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

1 hour ago, Yolando said:

 

 

 Boeing doesn't make the F35.  

Right. LHM does. No idea where I got that

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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. 

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"?

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

I think it's more likely a sop to those countries to make these purchases politically palatable.

It's more likely a course of action to at least provide some support an aviation industry in their country rather than having none at all.  Seems like their national security was a consideration.

16 hours 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.

 

No doubt Trump is doing considerable damage to this alliance. And don't discount what damage the alternative will be. There are calls to buy European at the moment. But just wait once all these national European firms clear the field for themselves. They'll turn on each other, as they usually do, because the Germans and the French will try to manipulate things solely for their benefit. Remember what the Germans did to exploit the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain) during the Sovereign Debt Crisis.

On 3/15/2025 at 8:11 AM, SpaceKadet said:

It's not about being behind or Portugal fighting battles. This is a real loss to the USA "Portugal aimed to invest €5.5 billion over the next 20 years to transition to this new generation of aircraft."

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/unpredictability-of-usa-portugal-rules-out-f-35-fighter-purchase/

 

When liberals get upset that billionaires and evil military industrial complex corporations lose out on billions in arms deals. 

14 hours ago, John Drake said:

 

No doubt Trump is doing considerable damage to this alliance. And don't discount what damage the alternative will be. There are calls to buy European at the moment. But just wait once all these national European firms clear the field for themselves. They'll turn on each other, as they usually do, because the Germans and the French will try to manipulate things solely for their benefit. Remember what the Germans did to exploit the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain) during the Sovereign Debt Crisis.

The real question is if the alliance is worth having.

IMO it's not.

I want the US to pack it's bags and go home, and leave the Euros to sort their own <deleted>.

The ordinary US citizen deserves better than spending all their money on overseas adventures.

Time for the US to stop being the world's ( unwanted ) policeman.

 

By all means have treaties to protect friends, but stop inventing wars to try and drag the west into all the time. Like the song says "we don't want your <deleted> war".

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The real question is if the alliance is worth having.

IMO it's not.

I want the US to pack it's bags and go home, and leave the Euros to sort their own <deleted>.

The ordinary US citizen deserves better than spending all their money on overseas adventures.

Time for the US to stop being the world's ( unwanted ) policeman.

 

By all means have treaties to protect friends, but stop inventing wars to try and drag the west into all the time. Like the song says "we don't want your <deleted> war".

Putin agrees with you. After all, he outlawed calling what is going on in Ukraine a war.

On 3/16/2025 at 10:42 PM, placeholder said:

No actual evidence of a kill switch has ever materialized.

Says it all

21 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Says it all

 No. This says it all:

 

"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."

 

But since you're the type  dishonorable person who truncates quotes in order to mislead, that says all we need to know about you.

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

But since you're the type  dishonorable person who truncates quotes in order to mislead, that says all we need to know about you.

Who cares what you speculate on.

 

No evidence of a kill swich has ever materialized. Your words. Your "but" only shows how deep your madness extends.

 

They didnt find green cheese on the moon. But.

 

50 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Who cares what you speculate on.

 

No evidence of a kill swich has ever materialized. Your words. Your "but" only shows how deep your madness extends.

 

They didnt find green cheese on the moon. But.

 

What truly shows my mind is the fact that I promptly acknowledged my error. In fact, I thanked Rough Diamond for the correction.

And, as the quote you truncated shows, the US can cripple any country's use of F-35s if it so chooses.

 

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

What truly shows my mind is the fact that I promptly acknowledged my error. In fact, I thanked Rough Diamond for the correction.

And, as the quote you truncated shows, the US can cripple any country's use of F-35s if it so chooses.

 

Yagoda never reads threads it just writes whatever it has decided it wants to write without any reference to the facts.

As you say  above you were very prompt in correcting your post and as you also said, and I agree, there are many ways the US can, in the longer term, disable any country's fleet of F35's.

1 minute ago, rough diamond said:

Yagoda never reads threads it just writes whatever it has decided it wants to write without any reference to the facts.

As you say  above you were very prompt in correcting your post and as you also said, and I agree, there are many ways the US can, in the longer term, disable any country's fleet of F35's.

Why are you always commenting on other posters?