this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2025

267 points (99.3% liked)

Europe

7701 readers

1116 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
on Hungary: Euronews

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

federalreverse@feddit.org

poVoq@slrpnk.net

anzo@programming.dev

EuroMod@feddit.org

267

Europe and Canada Are Finally Saying No to the U.S. F-35 Stealth Fighter, Motivated By a Desire For “Strategic Autonomy” (nationalsecurityjournal.org)

submitted 1 day ago by Scotty@scribe.disroot.org to c/europe@feddit.org

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/5525782

Archived link

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. ...

top 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works 1 points 40 minutes ago

To be blunt I don't think either Europe or Canada have a replacement for it. European militaries are, much like the US dependent on air power. Western artillary systems in Ukraine exist but show significant supply and maintenance issues. Russia and the Soviet Union understood the heavy use of air power and spent a lot of time working to deny it. Europe now has a long border with a country heavily invested in effective long range air defense systems. If Europe wants to maintain effective air superiority over border regions it needs to invest in stealth fighters it currently doesn't have.

Canada has to handle the risk that Trump fully loses it and tries to invade. The US invested heavily in stealth fighters with over the horizon capabilities as well as heavily steathed bombers. These aren't hypothetical wunderwaffen. They exist and have at this point had most of the kinks worked out. Relying on the US Air Force making the same dumb mistake it made in Serbia, flying planes on the same flight path at the same time every day, is probably not an adequate strategy.

[–] kubofhromoslav@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I personally also stopped buying F-35s.

[–] krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I'll give you $10 for one your used ones.

I don't need or want the weapons, I just wanna go fast.

[–] kubofhromoslav@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds like Elon Musk who tries to buy old Russian ICBM, but without the nuke 😅

[–] krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 hours ago

I hope they sell him one with a cockpit inside of it so we can strap him into it and fire it at the sun.

[–] CybranM@feddit.nu 1 points 22 hours ago

Can you really stop if you never start?

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 63 points 1 day ago

Now dump Microsoft, Amazon/AWS, Google, and every other American business. They have all been compromised.

[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 15 points 23 hours ago

Well... Denmark just bought a bunch of them last month even though the US threatens to invade its territory...

[–] comeonitsnotlike@feddit.nu 32 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Good.

Edit: JAS, I am from Sweden.

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Meatballs, furniture and top of the line military hardware.

[–] comeonitsnotlike@feddit.nu 2 points 8 hours ago

What more could you ask for.. (well, the 6 month of darkness each year could be improved, if you ask me..)

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Loved me some SAAB cars. I hear good things about the Gripen

[–] Quittenbrot@feddit.org 3 points 22 hours ago

JAS, I am from Sweden.

( ͡° ͜ °)

[–] SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works 2 points 22 hours ago

Hedj!

[–] Mihies@programming.dev 28 points 1 day ago

I really hope that this isn't just a bluff and/or big words.

[+] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip -7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Unless you build your own jets from the ground up, it is not "strategic autonomy". Even licensing the parts and building your own factories is a mess due to the high amount of technical expertise required to diagnose these (arguably overly) complicated systems. Let alone software updates.

What this actually is a mixture of doubling down on "NATO is the EU" (fair) and probably just escaping the albatross that is the f-35. Like, those aren't the disaster the F-22 was but they aren't that far off. And mostly highlight the question of whether a stealth/fifth-gen fighter even makes sense (spoiler alert: They don't). Treat existing expenditures as a politically/security motivated sunken cost and "evaluate" the European alternative while actually just buying more fourth-gens, ballistic missiles, and stealth bombers.

Still. Good on them. The f-35 was mostly just a tithe to the US Military Industrial Complex. And considering there are decent odds that is going to be on the other side in WW3...

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The F-22 being a disaster, can you elaborate on that? I thought it was a good plane that while it does cost a lot is the most advanced fighter the US has made to date.

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have no clue what the other guy is talking about. The F-22 is an amazing plane that was and still is the stealthiest fighter made.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

They're just parroting the BS about "western weapons are too reliant on technology". Oh no, complicated things, so scary. It's unfounded and pretty prevalent in russian-aligned commentary as more and more information comes out about the spectacular technological shortcomings the russian military has been trying to hide (like how the much celebrated and modeled SU-75, russia's 5th gen steal "equivalent" to the F35, turns out to have been made of plywood. And as far as anyone knows, it still is, we've never seen one fly).

If they push the line that advanced equipment is bad then they don't look so pathetic. Unfortunately, people who dont know any better also wind up believing them.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

The F-22 is the coolest plane ever built. That is a scientific fact and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar.

It is also effectively a death trap with a long history of operational issues stemming from overly tight tolerances and systems far too dependent on software (there it is again) that basically cannot be tested in anger. If you go through most of the accident reports they tend to begin as "pilot error, not our fault" before becoming "oh, those wires were chafed" or "this hose kinked". And there are a few "anonymous" anecdotes about how horrible they are to fly but those are few and far between because... there are very few pilots and it is super easy to track who said what.

In large part because their maintenance costs (and procedures associated with that) are so extreme that any experiment or "test flight" runs the very real risk of destroying an incredibly expensive plane and killing the pilot. And any lessons learned become a very expensive re-training for the crews who are responsible for trying to maintain those things. So most issues are left ignored until they actually need to be used in anger... at which point it is a lot easier to blame the pilot for breaking protocol rather than wonder why such a simple maneuver drastically increased the risk of a coolant leak.

Yes, they are still "in service". But it is incredibly telling that they were "introduced" in 2005 and the final delivery to the US military was in 2012. Contrast that with the F-18 where it was "introduced" in 1983 and they are expected to continue to be produced until 2027. And the F-22s that are still capable of flying are mostly restricted entirely to surveillance and alleged use as missile magnets ("bad guy" fires a missile at the F-22. F-22 kicks on the afterburner. Bomber behind the F-22 flips the bird as they complete their mission. Everyone else wonders why they didn't just use drones and flares)

In many ways it represents the problem of the Military Industrial Complex (and, to be clear, the US does not have a monopoly on this. I've read arguments that any Fifth Gen fighter is effectively just a pipeline for corruption and bribes and... I probably agree most days). It began with good intentions but rapidly became a magnet for new technologies as different officials wanted different things (or different companies found a way to get NRE money...) and it became a product searching for a purpose rather than a program searching for a product.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm going through the accident reports now, and so far the only one blamed on a pilot has been when the pilot ejected at 500mph (or thereabouts) and mulched himself in the air-stream as a result. That seems pretty conclusively to have been his fault, and they haven't ever blamed it on a technical failure. Otherwise, there's a couple of maintenance issues, two foreign objects getting sucked into the engine, one time the canopy got stuck... none of these have required any retraining thus far.

Update: Ah, they blamed the pilot for an accident that turned out to have been caused by a flaw in the emergency oxygen system that required a handle redesign. Another pilot error, though not retracted, was that the landing gear was retracted too early during training. The "chafed wire" you mentioned was never blamed on pilot error since the plane data recorder confirmed that the hydraulics were on fire.

More Update: So... Sixteen total crashes. Five of which were writeoffs, the rest repaired. Only one of which appears to have been erroneously blamed on a pilot. None of which required retraining beyond "the handle is shaped different now".

... Did you actually read these reports before making these claims?

But it is incredibly telling that they were “introduced” in 2005 and the final delivery to the US military was in 2012.

Also, side point, what does this mean? The last B-52 was delivered in 1962, and those have been a mainstay of the USAF for the 63 years since. What does "having enough of the planes with a very niche role" indicate about that plane's capabilities?

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Also, side point, what does this mean? The last B-52 was delivered in 1962, and those have been a mainstay of the USAF for the 63 years since. What does “having enough of the planes with a very niche role” indicate about that plane’s capabilities?

Nah, you made my point much more succinctly. The US (and world) managed to purchase all the f-22s it will ever want or need over a 7 year timespan.

Thanks

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

So your engagement with the criticism is to... claim a single piece of criticism supports your point, and ignore the rest (which is devastating to both your argument and your credibility). And what you are claiming it supports doesn't even make sense within your earlier comment.

Convincing!™

Also the F22 was never available for export - no stealth tech is. Trying to present it as rejected by the world is just comically transparent.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I mean, drones seem far easier to overwhelm enemy defenses with, and aren’t constrained by having a squishy meatbag to protect inside.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The effectiveness of drones on the modern battlefield is widely overstated and mostly a function of the complete lack fo discipline (or competence) the average russian conscript has. Which is why Ukraine has much fewer casualties to them.

Similarly, long range operations do more or less require a human for a mix of latency and signal strength.

But when you are allegedly sending "the greatest stealth fighter ever made" to get detected by enemy radar and attract missiles... yeah, that is a case where it makes a lot more sense to send out a drone.

Which gets into a huge discussion over what a "fighter jet" even is in 2025 and what is role is. Which is also exemplified by some of the greatest military propaganda of all time (Top Gun Maverick!!!!) needing to make a REALLY convoluted reason to even have f/a jets in the area of operations... and then completely forgot about the massive walls of SAM sites when they wanted to let Tommy dogfight (which was fucking awesome...).

Which gets back to even more reasons "Canada and EU ditch f-35" doesn't necessarily mean "Canada and EU buying more Typhoons"

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hmm, I dunno about that. I know that the US likes to downplay the effectiveness of drones, but they also aren’t the ones in a real war. I’m just very skeptical about people pitting their warfare theory against actual combat results.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Modern US and NATO armor/vehicles have air conditioning (and aren't crammed full of stolen loot.... before a battle). Just closing the hatch goes a LONG way towards limiting the effectiveness of a DJI with a hand grenade taped to it. Same with actually setting up the overhead cover to protect from mortar fire at night rather than just leaving said tanks to air out.

As for larger targets and installations? Most modern militaries (all EU/NATO?) have early warning systems that are effectively a microphone array used to pinpont where gunfire is coming from. Whether they are installed on ships/bases, taped to the back of a vehicle, or literally worn by infantry.

And drone engines tend to be pretty distinct noises. They might not come up until it is too late if you are having a conversation with your buddies but if you have a simple filter listening for them... Which is existing tech in place at airports and even the better funded public events.

At which point it becomes a much simpler version of the problem of shooting down ballistic missiles. Think stuff like the Phalanx which is basically a computer attached to a minigun with the human in the loop theoretically agreeing to fire.

Modern drones are very much along the same level of danger as mortars. If you are close enough to deploy one, you can cause some real chaos. But a competent military can minimize the threat considerably.

And... much like mortars, the real threat is against civilian targets where you might not have a machine gun or two controlled by a few microphones and a gimbal... yet. The world is real fucked so give it a few years until that is the norm in a lot of countries.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago

Pfft. Drones. The markup on drones is garbage! How are you gonna gouge the taxpayers with a $10,000 screwdriver with drones?

Oooh. Wait. Volume. 100,000 $100 screwdrivers! Yes!

Okay, withdrawn. Lets do drones.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Are you perhaps Pierre Sprey?

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You think the illustrious designer of the A-10 would hang out here?? Come on, be reasonable.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Probably not, since he's dead and all, but I still wanted to double check, because it sounds juuuuust like him.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

Pff, you're such a poser! You don't even know Sprey was one of the lead designers at parker brothers on the Ouija Board project!

[–] plyth@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And considering there are decent odds that is going to be on the other side in WW3…

Under which conditions would that be possible?

[–] krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 5 points 21 hours ago

Just spitballing but I'd imagine as the Republican Party potentially began to lose power they may decide to invade a country that they shouldn't, triggering other countries to declare war and it just kind of spirals from there.

That would be the immediate scenario I'd imagine.