Allies Cancel Orders of F-35s, the Fighter Jets That Will Cost $2 Trillion
The U.S., in turn, should cancel the F-35 program altogether.

So far, President Donald Trump's second term in office has been characterized by antagonism to allied nations. In just two months, Trump has shown hostility to the NATO defense alliance while gleefully pursuing a trade war against Canada and Mexico by imposing double-digit tariffs on the two largest purchasers of U.S. goods for specious reasons only to then agree to a pause, before repeating the cycle all over again.
One side effect of Trump's brash, undiplomatic attitude is that some allied nations may back out of purchasing F-35 fighter jets from the U.S., the latest indignity in a program that has infamously become a years-long boondoggle.
"The F-35 Lightning II aircraft (F-35) is the Department of Defense's (DOD) most ambitious and costly weapon system and its most advanced fighter aircraft," according to an April 2024 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). "However, DOD's projected costs for sustaining the F-35 continue to increase while planned use of the aircraft declines." While the DOD plans to keep the jet in service through 2088, it estimates the cost to do so at $2 trillion.
The department has little to show for the exorbitant price tag. "DOD plans to fly the F-35 less than originally estimated, partly because of reliability issues with the aircraft," GAO found. "The F-35's ability to perform its mission has also trended downward over the past 5 years."
In September 2018, the jet entered its initial testing phase, expected to last a year. In November 2019, a DOD assessment extended the testing period another year due to the sheer amount of problems it had found. "Although the program office is working to fix deficiencies, new discoveries are still being made, resulting in only a minor decrease in the overall number," the report found.
Among the jet's issues were "unacceptable" accuracy in its mounted gun and 873 separate software problems, 13 of which were classified "must-fix" issues "that affect safety or combat capability."
Yet despite the F-35's questionable track record and ballooning taxpayer-funded price tag, some allied nations agreed to buy them. In 2023, Canada agreed to purchase 88 F-35s for $19 billion after previously pledging not to. In April 2024, the Portuguese Air Force chief of staff said his country would transition from the F-16 to the F-35 in a process estimated to cost 5.5 billion euros ($6 billion).
That all appears to be changing. "Portugal is getting cold feet about replacing its U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets with more modern F-35s because of Donald Trump," Politico reported last week.
"The recent position of the United States, in the context of NATO," Defense Minister Nuno Melo told Portuguese media, "must make us think about the best options, because the predictability of our allies is a greater asset to take into account."
Over the weekend, the CBC reported Canada may follow suit: Defense Minister Bill Blair said his country was "examining other alternatives" to F-35s.
And it may not stop there. "Trump's calls to seize Greenland from Denmark and turn Canada into America's 51st state pose a 'real challenge' for the program," Audrey Decker of DefenseOne wrote last week, citing a former defense official, "as both countries fly the fifth-generation combat jet and rely on U.S. spare parts and software upgrades."
The U.S. could "degrade" allies' F-35s, Decker added, "by withholding spare parts, canceling services, and blocking software updates delivered by U.S. cloud-based software systems."
Last week, the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland called for the country's defense department "to stop the F-35 procurement immediately."
In May 2023, U.S. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told reporters the government saw the F-35 as a learning experience for how not to make the same mistakes on future projects—though in a perfect example of the sunk cost fallacy, the government continued funding it.
Indeed, canceling the F-35 program would not recoup the money already lost—which the November 2019 DOD report estimated at $428 billion—but it could prevent the government from continuing to throw good money after bad.
Incidentally, one prominent critic of the F-35 program is Elon Musk, who now nominally runs the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). "Some US weapons systems are good, albeit overpriced," Musk posted on X in November 2024, "but please, in the name of all that is holy, let us stop the worst military value for money in history that is the F-35 program!"
"Manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones anyway," Musk added. "Will just get pilots killed."
So far, Musk has not addressed the F-35 in his capacity as government cost-cutter—indeed, Canada's National Post reported last month that the nation's Department of National Defense "continues to have confidence in the F-35 program" and did not fear any DOGE cuts.
But one potential benefit of Trump's chaotic public statements and antagonism of America's allies could be that it gives us a perfect excuse to finally kill the F-35, a project that has gone significantly over budget with little to show for it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Looks like arrogant loudmouth genocidal Zionist Trump is “Making the world great again” as it excludes America.
Why do you keep going full nazi?
Zionists not Nazis are on trial for committing genocide in Gaza with international arrest warrants for their leader for war crimes.
Why do you keep going full Zionist Jew?
“on trial” lol
Refuted
Your Gaza "genocide" is a lie, and you know it's a lie.
Stupid Nazi clown.
He’s likes to pretend he likes brown people.
Imagine being so evil and retarded you think "Zionist Jew" is some sort of insult. It's like he thinks he's talking to Salafists and Nazis.
Calling a Zionist Jew a Nazi is an insult to Nazis.
Jew, if you use the term antisemitic in public today, and forever after, you’ll be laughed at. Hahaha
The facts are that the International Criminal Court as issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu for war crimes. He has forever joined that rogues gallery.
He and Trump are best buddies planning to build resorts on the bodies of the Palestinian victims of the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
The Genocide that the United Nations International Court of Justice is holding Israel on trial for.
With the following 34 nations agreeing with South Africa that Israel is committing genocide.
These are the nations opposing the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
14 nations that have formally joined the case against Israel
South Africa
Bolivia
Maldives
Chile
Türkiye
Spain
Palestine
Mexico
Libya
Columbia
Nicaragua
Ireland
Egypt
Cuba
20 nations that have declared their intention to support the case against Israel
Belgium
Algeria
Bangladesh
Brazil
China
Comoros
Djibouti
Indonesia
Iraq
Jordan
Lebanon
Malaysia
Namibia
Pakistan
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Slovenia
Syria
Venezuela
Zimbabwe
Fuck off and die, Nazi scumbag.
Get back on your meds, Sevo. Take your meds.
Fuck off and die, fellow Nazi shit.
Refuted. Only nazis support the current ICC.
And you consider your response logical, Jesse? Try to come up with something cogent please. Hugz.
Fuck off and die, Nazi shitbag.
Refuted.
She thinks it's edgy.
Which do you hate more, Rob? The Jews or the MAGAs?
I need you to seriously answer so I can sew the patch on your white robe.
No need, she has sewing experience from being needled so often.
its occurred to me that he might be an Islamist.
Trump is not a Zionist, and using "Zionist" as a slur is hateful antisemitism.
Jew, if you use the term antisemitic in public today, and forever after, you’ll be laughed at. Hahaha
So which anti Jew hate group are you associated with?
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?
Are you asking what group recognizes that Israel funded, and coordinated October 7 and is committing a genocide, aka holocaust, in Gaza, and that Israel’s leader has international warrants for his arrest for war crimes?
Read my lips, the “public”.
Hahaha
Read my lips:
Fuck off and die, Nazi shitbag.
So which anti Jew hate group are you associated with? It’s really the only thing I want to know about you. Not even reading all your other bullshit. No one does.
I’m pleased with the optics
Fuck off bigot. Hahaha
You’re scared to say, I knew you were a gutless pussy, and a coward. You don’t dare say anything about yourself, because you’re ashamed.
You have a lot to hide Misek. So crawl back under your rock.
What’s with all the hasbara in these comments? No one likes Zionism. Literally no one.
You call someone dumb, he asked you which group YOU are apart of. Geez too dumb to read too
He’s borderline literate at best. Could be an Islamist.
Those might just be DOGE cuts, since the US has committed to provide a significant portion of the purchase price for the planes involved in a number of those foreign sales deals. Many of those countries can't afford better than 1970s tech on their own budgets, and rely on the US Military to provide the security for their borders anyway.
Sounds like a great business opportunity for all nations excluding America to strengthen their own economies and infrastructure to reinforce ties between nations with a common antagonist.
Trumps version of MAGA is to be a loudmouth genocidal Zionist bully of a new world order.
It’s looking more like the world will be moving forward without genocidal Zionists or their advocates.
What the fuck are you on about now?
Most developed nations would have their economies devastated by cutting ties to the USA, because the trade deficits we have with every trading partner we have subsidize their economies in ways which they'd never be able (individually or collectively) to replace.
It would sting us badly initially, but within a decade, the result of being "isolated" would force the US to actually cultivate our own domestic resources to the point of becoming a truly independent superpower, possibly including an actual conquest of Canada, Mexico, and Cuba as a means to truly make the Oceans our "armor".
Then, if Europe allowed the genocide you want (the Islamist Arab world exterminating all of the Jews in the Middle East) instead of the one you imagine (committed against a fabricated minority "nationality" of Arabs who adopted a name invented by Romans making reference to Greeks), and the Iranian theocracy actually established the foundation of their "Caliphate" (a move which would quickly be followed up by the "cleansing" of any remaining Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, and other non-Muslim, non-Arab people from the region), They'd be forced with the choice to either re-engage with the USA for help in opposing such a force, or begging Putin for protection from his Iranian allies in exchange for increased subservience to the dictators who provide the energy resources they're unable to function without.
What fantasy are you talking about?
Israel is really on trial in the UNITED NATIONS International Court of Justice for committing genocide in Gaza.
This is something Israel, the US and many western nations have sworn to oppose. They are lying waste of skin Zionist genocide advocates.
NOBODY is on trial anywhere for committing genocide against any Jews.
The jurisdiction of the court in question isn't actually acknowledged by the US, Israel, China, Libya, Quatar, or Yemen.
The whole premise of the charges was predicated on decades of "defining down" genocide to the point where, if it were applied to German occupied Europe in the 1940's even a fractional thinker like yourself would have to acknowledge that genocide happened during WW2 because undisputed occurrances such as Kristallnacht and the clearing of the Warsaw Ghetto would on their own constitute a Genocide if there had never been a single concentration camp established anywhere within the Reich.
Then there's the fact that you equate the initiation of a trial and issuance of warrants as equivalent to a conviction. It's well established from your totalitarian idea of "criminalizing lies" that you've got no use for due process, but your imagination in that regard doesn't make it so any more than your fantasy that imbuing the State with immense power would somehow produce an inherent "check" on abuse of that power by those in office.
I wouldn't dispute that what it appears that Netanyahu is currently trying to accomplish in Gaza would constitute "ethnic cleansing", but from his point of view, since he stood accused of Genocide before initiating it, I could see how he would see it as a move with virtually no marginal cost since it would at most amount to actually doing a lesser version of what he's already been accused (and in many political circles proven "guilty" by virtue of that accusation) of doing, so why not at least actually get something which he personally values in exchange for whatever the eventual cost might be.
I'm not looking forward to it, and I hope it doesn't happen, but I can't help but wonder if you'd be as demonstrative in your opposition to genocide if the "plucky heroes" of Hamas and Hezbollah actually did manage to "decolonize" the land for which they use a name inveted by Roman occupiers, and then proceeded to carry out the remainder of their agenda, which would be to exterminate all of the non-Arabs and non-Muslims (including "Palestinian" Christians) from their "homeland" and denied any future Christian pilgrims access to locations such as Bethlehem and Gallilee and destroyed sites such as the Church of the Nativity and Church of the Holy Sepulchre in order to construct new Mosques as acts of culturual erasure similar to the construction of the Al Aqsa Mosque on the wreckage of the second Jerusalem Temple (following the lead of the Romans who built a temple to Jupiter there before the Mosque).
It'll be interesting to see what happens when your proclaimed allegeince to Christianity comes head to head with your affection for Arab Nationalists (or will that abate once they're no longer engaged in primarily trying to kill Jews?) and their revisionist historical "claim" to a particular piece of land.
By signing the UN genocide convention which is presided over by the International court of justice and being still signatories to it, both Israel and the US and many other nations are obligated to recognize the ICJ decisions on matters of genocide.
They aren’t.
You don’t get to swear to something then renege when it suits you. Unless you’re a Kol Nidre lying waste of skin Jew.
"You don’t get to swear to something then renege when it suits you. "
But holding a signature onto a treaty as permanent while the idea at the center of the treaty gets defined down from meaning the systematic extinction of an ethnic group, culture, or religion to somehow being applicable to doing almost anything that's seen to be harmful to any group who can invent some kind of "identity" category; in this case, claiming to be the "indigenous" people of a nation which has never truly existed, and which has an "identity" which is entirely a fabricated concept based on multiple arbitrary ideas defined by a multitude of non-Arab occupying powers in an area where there's millenia of recorded history predating any of those occupations.
If you swore at some point not to murder, and were many years later told that you'd violated that oath because you punched back at a mugger who grabbed you on the street and that person broke their leg (but didn't die) after falling backward as a result of your counterstrike, is it you that have violated the original terms, or is it the accuser?
The definition of the term "genocide" which has been applied in the 21st century with regard specifically to Israel especially, has little resemblance to what the term was understood to mean in 1948 when the convention was signed. Not to mention that the ICC, which was created in 1998 could not conceivably have been included or referenced in any way by a treaty which was signed 50 years earlier (and under the auspices of the exact same UN body which created the State of Israel in the exact same year). Even in your demented fever dreams, a half-century of temporal delay has to register; there's no treaty from 1948 which could possibly pre-commit any signatory (or signatories) to also accept the complete terms of another separate agreement which didn't exist until 1998.
The text of the UN genocide convention hasn’t changed since the US and Israel signed it.
And the judicial body responsible for interpreting it has ruled accordingly.
The US and Israel’s signatory responsibility is to RESPECT THAT PROCESS.
They aren’t.
They don’t get to ignore the ICJ’s judicial responsibility and authority when they don’t like it.
That is a violation of their sworn oath’s.
Dude genocide is bad. Not even Jews support Zionism anymore.
One expects declining demand will bring the price down per unit. Ha ha. One hopes to learn from the Ukraine war, cheap, good mileage, repairable in the field weapons, such as drones, are probably a better investment for real defense rather than "air shows."
Shouldn't you put you body where your mouth is and go defend HAMAS over in Gaza?
Too dumb to find it on a map?
We’re defending humanity, dumb-dumb. Not Hamas. I’m guessing that one punch you’re referring to is the one you apply to your own head.
"We’re defending humanity, dumb-dumb. Not Hamas..."
Lying Nazi shit. Fuck off and die.
I would think for that price we should get spaceships with lasers - - - - - - - -
Or at least sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads.
The estimated total is the combined projected cost of the R&D for the three airplanes, the cost to manufacture more than 2500 of them for use by the US military, and the cost of salaries for pilots/ground crews assigned to each aircraft as well as the expected cost of fuel and ammunition to be used by the entire fleet for the 20-30 years (possibly longer) that they'd be expected to remain in service
Regardless of what the Pentagon decides to do with the "sunk cost" portion of what's been spent on R&D, most of the anticipated cost (and almost all of the growth in that cost) is the future recurring operating costs such as fuel and crew salaries, both of which get increased massively by increased and prolonged inflation; If the USAF, and Navy/Marines started over and tried to design a new 5th-gen fighter from a "blank sheet" now, those planes would still require pilots, mechanics, support crews, and fuel/ammunition (and with that portion making up 50-65% of the total, all that would happen is that the restrictions of existing procurement laws would ensure that all of the current "sunk cost" would be wasted). One major variable is how much explanation the media and political class require in terms of comprehension that discovering "issues" with a new aircraft is the entire purpose of the testing program; if the criteria for "success" was to find no issues, then the testing would be cursory at best and would barely look for any.
As "issues" go for something with the complexity of a new fighter jet, software glitches are the best kind to have because they're the easiest and least expensive to remedy. Pushing a software patch into the CPU of a plane is a hell of a lot easier than de-building half of it to add structural reinforcements to a critical bulkhead, and if the first fix doesn't entirely work, then it's just as easy to push another patch. Lack of accuracy with the gun is a concern, but on an aircraft that's designed to operate from stealth and fight using "BVR" weapons to kill opponents who won't know that the fight is on until they're either punching out or burning alive, it's a relatively minor one (not to mention that the built-in gun is only on one of the three variants).
As great as the A-10 is at what it's designed to do, every factory where any part of one was ever built has been either re-tooled, sold off, demolished and replaces or any/all of the above, every worker who ever turned a bolt while building one is retired, and if there's an intact set of design drawings, they're most likely on microfiche in a cardboard box somewhere in a warehouse that looks like the cardboard version of the warehouse at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Several of the materials and manufacturing processes which were used to make the A-10 might actually be illegal to use within the US anymore due to EPA and OSHA regulations. If we had to try to build 200 new A-10s right now, they'd probably take at least 3-4 years for the first one to roll off the line and they'd probably have a $50-60Million unit cost to produce, if we could actually manage to make them at all.
There is a whole level of technology out there they haven’t informed the public or most of the members of their governments. Check out the F-47. Remember the drones in New Jersey and the ones that have been overflying military bases and other areas over the last few decades? This shit isn’t science fiction. More to come, much more. Put on your seatbelts although actually no seatbelts required. lol.
So far, President Donald Trump's second term in office has been characterized by antagonism to allied nations. In just two months
I can't even with this lmao.
Put on the nose, Joe.
+1
US: We can deport green card holders who forcibly occupy US soil in solidarity with violent terrorist groups right?
Germany: You're under arrest for liking someone else's inappropriate meme.
Guess which one Reason opposes and which one it "allies" with.
1. There are, hilariously, no alternatives to the F35 except continuing to run legacy platforms. This is Europe's own fault as they failed to develop their own 5th Gen - hence why they're buying to F35.
2. Spend money buying spares *now* and you don't have to worry about a supply of spares later.
"While the DOD plans to keep the jet in service through 2088, it estimates the cost to do so at $2 trillion."
That's sixty-three years in the future, and if inflation continues along a similar trajectory to the last sixty-three, it's not cheap, but it's not unreasonable or ridiculously high.
The F-35 was a joke when first announced. DoD didn't learn from the TFX/F-111 that no single platform is suitable for all three missions (air force with long runways, carriers with catapults and arresting gear, and Marines with crappy airfields near front lines). I also remember they had a ridiculously low price promise. It's still a joke. They should just cancel the damn thing and stick with F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s until their new NG crap shows how crappy it is.
When F-35 was first proposed, what was known at DoD was that they needed a replacement for 3-6 different airframes but couldn't possibly get approval from Congress to initiate even two "specialist" development programs for multiple new fighters.
Also, according to the rumors around the industry, the Navy still wanted a "stealth" plane to replace the A-12, but only the Air Force had the ability to get funding to design a new one.
The program should be cancelled because it costs too much and is not reliable, but blaming Trump is simply an excuse.
Speculation about the military drones of the future doesn't change the reality right now: Drones cannot yet do the mission of manned aircraft, and drones are not yet a significant threat to manned aircraft. The F-35 gives the US and its allies presumptive air supremacy in any great powers conflict. It is utterly dominant within its mission, and it cannot be effectively countered. The last time we possessed such a decisive technological advantage over our rivals was August 28, 1949.
Utterly dominant in press releases. When half are down, it's utterly dominant in the hangar queen department. When ground support counts, it's utterly dominant in the "can't carry much" department. When speed counts, it's utterly dominant in the not-gonna-catch-up department.
If it is utterly dominant within its mission, adversaries will keep the fight outside of that mission.
Its mission, as well as the F-22 is to kill the enemy with "Beyond Visual Range" weapons before the enemy knows that they're in a fight.
If the enemy wants to remain outside of that "range", that's great. If the enemy wants to bring the fight "up close and personal" to North America, they'll have to cross either the Oceans or the poles unobserved and in large numbers, at which point, they'll be attempting to invade a nation with the most heavily armed civilian population on the planet while maintaining supply lines spanning thousands of miles, and be able to endure the inevitable nuclear counterstrike.
Or just initiate a global nuclear exchange and end it all for everyone all at once. Is there such a thing as a "Pyrrhic defeat"?
The author's conclusion is incredibly myopic. While the program has certainly been a fiasco, the jets that are coming off the line now are highly effective with a very competitive marginal cost.
And while Elon might be right that the days of the manned strike fighter are over; he also seems to think that the autopilot in my Tesla (which tries to depart my chosen lane about once every 10 miles) is ready to be left unsupervised. Maybe we should keep procuring the surest thing we have until we are sure it is obsolete.
Not effective at all. What rag are you reading, Collected Lockheed-Martin Press Releases?
The thing is and always has been a joke.
No, I'm just someone who actually knows a little bit about what is going on with the program. It was a total fiasco, but that hasn't been true for a decade. Now it's just a normal circus.
"he also seems to think that the autopilot in my Tesla (which tries to depart my chosen lane about once every 10 miles)"
Maybe not, but as someone who has never even sat in a Tesla (batteries don't last five miles in -40) that complaint still seems kind of marvelous to me.
I have never tried -40, but at -20 I got about 60% of the rated range. This is with parking outside and defrosting it, using about 8KWHr's.
I can't wait until DOGE gets to the Pentagon. I'm sure that fraud, theft and waste make up at least 50% of military spending.
Allies Cancel Orders of F-35s, the Fighter Jets That Will Cost $2 Trillion
The US has no allies. They're all freeloaders. No orders were canceled. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Plus - the main threat to them is 'free speech'. So says #2. Not sure what F-35's do to counter threats to free speech.
The headline says "Allies cancel orders of F-35s"
The actual case is that
1. a couple of people who currently are just filling seats in caretaker governments (Portugal formally and officially since the loss of the vote of confidence, Canada de facto given the mess over Trudeau's fall and the Canadian election no later than this October)
2. speaking to domestic audiences during election season
3. in countries that are hostile to military expenditures (both Portugal and Canada are on the bottom end of NATO as % GDP)
4. made wishy-washy statements about maybe looking at European alternatives
5. when the actual air forces of both countries have gone through detailed evaluation programs that favor the F-35.
So.
Whether or not it's a good idea for anyone to buy F-35s, the headline is ludicrously bad.
Sooooo, even with the F-35's problems, these countries do not want the most advanced fighter jet ever assembled? Got it.
It's rare to see bald-faced lies in a Reason article. Shitty journalism, sure, but not just outright lies.
Which countries have canceled orders, Joe? Not Portugal, because it never placed any orders. There were no orders for it to cancel, because it never placed an order. Not Canada, because while it has placed an order for 16 jets, it's still continuing that order and is reconsidering placing future orders.
Work harder. Lie less. Do better.
Surely they will remember those cancellations if they ever call for U.S. military support.
So, the alternative to the F-35 is...what?
You are going to have the development process all over again, on possibly multiple airframes, with the same incentives for cost overruns as the F-35, when much of what has been wrong with the F-35 program has been corrected.
Sounds like a huge business opportunity.
Canadians will remember the Avro Arrow.
Upgraded F22s, renovated A10s, more cruise missiles and directed energy weapons, more Reapers, and a wee bit of common sense.
To the extent that A-10s can be "renovated" we did that more than 15 years ago. As great a plane as it is for what it does, no airframe (except maybe a 707) can fly forever, and we don't have the realistic capacility to make any more of them now. The companies and factories which made the A-10 and most of its component parts have either been sold off, mothballed, or scrapped altogether and we probably don't have a complete set of drawings which would be compatible with modern manufacturing tech; you can't scan a blueprint into a CNC machine or 3D printer, and most of the guys who know how to program those things barely learned to read a 3-view drawing in engineering school, because it's been seen as a mostly obsolete skill since the 1990s Anyone who graduated in the 1980s is on the down-slope to planning their retirement at this point (and anyone who ever actually assembled an A-10 is either long-retired or already dead).
I've actually been to the JSF project office (back when it was still JSF) around the 2014 time frame. It was the most lavish Project Office I've ever been to but the jet does things no other jet can do mostly in the area of sensor fusion, support of Loyal Wing Man, and moderate stealth combined with A2A and A2G capabilities. You either fly it or make do with Euro Canards which while fine aircraft are substantially less capable than the Lightning.
Once we tank the dollar we'll be in a better position to move some jet inventory.
"... some allied nations may back out of purchasing F-35 fighter jets from the U.S.,..."
Joe Weasel-word, assistant TDS-addled lying shitpile at Reason.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Those allies are better off not buying the F-35 under any circumstances, assuming they want a plane that can actually, you know, perform the mission and not chew up money like a Democrat senator. All those 5th generation capabilities (e.g., sensor fusion) don't actually work, and make the F-35 nothing but a hangar queen. There are better options -- F-18, F-15E, F-15EX (all US made), Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, or even put the F-22 back into production.
Two completely different issues! Either the F-35 will be a good advance in technology for national defense, or it will be a failure to improve significantly on the F-16. Trump's international policies will piss off trading partners and hamper our nation's profitability, or it won't. Please do NOT try to mix these two separate things into one uninterpretable hodge-podge!
Atg the worst we will use them and reverse the hated military pollicies of Obama and Biden
Poll: Obama's Support Among Military Craters. Support for President Obama among members of the military has fallen drastically in recent years, according to the results of a poll published by the Military Times. A survey of 2,300 active-duty service members showed that only 15 percent of troops polled in 2014 said they approve of the job Obama is doing as commander in chief. That is down from 2009's paltry 35 percent approval rating
DOES REASON NOT REMEMBER THIS ???
Another attempt to make a weapon's system do everything. At best, it has resulted in a "jack of all trades, master of none" aircraft. At worst, it's an aircraft that took so long to develop that it was obsolete before it ever became operational.
Are manned aircraft even viable in combat anymore?
The F-35 Camel exists because arms makers distribute manufacture of components and deployment of unfit aircraft among 50 states and 435 House districts. It exists because procurement approval is so hard that the military agree to sponsor hopelessly ineffective and expensive multimission equipment to ensure approval in Congress. It exists because lobbyists outnumber elected Congressmen seven to one. It does not exist because it is a cost effective weapon system.
A Sound Rationale
An engineer for Boeing characterized the awful 737MAX as designed by clowns and built by monkeys. The same can be said for the F-35 by Lockheed-Martin. It is an awful aircraft. President Trump has given our so-called allies a sound rationale for canceling their orders for this over-priced, poorly designed. late off the line fighter. The cancellation has saved many an allied pilot's life.
See if Joe wrote this it would be better.
As someone that works with Boeing, and worked for Boeing, it went from an engineering company to a big business (Make as much as possible) back in 2000s. They are now trying to turn it back to an engineering company.
Joe, is this the same Politico that is on the left's payroll? You know asking for a friend.
Let's see 2 trillion to maintain over 64 years comes out to ~31.5 billion per year. Yes, I'm sure it will be more if it exists for that long but this isn't a good argument to get rid of it.
Software can also be fixed.
I'm not saying cancel or keep, just staying these are weak arguments. If you argue that it's not up to snuff against Chinese or Russian planes - than you have a good argument
Besides the B-17 bomber types, which planes fly that long?
Donald Trump makes things hard for the military industrial complex.
Libertarians hardest hit.
Well, if I have to chose between fattening up American defense contractors and having Europe rely on itself I'll take the latter.