares are cheaper and it cannot be "switched off" by the USA.

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Around 25–30% of the F-35's total value is produced outside the U.S., with components sourced from the partner countries. The U.S. is still the dominant player, but nations like the UK, Italy, and Japan play a key role in providing critical parts such as wings, fuselages, and avionics.

The U.S. couldn’t do it alone, not without serious delays or costs ballooning beyond what’s manageable.

This approach saves money? Really? It's not like these countries are developing nations where costs should be lower. I think it's more likely a sop to those countries to make these purchases politically palatable.

[rough diamond]

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Make them useless. These things come equipped with an awful lot of high advanced electronics. 

How?

Have you fallen for the tin foil hat brigade mantra that the US can "flick a switch" and kill all F35s"?

It is just that until such time as you get a quote from a previous president or SEC DEF etc to confirm it and how it would work. 

No way such a so called "kill switch" exists. 

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, rough diamond said:

How?

Have you fallen for the tin foil hat brigade mantra that the US can "flick a switch" and kill all F35s"?

It is just that until such time as you get a quote from a previous president or SEC DEF etc to confirm it and how it would work. 

No way such a so called "kill switch" exists. 

Thanks for the correction. Still, there's this:

No actual evidence of a kill switch has ever materialized. But the U.S. could almost as easily degrade others' F-35s by withholding spare parts, canceling services, and blocking software updates delivered by U.S. cloud-based software systems.

https://www.defenseone.com/business/2025/03/trumps-anti-nato-turn-could-sink-f-35-sales/403720/#:~:text=No actual evidence of a,U.S. cloud-based software systems.

[candide]

24 minutes ago, rough diamond said:

How?

Have you fallen for the tin foil hat brigade mantra that the US can "flick a switch" and kill all F35s"?

It is just that until such time as you get a quote from a previous president or SEC DEF etc to confirm it and how it would work. 

No way such a so called "kill switch" exists. 

The kill switch is an extreme scenario.

 

There are several other ways which can be used to degrade the performance of the F-35, as explained in this article.

https://theaviationist.com/2025/03/10/f-35-kill-switch-myth/

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, Skunkfarben said:

 

5.5 billion € is nothing. Over ten years is bigger nothing. I'm sure Trump not sleeping all night

Tech is advancing so fast it's likely the planes will be obsolete by the time they are built. Perhaps they'll even be pilotless in the not so distant future, flown like drones from far away.

 

They might do better investing in an improved defense missile system than planes.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, SLOWHAND225 said:

No, its not.
The  F35 program has been in trouble from day one, with any luck it will be phased out soon.
Jobs are a nothing burger, they'll still be working.

Seems to me it's a case of politicians getting involved with armaments which they know zero about.

Reminds me of when NZ made a political decision to replace the M16 with a piece of junk because the Aussies were making them on license. Took years before they got rid of the junk and went back to the US rifle.

[ukrules]

Portugal doesn't need billions worth of fighter jets anyway.

I really wonder why these dumb governments spend so much on this worthless crap which they will never get to use.

Kind of like wanting submarines when you don't have a ready to go nuclear arsenal to hide or at least make it look like you have it.