Here is an in-depth analysis of the reasons why some countries reject the F-35 despite its cutting-edge capabilities.

The F-35 Lightning II is billed as the world’s most advanced fifth-generation stealth fighter. However, some countries refuse to purchase it. This choice is not based on a reluctance to embrace progress, but on concrete constraints. In budgetary terms, the overall investment far exceeds the unit price. On the technical front, governments fear dependence on the United States, particularly through control over software updates and operational data. Strategically, unstable political relations can compromise the reliability of the partnership. Finally, from an industrial standpoint, European alternatives such as the Gripen, Rafale, and Eurofighter offer a combination of performance, sovereignty, and controlled costs.

The budgetary aspect: overall costs and uncertainties

The purchase of an F-35 is not limited to the unit price. An F-35A costs around €75 million, while the F-35B and C versions exceed €85 million. But this initial cost masks a much higher commitment: over several decades, a national fleet can generate cumulative expenditure of €20 to €30 billion. The Canadian contract for 88 aircraft was worth around €12 billion, not including maintenance, training, and upgrade costs. In addition, France estimates maintenance costs over 30 years to be more than double the purchase price. Budgetary uncertainty becomes critical when inflation, sanctions, or changes in partner status can disrupt the financial model. Portugal, for example, has halted its program, estimated at $6 billion, citing risks of non-transparent cost overruns. Canada is postponing most of its initial commitment, fearing a lasting impact on its public finances.

Technological dependence and data control

Washington retains control over software updates, spare parts, and support. Even in the absence of a physical kill switch, it can prevent a country from using its devices by suspending technical support. Some analysts speak of a “gradual lock-in” if access to software is interrupted. Denmark has publicly expressed regret after purchasing 27 F-35s, fearing that the US could restrict the use of the aircraft in the event of political disagreement, particularly for operations involving Greenland. Portugal and Germany share similar concerns. These countries believe that this digital lock compromises operational autonomy, leading them to favor options that do not require this level of external control.

Political and diplomatic imperatives

Current US foreign policy is fueling mistrust. Tensions between Washington and several European allies under the previous administration have led some states to review their commitments. Canada, facing threats of tariffs and geopolitical retaliation, has reopened its review of its initial contract. Portugal cited the irreversibility of US decisions as the reason for halting its project. Taiwan abandoned plans to acquire F-35Bs for fear of exacerbating tensions with Beijing. In each case, the purchase of such an aircraft becomes a diplomatic act that can be used as political leverage.

Credible operational alternatives

Faced with these limitations, several countries are opting for European fighters. The Gripen E, Dassault Rafale, and Eurofighter Typhoon offer a solid compromise. They are less expensive, can be modified locally, and do not depend on a single supplier. They are less stealthy, but their endurance, modularity, and ease of maintenance are better suited to realistic scenarios. Sweden, Portugal, and other northern European nations favor these options to maintain strategic independence. Their calculation is based on a better return on investment, industrial control, and increased tactical flexibility. The number of units delivered remains limited compared to the F-35, but these alternatives meet specific requirements without sacrificing sovereignty.

Industrial and geopolitical implications

The hesitation or withdrawal of certain countries directly affects the economics of the F-35 program. Lockheed Martin builds around 155 aircraft per year, and the program represents approximately $72 billion in annual revenue, supporting around 275,000 jobs in the United States. A decrease in the number of customers then increases the unit cost for the remaining buyers. Meanwhile, European manufacturers, including Dassault and Saab, are gaining credibility. The European Union is increasing its funding to support autonomous weapons systems. In the long term, this raises questions about the sustainability of a program run exclusively by the United States. The question becomes strategic: is it better to maintain a high level of dependence or to promote regional industrial growth?

A complex strategic equation

The refusal to purchase the F-35 is not limited to technical or economic grievances. It is also a strategic calculation: preserving control over defense tools, limiting external dependence, protecting national budgets, and anticipating unpredictable geopolitical scenarios. The American option remains technically superior, but the conditions attached to this superiority are not acceptable to everyone. The choice must take into account political, budgetary, industrial, and technical considerations. For some states, a less advanced war machine is preferable if it guarantees autonomy in decision-making.

Get in touch to live a unique fighter jet experience – we fly in France AND YOU CAN TAKE THE CONTROLS!!!