-
European nations and Canada are “pushing away” from the F-35, motivated by a desire for “strategic autonomy” and political friction with the Trump administration
-
Spain officially canceled its F-35 purchase in August 2025, opting for European-built alternatives. Switzerland is now also reviewing its 36-jet deal after being hit with a “shocking” $1.3 billion price hike and new 39% U.S. tariffs, and recent reports suggest that Portugal has not opted to purchase the U.S. jets
-
Instead of the F-35, they are increasingly looking to European alternatives, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Future Combat Air System (FCAS).
-
Canada’s 88-jet deal is also in “limbo,” as PM Mark Carney, angered by Trump’s “51st state” comments and trade disputes, ordered a review of the 72 un-committed jets
-
Technological and industrial sovereignty are significant reasons why some countries are opting not to purchase the F-35. Some European nations prioritize developing their own defense industries and technological bases. Buying American-made F-35s would make them dependent on US supply chains and could suppress the development of their own next-generation aircraft programs. …
Just to give you an idea of how FUCKED our national priorities are: If we actually buy these lemons, it will cost more to just keep them unused in hangars per year than all the biomedical research in all diseases supported by federal grants.
The fact that we are wasting tens of billions on fighter jets with foreign controlled kill switches is just proof CAF spending has nothing to do with actual defence of Canada.
Finally Europe is waking up. Although, this can be a slippery slope. Military industrial complex in USA get out of hand and we have to learn from USA mistakes in that field. Let’s have strong military for deference, but in a way that do not promote arms racing, or being overrun by our own companies.
It’s called State-run companies
c’mon Canada, you can do better than “a review”
They’re trying, but there are already certain commitments.
Definitely didn’t have that on my bingo card. “Trump kills military industrial complex”
Can you blame them? When the country that produces it elected someone so profoundly dumb, you need to be able to trust at that level.
If only we hadn’t shit-canned the Arrow half a century ago.
The Arrow was just the 60s version of the F35. It was proper to cancel it. Tories killed off Avro because the US told them to. Then Mulroney killed off a lot of CDN industry, again, because the US told him to. Then Stephen Harper…you get the point.
I’m no expert, but I’ve heard that the reputation of the Arrow has been pumped up over the years. But we would have had our own military aeronautics industry in some way shape or form.
Really it’s a moot point though. Drones do a lot of what jets used to do. We should take the money that would have been spent on those and use it to develop a homegrown drone industry right now.
I understand that, but the point is we could have had a home-grown aerospace industry a bit more robust than now. Some Arrow engineers ended up at NASA after all. And the engines!
Some Arrow engineers ended up at NASA after all.
The rest ended up at Lougheed and McDonnell Douglas. We pissed away 50,000 of the best engineers this country has ever seen, and all the spin off industries they would have developed. This was the beginning of the end for innovation in Ontario industry.
No expert, but I’m sure it wasn’t the best of all generations, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was not the best of that generation, but correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it a damned good option at the time*?
^? Which would have contributed more to the ærospace program than just scrapping it entirely?^
but wasn’t it a damned good option at the time
No. By the time it would have been completed, it would be redundant. But, there was no excuse to kill Avro other than the US ordering us to by their planes forever. Diefenbaker was the second biggest PM traitor in history, only outdone by Mulroney.
News about the kill switch hidden in Chinese built electric buses must’ve been a wake-up call.
US military sales, by law, all have to have US controlled kill switches. This has been true since the 80s.
Smart. Those planes come with so many strings attached they may as well be fly-by-wire.
Fly by subscription.
I won’t trust Carney to fully scrap the deal after his embarrassing apology for the Ford ad last week. Keeping it in the maybe pile is more helpful for negotiation even though we would be better off with Typhoons or Gripens.
Ideally we would want a couple F-35s anyways, to dissect
We already have 12. The question is whether we take shipment of the rest.
That does further complicate things, because the RCAF won’t want to operate two different platforms. If we don’t bother taking the rest of the order then those twelve jets, fully paid for, basically sit in a junkyard somewhere. Or, as you say, get dissected or used for training. Not a total waste, but definitely something the Conservatives will gleefully point to as an example of mismanagement.
We already have 12.
And they are bricked on a software issue for a year, even the US Navy rejected these planes. We are buying junk.
https://www.navylookout.com/us-watchdog-warns-of-growing-risks-to-f-35-programme/
"Central to Block 4 is the Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) hardware and software suite, a $1.9 billion upgrade that boosts computing power and memory. TR-3 has proved far harder to deliver than expected. GAO notes continuing problems with sensors, software stability and supply chains. By 2024, every F-35 delivered was late, on average 238 days behind schedule, largely due to TR-3.
In a highly unusual step, the Pentagon began accepting non-combat-capable aircraft with TR-3 hardware installed but immature software. These jets are being used for training while awaiting retrofit. By mid-2025, 174 such aircraft had been accepted. For the UK, this precedent is concerning: should future deliveries to the RAF and RN fall into this category, the Lightning Force could receive expensive jets that are not immediately usable for operations."
Yikes. Definitely another good argument for switching to the Gripen, for sure.
Why spend the money? Just wait for a leak on the War Thunder forums.
I have an idea how Gripens could help with that.
Sure we could capture one, but if your enemy wants to sell you their hardware before the fighting kicks off so you can get to work early, it’d be insane to pass that up.
We’re already committed to some number, I don’t remember how many. It would be insane to order any more, or to rely on them in combat.
I don’t like that we’re expected to honour commitments when the other party doesn’t feel the same obligation.
“You are illegally tariffing us, so in response your F35 contract is voided. Come talk to us again when you are serious.”
Fucking finally!
I find it wild that we are still considering buying military planes from a country that is threatening our sovereignty lol. I’m sure it’s more complex but … also, it doesn’t have to be. Just buy from somewhere else.
I think as of now RCAF still wants them and the deal isn’t off yet. I imagine it’s also a card that’s used in the negotiations with the US. I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up staying with the F35s.
It’s understandable that the RCAF still wants it; There’s literally no other option with the same capabilities. The Gripen is an excellent plane, but it’s not a fifth gen fighter. Unless we want to start buying planes from China, we’re SOL if we want another fifth gen option. I’m not personally advocating to continue with the purchase, I think we should go ahead and build the Gripen here in Canada and use that as a stopgap while we get on board with one of the European sixth gen fighter programs. But I can absolutely see why the RCAF doesn’t feel the same way. They’re a small air force and they need every advantage they can get. Based on its performance against F-16s I have no doubt the Gripen could shoot down Russian fighters at a ten to one rate, but I also have no doubt that the F-35 would be closer to a hundred to one rate (in Fermi approximation terms), and one could certainly argue that we need that if we end up on the front lines of a war with Russia.
I still lean towards the Gripen, but I’ll admit I go back and forth on this. It’s not a cut and dry decision either way.
one could certainly argue that we need that if we end up on the front lines of a war with Russia.
The idea that Canada could last until lunch against Russia, China, or the USA is ignorant and delusional. We cannot bankrupt the country preparing for an attack from Goldstein.
Most people don’t really understand the problem. It’s either make a deal with an ally run by lunatics, or suffer a decade long capability gap that your military may not be able to overcome.
There are no other 5th gen options, and 4++ are becoming more vulnerable with the proliferation of effective air defense. The first available 6th gen outside of US export controls will be on the wrong side of 2030.
This is an incredibly difficult choice for Canada with no perfect options.
Both China and Russia are expanding their arctic presence. The US is electing nationalist demagogues on a platform of betraying our allies. It’s possible Canada may have a peer to peer conflict in the next 5 to 10 years. Canada possibly can’t afford that big of a capability gap if that’s the case.
You’ve hit the nail on the head here.
I don’t know what the right answer is on this one. On balance, I lean towards getting the Gripen as a stopgap and prioritizing access to those European sixth gen projects. Select the one that looks the best suited for our needs and go in hard on collaborating on it.
This is part of why I think the Gripen makes sense; we can build it here, which opens up the possibility of being able to build a sixth gen later, instead of having to wait in line for our order to ship. The F-35 gives us better capabilities now, but doesn’t solve the underlying problems down the road.
There is, I think, a version of events where we sign a deal with Saab to build Gripens in Canada to export to buyers like Ukraine, and then go ahead and take the F-35 order anyway. Most likely, we use this to extract concessions in other areas from the Americans, pointing at our new domestic fighter plane industry as a very credible threat to walk away from the F-35 deal. Then, if we’re smart about this, we continue to build up our ability to domestically produce fighter craft, with an eye on that sixth gen project. This would make a lot of sense in the context of Carney’s stated goal of making Canada a defence supplier to the EU, while still leaving us with an interim platform that can handle anything the Russians throw at us.
The F35 is primarily a air to ground strike aircraft. Gen 5 is mainly semi stealth benefits. It is disadvantaged relative to air to air specialized planes who are faster (lighter) and more maneuverable.
The only possible role for Canadian F35 is as force amplification to US bombing campaign. The kill switch, or permission to turn on switch, makes it a useless weapon against the US. It is an extremely overpriced plane with low reliability, and flight hours. If RCAF wants the plane it is because they are more loyal to US empire force amplification than Canadian defense needs, and anyone who holds that view needs to be convicted of treason. No trial whatsoever is needed, as long as they are proven to not be functionally full tropic thunder.
We need to not just cancel the contract first, and negotiate later, Demand refund for existing planes.
The F35 is primarily a air to ground strike aircraft. Gen 5 is mainly semi stealth benefits. It is disadvantaged relative to air to air specialized planes who are faster (lighter) and more maneuverable.
This is something you’ll hear a lot, often from seemingly respectable sources, but it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern air combat works.
Manueverability is meaningless. Dog fighting is a thing of the past. Stealth is not a disadvantage in air-to-air combat, it’s the only thing that matters in air-to-air combat. The model has fundamentally changed; it’s submarine / tank combat now. The winner is the person who sees their opponent first.
The people who describe the F-35 as unsuited to air combat are speaking from an entirely outdated understanding of how air combat works. Some of those people are even experts in that model of air combat, but that’s like being an expert on vacuum tubes in a world of microchips.
There’s still a role for air to air planes.
You’re entirely misunderstanding what I’m saying. The F-35 is an air-to-air plane. In the same way the Gripen, The Eurofighter Typhoon, the F-16 and the F/A-18 are. They are all capable of filling both ground attack and air-to-air roles. And the F-35 fills an air-to-air role incredibly well - better than almost any other plane on Earth - because it has an almost unbeatable advantage over any other air-to-air platform; stealth.
Think of modern air-to-air combat as a sniper duel in the sky. The goal is to remain unobserved by your target while you line up a shot on them. By the time they detect the incoming missile, it’s already too late. And even if they defeat that missile with countermeasures, you haven’t given away your own position and can quickly relocate and fire again while remaining undetected. Eventually, you’ll get the kill. The person who fires first, wins.
I imagine they will stall as long as they can to see if MAGA loses their grip. 0% chance of agreeing to the rest of the F-35s if MAGA is still in power.
I hope you’re right and I do think that’s likely what’s happening but I’m not certain.
I imagine it’s also a card that’s used in the negotiations with the US.
I have no doubt that it is.
A smart negotiator doesn’t play all their cards at the start. They gradually bring out their various pressure points over time when it is strategic to do so. And they hold back the “nuclear option” until it becomes necessary.
The F-35s have been the kid in a toxic custody trial for fucking ever, already costing billions more than expected. The same shit happened over the F-22 and we’re still using goddamn F-18s.
In the year 2125 we’ll finally welcome in a new fleet of F-69’s to retire a squadron of Hornets being held together by spit and glue.
I’m curious what countries like Spain, Italy, and the UK will do. They all have smaller aircraft carriers that require short takeoff / vertical landing planes, a role currently being filled by the F-35B. I’m unaware of anything similar from other western aircraft manufacturers.
The Saab Gripen has had some studies around whether it would be possible to adapt to carrier operation. Several countries seem to have expressed interest, but no commitments have been made yet. From wikipedia:
Saab studied a variant of the Gripen capable of operating from aircraft carriers in the 1990s. In 2009, it launched the Sea Gripen project in response to India’s request for information on a carrier-based aircraft. Brazil may also require new carrier aircraft.[74][75] Following a meeting with Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials in May 2011, Saab agreed to establish a development center in the UK to expand on the Sea Gripen concept.[76]… ; further development of optionally manned and carrier versions would require customer commitment.[77][78] On 6 November 2014, the Brazilian Navy expressed interest in a carrier-based Gripen.[79]
Well, there’s the very real possibility of having to fight the americans, who install kill switches and make everything proprietary so you can’t make your own parts.
So, go without planes, or pay your most likely military enemy for the privilege of going without planes?
No credible expert believes that the US has any kind of “kill switch” in the F-35, for the record. Such a system would be almost impossible to completely conceal from the engineers who would have to maintain these planes in service and the risk of that being discovered and instantly tanking the entire project would far exceed any benefit. Remember, the point of the F-35 was to arm the whole of NATO with a single attack fighter. The US benefited plenty from the project as it was, they didn’t need to install kill switches, and back under Bush and Obama there was zero motivation for them to do so. People forget how long projects like the F-35 take. They didn’t just start building this thing yesterday. The plane first entered production in 2006, and that was after a lengthy design and development phase stretching back well into the nineties.
The concern is not that there might be a “kill switch”, but that the US insists on controlling the supply of firmware updates, which would represent a serious risk in its own right, not in a “planes falling out of the sky” way but definitely in a “We can continue to upgrade our planes while locking you out of upgrades” way. It’s the sort of thing that, if applied over a decade, could create a serious capability gap between the US and anyone else with the F-35.
NB: To clear up another point of confusion, it is very specifically the firmware that the US controls. Everyone can make their own parts, but they have to load US firmware onto those parts. This another reason why it would be basically impossible to conceal a kill-switch; everyone has the full technical package, they know what’s in this thing. Even a tripwire hidden in the firmware would still need some means to be remotely activated, which would be very obvious. This is a stealth plane, all forms of communication in and out are very, very tightly controlled. You can’t just slap an extra radio in there.
No credible expert believes that the US has any kind of “kill switch” in the F-35
Pentagon officially denies its existence, and the concept is seen as a security vulnerability. However, reliance on US-controlled software, mission data, and the supply chain for maintenance and upgrades means that the US could effectively disable a foreign operator’s F-35s by withholding these critical components over time. The Pentagon denies “a physical kill switch” but that’s just semantics, and the Pentagon lies every day.
We are simps for buying these planes.
You’re mistaking my correcting one common misunderstanding that gets spread about the F-35 for me somehow being a stalwart defender of the entire program. You can check my comment history and see that I’ve repeatedly expressed my feeling that we should kill the deal and get the Gripen instead.
But, as I’ve already laid out in replies to your other comments repeating the same claim, as well as several other comments I’ve made here, there is absolutely zero credible evidence that a “kill switch” exists, and a mountain of evidence for why it would be almost impossible to achieve such a thing without discovery, and for why no one would ever bother in the first place.
No credible expert believes that the US has any kind of “kill switch” in the F-35, for the record. Such a system would be almost impossible to completely conceal from the engineers who would have to maintain these planes
A kill switch strawman implies crashing the plane in mid air. It is fully 100% confirmed that every single time you turn the plane on, your plane talks with Lockheed Martin in order to obtain permission to turn on. Israel, by coincidence, is the only country allowed to bypass this permission loop, with a special version of the F35.
Any country not a slave colony of the empire would demand the same ownership functionality instead of disguising their colonial tribute with useless military hardware.
Every version of this claim that I have ever seen has been flatly refuted or denied by every credible source.
If you’d like to offer a source for this, I’d love to see it.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/u-s-f-35-fighter-jets-canada
No, there is not a big red flip switch but the operation of these aircraft 100% rely on only US made parts.
All they have to do is stop sending a critical wear part and the planes are junk. You are taking the “kill switch” literally , or purposely making a strawman argument. We cannot have F35s and have a sovereign air force.
From your source:
DND spokesperson Kened Sadiku said no such switch existEd on the aircraft, but he did acknowledge that the U.S. was in charge of both software and hardware upgrades for the planes.
Emphasis mine. Countries can produce their own hardware replacements for the F-35; even without domestic manufacturing, we can source parts from any other country that has the F-35. The issue isn’t maintenance in the sense of keeping planes flying, it’s maintenance in the sense of keeping them relevant. And that’s a very real issue, and very real reason to consider shutting down the deal. But to call that a “kill switch” is to stretch the English language to absurdity.
To some people, credible sources on government shutdown is the democrats fault for wanting free healthcare for illegal immigrants.
Just because something 100% factual wants to be suppressed doesn’t make the suppression credible sources. While F35s are free for Israel, there would not be a demand to customize the electronics as a deal breaker to accepting free aircraft with the F35I. All denials that F35s are “permission to use” diguised tributes to empire are complete lies. Denying that there is a kill switch is a distraction that its advanced avionics/electronics work only through LM permission.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2016/04/27/could-connectivity-failure-ground-f-35-it-s-complicated USAF concerns with the phone home system that Israel demanded to not be beholden to.
From your cited source;
Losing connectivity to ALIS would be a pain, but hardly fatal, the JPO contends. If jets are unable to use ALIS — a ground-based system that provides sustainment and support, but not combat capabilities for the jet — the F-35 is still a usable plane. In fact, the worst case scenario would be that operators would have to track maintenance and manage daily squadron operations manually, just as older jets do.
…
Yes, the F-35 can take off and land without connecting to ALIS; yes, operators can make repairs without the logistics system, Pawlikowski said. But at some point users need to feed that information up to the central ALIS hub, she stressed.
“I don’t need ALIS to put fuel in the plane and fly it, [I can] take a part and replace it if I have the spares there,” Pawlikowski said. “But somewhere along the line I’ve got to tell ALIS that I did it so that the supply chain will now know that that part has got to be replaced.”
(emphasis mine)
In short, the article you’re citing directly refutes your claim.
you are not reading your own quotes.
[I can] take a part and replace it …if I have the spares there
the article you’re citing directly refutes your claim.
My claim was never a kill switch or remote control/detonation switch. That is what scum denies to distract from the point that the advanced electronics systems ((ALIS) requires permission every time they are turned on. I am not denying that you can still make a sporty trip to Epstein’s Island with the plane, if Canada were to resell it to you.
fully 100% confirmed
Citation needed.
and make everything proprietary
There’s nothing similar stealth-wise, either, at least for that kind of aircraft.
It’s a really really good plane, like you’d expect from however many trillions spent in project money. It’s just that the Americans control the software running on it.
It’s a really really good plane
it’s not?
https://www.navylookout.com/us-watchdog-warns-of-growing-risks-to-f-35-programme/
“The U.S. Navy has faced numerous problems with the F-35, including significant issues with its high operating and maintenance costs, software and hardware deficiencies like overheating and landing gear problems, and complex supply chain challenges that impact readiness and delivery schedules. The F-35’s stealth capabilities require costly upkeep, its internal weapons can limit payload, and its reliance on software creates vulnerability to cyber threats. Additionally, some naval variants have experienced issues like structural damage from supersonic flight and difficulties with the helmet-mounted display during carrier landings.”
It’s a fucking lemon. We are better off with older gen planes we can independently maintain, because even the fucking US NAVY can’t get these planes to fly reliably.
It’s so effective in wargames it’s basically cheating. In the one actual deployment it’s seen it has an uptime as good as or better than older models. It now has a unit cost comparable to the Gripen, which is built in a much less high-tech way (for the sake of ruggedness and maintainability, on which it does still have the advantage).
I’m reading complaints here, but you can complain about anything. I’m not even clear on how many are current, since it had a very rocky development and the article is mostly about the Block 4 upgrades.
It’s a huge problem. There is no other fifth gen option available to NATO. The Gripen is one of the best choices out there, and it does have a lot of stealth and EWAR capabilities that other fighters lack, as well as really impressive radar, but that’s not the same thing as the kind of stealth that the F-35 and F-22 have.
On the other hand, I can absolutely see how the F-35 now presents an unacceptable security risk.
The good news is that Russia has nothing even close to the F-35, and its honestly unlikely that most of their stuff can even stand up to the Gripen. Their purported fifth gen fighter just isn’t. It has a radar cross section over a thousand times larger than that of any US fifth gen, that’s according to Russia’s bullshit propaganda numbers. And they’ve only made about 6 of those. The rest of their fleet is slightly upgraded cold war surplus, maybe at the level of the F-16 if you’re being really generous, and the Gripen wipes the floor with the F-16 in combat testing (Gripen pilots shoot down F-16s at a ten to one ratio IIRC).
If we assume that Russia is the main threat, then the Gripen will serve very well for now (at least for Canada, with no need for a carrier launch capability) until we can get a sixth gen fighter; Europe has two such projects in the works. If we assume the main threat is the US, then the F-35 would still be a bad idea, since even putting aside any issues with supply of firmware, they would know its capabilities and weaknesses intimately. China is the wildcard and we just don’t know what the capabilities of their craft are. OTOH its extremely unlikely that there would be a conflict with China that didn’t involve the US as the primary combatant, so I think that’s less of a concern for the rest of NATO.
I would be surprised if China doesn’t have an F-35 equivalent at this point, though realistically I think they’re betting on their ability to backdoor and take down adversary electronics as being part of that ‘stealth’ solution.
I would be surprised if China doesn’t have an F-35 equivalent at this point
Shengyang J-35, which American propaganda says is not as good, but I seriously doubt that.
Well, we know that they do, but we don’t know very much about its real capabilities.
However I don’t think there’s any realistic way to backdoor a fighter jet in flight. That’s one of the myths that was being pushed by people like Burton and Sprey because they were opposed to any kind of advanced technology in a fighter plane. We’re talking about people who literally thought that planes shouldn’t have radar.
In reality, these things aren’t flying around hopping WiFi. Every single electron of communication into and out of a stealth fighter is more tightly controlled than gold bars in Fort Knox. There’s basically no more tightly controlled communications and electronics platform in the world than an airborne F-35.
you guys are taking kill switch too literally. They cannot have a software kill swith OTA, because that would be too vulnerable.
F-35s burn through parts that need changing almost every flight, they could be disabled easily just by not sending parts. These are the most expensive aircraft in history to maintain, the insane price tags are just the start.
Countries can make their own parts for the F-35. It’s firmware the US controls, not hardware.
There is no other fifth gen option available to NATO.
I’m nitpicking a bit, but like you mentioned, China and Russia have limitations. I don’t really buy that the J-20 is on the same level, and the Russian thing is an actual joke. So, “to anyone”.
The Gripen is one of the best choices out there, and it does have a lot of stealth and EWAR capabilities that other fighters lack
EWAR sure, but it’s totally unstealthy AFAIK. Survivability would depend on hitting something, landing in a field and getting back onto a truck before a counterattack can arrive. Which works for SAM units and artillery, I guess.
Which, maybe we should just invest in SAM units and sensors, honestly, if we’re worried about a hostile US. I’m guessing it’s a lot more cost effective, and would be nearly as effective early in a defencive conflict. The other medium-term option would be a jailbroken F-35 of some kind, but that’s only possible once the alliance is well and truly dead. All the physical parts are available from somewhere else.
It’s not “stealthy” in the same way that am F-35 is, but it’s got a few tricks to minimize its overall emissions profile, mess with enemy detection systems, and generally be harder to pick up than, say, an F-16. I’m not suggesting that this is anything close to the level of stealth that an F-35 or F-22 offer, but it is an advantage over other 4th gen craft.
No other aircraft can do it as of now. A potential VSTOL derivative of the Tempest?
The royal navy doesn’t even have the aircrafts for its 2 carriers. The entire UK military is notoriously underfunded even in critical aspects like SSBN. Not likely to fund a new aircraft.
Italy and Japan both already have their F-35Bs for their carriers. It’s hard to see them ditch multi billion investments.
Korea might get a STVOL Carrier eventually but they are involved with lockeed on other projects, and operate F-35A already. so they are likely to get F-35B as well.
I mean outside of Spain I don’t see who needs an F-35B alternative. Spain lacks a proper aviation industry but maybe they could keep on getting upgrade packages for their Harrier II for a few more decades. Who knows? Maybe in 20 years strategic alliances will have shifted and Chinese airframes will be on the table.
People who criticize lack of military spending don’t get math.
You want a well funded military? Easy, drive the country into $38T debt and take all the tax money for it while letting people starve or die from lack of health care. So you end up defending a sick shit hole country.
Sure I agree with that. It’s a big part of why the USSR failed bloated military spending while the people struggle to eat. Most authoritarian government for that matter.
Here, tho, I am speaking through the lens of the country’s own ambition. The UK want to play big boy super power with two carriers. Okay. Then if that’s the case not allocating enough budget to buy 2 carriers worth of aircraft means that :
- They wasted billions making a 2nd carrier for nothing.
- They don’t have the budget for their ambitions.
But I was not even arguing at any point in here to raise military budgets. I’m brainstorming who could need a F-35B alternative.
Stable genius.
I would trust a Chinese made fighter jet before I would trust an American one.
And that’s saying something.
Yeah, something stupid.
LMAOOOOO GOTTEM
Oh wait.
Since you clearly need everything spoonfed to you, you’re a gazelle claiming he’d rather associated with a hyena than a lion. It’s a point, but it’s a stupid one.
