Portugal rules out buying F-35s because of Trump
Source: Politico
Portugal ruled out replacing its U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets with more modern F-35s because of Donald Trump — in one of the first examples of the U.S. president killing a potential lucrative arms deal.
The country's air force has recommended buying Lockheed Martin F-35s, but when outgoing Defense Minister Nuno Melo was asked by Portugese media Público whether the government would follow that recommendation, he replied: “We cannot ignore the geopolitical environment in our choices. The recent position of the United States, in the context of NATO ... must make us think about the best options, because the predictability of our allies is a greater asset to take into account."
With the dramatic realignment taking place under Trump — who said again today he would annex Greenland and threatened Canada — there are fears the U.S. government could decide block access to software updates and spare parts needed to make the F-35 fully operational.
"The world has changed ... and this ally of ours ... could bring limitations to use, maintenance, components, and everything that has to do with ensuring that aircraft will be operational and used in all types of scenarios," Melo said. He added: "There are several options that must be considered, particularly in the context of European production,
Read more: https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-rules-out-buying-f-35s-because-of-trump/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
groundloop
(12,768 posts)
Initech
(104,517 posts)It's all about their precious billions. 
Emrys
(8,573 posts)if the US is going to disengage from Europe, it makes more sense for the countries there to focus on European armaments to ensure compatibility and economies of scale in the supply of spares etc.
There are a number of European-made aircraft that can rival the F-35, which hasn't been without problems during its development and deployment anyway.
underpants
(189,975 posts)
paleotn
(20,266 posts)Spread by people who don't fully understand the F-35's capabilities or how air combat has evolved drastically since late last century. Or how the F-35 was developed, i.e., work many of the kinks out post introduction instead of delaying introduction for another decade or more, thus arguably saving money. They've also watched Top Gun a few too many times and seem stuck in ancient history. It's a whole new world a quarter of the way through the 21st century. The F-35 is as much software as physical hardware.
F-16 development followed a similar path. It had so many issues early on, it picked up the nickname lawn dart. Pointy nose. Augers in a lot. Lawn dart. Few would call the F-16 a lawn dart today. The problem was the F-16 incorporated so much cutting edge technology in the 70's, that it took time to perfect everything. The F-35 versions struggle with the same.
This is going to motivate Europe and other erstwhile US allies to develop their own stealth / sensor fusion platforms. And unlike Russia and China, they've got the expertise to do just that relatively quickly. But why go to all that trouble and expense when you can just buy US F-35's? These morons have given them ample reason not to and that's the damn shame of it all.
Emrys
(8,573 posts)Some highlights of a couple of those "kinks" described on that site, which are intrinsic and can't be fixed:
An issue that risks damage to the F-35’s tail section if the aircraft needs to maintain supersonic speeds is not worth fixing and will instead be addressed by changing the operating parameters, the F-35 Joint Program Office told Defense News in a statement Friday.
At extremely high altitudes, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability, a problem that may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts.
The Defense Department does not intend to field a fix for the problem, which influences not only the F-35’s airframe and the low-observable coating that keeps it stealthy, but also the myriad antennas located on the back of the plane that are currently vulnerable to damage, according to documents exclusively obtained by Defense News.
...
Vice Adm. Mat Winter, who leads the F-35 program on behalf of the Pentagon, told Defense News that the department has taken steps to mitigate the problem with an improved spray-on coating, but added that the government will not completely fix it — instead accepting additional risk.
A declassified Pentagon comprehensive test report of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 warplane, America’s most expensive weapons system, reveals that six years of combat testing has been marred by reliability and maintenance delays, guns that don’t shoot straight and unresolved concerns about cyberdefense capabilities.
“The overall reliability, maintainability and availability of the U.S. fleet remains below service expectations,” the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation said in a redacted version of the February report, which was obtained by the Washington-based Project on Government Oversight through the Freedom of Information Act.
...
The report discloses enough troubling nuggets that the incoming Trump administration would likely want a total review of the unredacted report’s outline of readiness, maintenance and logistics headaches, according to Greg Williams, POGO’s Center for Defense Information director.
“The Trump administration should bear in mind we’ve been flying the F-35 for 18 years and we still can’t maintain it, keep its stealth skin intact or shoot its gun straight,” Williams said in a statement.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/nov/21/declassified-pentagon-f-35-study-details-reliabili/
As for being "as much software as physical hardware":
A recent report from the Pentagon's test office found the F-35 program is still struggling to develop and test software, highlighting persistent challenges.
The program “has shown no improvement in meeting schedule and performance timelines for developing and testing software designed to address deficiencies and add new capabilities,” according to the annual Operation Test and Evaluation report, released Jan. 31.
Development issues have plagued Technology Refresh-3, a software and hardware upgrade vital for Block 4 improvements. Originally slated to be ready in April 2023, the upgrade has been delayed multiple times, and officials have been hesitant to nail down a date for full combat capability. Software challenges led the Pentagon to pause Lockheed jet deliveries for a year. And while deliveries have since resumed, the new planes have a "truncated" version of TR-3.
DOT&E said the program “cannot simultaneously work out solutions” to fix software problems on the current TR-2 systems while also developing the software needed to operate the upgraded TR-3 avionics.
https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2025/02/f-35-programs-software-development-isnt-getting-any-better-pentagon-report-finds/402725/
No, it's not like people made up internet memes and just don't understand the F-35's capabilities:
America's F-35 jet fighter is running into problems again. Bloomberg reports that production of the plane has "marred by excessive defects and rework" that have reduced U.S. military readiness even though Lockheed Martin has already built and delivered more than 800 of the jets. It's yet another in a series of setbacks that have plagued the fighter since it first entered production in 2006. The program has been "dogged by bad news," The New York Times reported in 2019, raising all kinds of questions about the effectiveness and costs of the Pentagon's weapons-development process. (National Interest labeled the jet "the most expensive weapon system in human history.) Why does the F-35 have such a troubled history? And what does it mean for American air superiority? Here's everything you need to know:
...
When did the F-35's problems start?
Right from the beginning. The Vanity Fair's Adam Ciralzky reported in 2013 that the Joint Strike Fighter program was launched in 2001 with a plan to put entire squadrons of planes in the air by 2010, at a relatively paltry cost of $233 billion. More than a decade later, however, the plans were "at least seven years behind schedule and plagued by a risky development strategy, shoddy management, laissez-faire oversight, countless design flaws, and skyrocketing costs." Three years after that the project's cost had doubled from its original estimates, and CNN reported that late Sen. John McCain decried the plane's development as "a scandal and a tragedy with respect to cost, schedule, and performance." And those problems continue right up through the present moment. Even now, Business Insider reports the F-35 "still hasn't been approved for full-rate production and remains in limited procurement."
https://theweek.com/us-military/1020858/the-f-35-fighter-jets-troubled-history
And then there's the UK MoD's chequered experiences with its F-35s, though it seems we're stuck with them till Tempest comes along, and the sunk cost fallacy rules:
As the British aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales sailed for the biggest Nato exercise since the Cold War, strapped to its flight deck were a clutch of the West’s most advanced fighter jets. The American-made F-35 Lightning planes deployed that March are among the newest additions to UK air power at a time when global tensions are rising. Described as “flying computers”, they are packed with sensors and masked by cutting-edge stealth technology to help pilots penetrate deep into hostile territory for devastating strikes and intelligence gathering. Yet the F-35’s journey to deployment has been far from straightforward. The jets, assembled in the US by Lockheed Martin, have been plagued by repeated delays and cost overruns, while the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has long been evasive about how many Britain will ultimately buy – and which service will own them. Now, as the new Labour Government carries out a sweeping defence review, critics have suggested that the UK could seek to halt its purchases to save money.
...
Work on the F-35, a “fifth-generation” fighter, first began in the 1980s and has since morphed into the most expensive weapons programme in history, with an estimated lifetime costs of $2 trillion (£1.6 trillion) in the US through to 2088, according to the Pentagon. The UK first joined in 1995, contributing some money to development costs and in the process ensuring that hundreds of British companies became suppliers. There are three variants of the jet (A, B and C), all of which use advanced technology to identify threats and link up with other platforms digitally – including, in future, unmanned drones. The MoD opted for the short take-off and vertical landing-capable F-35B, due to a lack of arresting wires – which catch jets as they land – on the Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. However, this capability also makes the F-35B the most expensive version of the plane and gives it a more limited maximum range and payload than others.
According to the Government, each one costs about £90m. However, defence analyst Tusa says this does not include the engine or other costs, with the real total pitching closer to £150m per plane. ...
"What do you mean, 'We forgot to order the engine'?!?!"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/28/stealth-jets-tanks-military-projects-risk-labour-defence/
paleotn
(20,266 posts)
Jebus, were just born a decade ago?
Oh, my god! A cutting edge aircraft that isn't freaking perfect! Perfect!!!! Sorry, I'm quite familiar with the program. Are you?
And I stand by my commentary. All of that linkage you spewed falls under what I typed.
Emrys
(8,573 posts)paleotn
(20,266 posts)Emrys
(8,573 posts)Maybe it'll be "fake news" next.
You insisted above that reports of issues with the F-35 were "mostly internet meme Spread by people who don't fully understand the F-35's capabilities or how air combat has evolved drastically since late last century".
I simply quoted and linked numerous reports from defence journals and elsewhere that show that if these are "just internet meme", they're being spread by numerous military officers and reputable journalists and researchers in defence publications and discussed high up in government. After all these years of development, it's reported, to take one example, its cannon still can't shoot straight, which would seem a bit of a real-world drawback, rather than "mostly internet meme".
I'm sure they'd be amused by your dismissing their observations grandly as "spew" and your seeming insistence that you're correct because you say you are.
paleotn
(20,266 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 15, 2025, 10:04 AM - Edit history (2)
It address everything you've typed.
My 1986 Top Gun mention, sans F-35s since they were the stuff of concept papers at the time and many of its capabilities weren't even dreamed up yet, was around the general public being stuck in the past. Not their own fault, really, because that's what they've been fed as a regular diet. Hollywood's imagination, interestingly, seems always stuck in the last war. Their creativity seems focused only on breaking the laws of physics.
In air to air, we're no longer subject to bore sighting, the 60 degree cone of avionics off the nose and all the ramifications of that. Hollywood and the public's meme. I may not even need my own, now 360 degree sphere of sensors to get a lock and shoot you. I'm data linked to someone else's. And you didn't even see me and are wondering where the hell did that missile come from since I never had to paint you.
Air to ground is just as interesting. The "kinetic dispensers" behind me, less stealthy Gen 4+'s outside of S-400 range, can target standoff attacks based on my data feed. Being stealthy, I'm far closer, but far enough away to be only a whisper in a particular patch of sky on the S-400's search systems. Nowhere near lockable by their targeting systems. And I need not open my bomb bay, degrading stealth, to perform the strike myself. One of the reasons the Navy is deploying a mix of F-35 and Super Hornet, and Growler squadrons in air wings.
F-35 problems and challenges? Yes. Just like the F-16 back in the day. Another movie analogy from Valkyrie may be enlightening. Ironically, another Tom Cruise movie. The British detonator pencils not being as precise as the perceived need. The line goes..."This is state of the art. You can have small or precise. Not both." Of course, if they had a time machine and went 30 years into the future, they'd easily fix that problem. Same with the latest F-35 blocks. But that's not possible, so you use what you've got. Turns out, state of the art is still better than what you had before.
On edit... ceramic RAM. Still in it's infancy but a potential answer to the F-35 and F-22's high speed, RAM degradation issues.
Emrys
(8,573 posts)Project on Government Oversight
The decision to enter full rate production on the flawed F-35 shows that current statutes do not support sufficient congressional oversight.
* Failure to meet key availability and reliability requirements - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25260009-dote-assessment-of-post-iote-f-35-block-4-operational-testing/#document/p311/a2599124
* Continued inaccuracy of the gun - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25260009-dote-assessment-of-post-iote-f-35-block-4-operational-testing/#document/p45/a2599125
* Excessive logistics footprint, especially for the Marine Corps variant - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25260009-dote-assessment-of-post-iote-f-35-block-4-operational-testing/#document/p187/a2599126
* Delays on promised improvements - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25260009-dote-assessment-of-post-iote-f-35-block-4-operational-testing/#document/p5/a2599127
...
Specific Deficiencies Cited in Testing Office Report
Availability Problems Hampered Testing
"The lack of flyable aircraft led to cases where tests were deemed invalid and sometimes needed to be redesigned and re-flown. These kinds of do-overs are generally not available in the real world.
Overall, the F-35 failed to meet all but one of its availability, reliability, and maintainability requirements."
...
F-35’s Logistics Train is So Big It’s Hard to Deploy
"For Air Force F-35As, exceeding the intended logistics footprint means it will take longer to get them forward deployed and will require more airlift resources. The Air Force may have to wait for two extra plane loads of gear to arrive at the desired forward location, and the extra logistics requirements make those resources unavailable for other missions. "
...
Stealth Capabilities Are Hard to Maintain, and Were Not Fully Tested
"... stealth features of the F-35 were so difficult to maintain that they were at least partially inoperative during much of the testing, calling into question both their necessity and the feasibility of maintaining them:
'All F-35A sorties were flown with aircraft that had a noncompliant LO [low observability] signature. Four out of the five F-35B aircraft, and 80 percent of individual sorties, were LO non-compliant. None of the F-35C aircraft were reported as LO non-compliant. [Emphasis added]
DOT&E Report p. xxiii'"
...
The Gun Still Doesn’t Work
...
"it seems clear that it will take months, if not years, to address the physical design and installation issues currently making the gun inaccurate in existing and new F-35As. Enhancing current laws such as Nunn-McCurdy and the Operational Test and Evaluation law would provide more of an opportunity for Congress to question how a fighter plane can be ready for combat when its gun remains inaccurate."
...
Conclusion
The Defense Department’s March 12, 2024, decision to authorize full rate production of the F-35 flies in the face of numerous deficiencies cited in the Operational Test & Evaluation report released in February. Even the declassified version of that report obtained by POGO includes numerous citations of failures of the F-35 to meet requirements in terms of availability, reliability, maintainability, gun accuracy, logistical supportability, and stealth. Congress’s opportunity to exercise oversight was limited by the short time between the report’s release and the full rate production decision, the lack of Senate and House Armed Services Committees’ staff cleared to read the report, and the lack of built-in mechanisms for Congress to influence the full rate production decision.
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/f-35-testing-report-reveals-problems-with-production-decisions
paleotn
(20,266 posts)I said it does. Like any and all cutting edge platforms. Jebus, dude. Can you not read and understand??? Why the hard on? 
Emrys
(8,573 posts)You then rudely categorically dismissed another comment from somebody else who simply agreed "The F-35 has issues."
In response, I sought to correct the misapprehension you tried to spread that these were almost entirely ignorant Internet memes. That seemed to trigger you into spouting repeatedly about "spewing".
If anyone in this discussion appears to have a hard on, it's you, who're coming across as an F-35 fanboy who won't brook any criticism of the programme, for whatever reason, in conduct that resembles that of the most hardline Musk fans.
If the sources I've cited can't make a dent in that carapace, I don't think there's any point in continuing this. If you're happy with the flaws in performance and oversight of the most expensive aircraft programme the US deploys, that's your problem, not mine.
paleotn
(20,266 posts)You have your opinion. I have mine, colored by apparently a better understanding given my background. Leave it at that. If anyone's going off on Musk like conspiracies and obsessions, it's you. Give it a rest, dude.
Emrys
(8,573 posts)If this thread's any evidence, all it proves it that you're apparently ill-tempered, can't allow for the fact that others also know stuff because of their own backgrounds which they don't need to brandish as their bona fides, and you can type s-p-e-w.
Give yourself a massive ovation, chum, and follow your own advice.
paleotn
(20,266 posts)Bizarre really. Poor fellow got his feelings hurt I guess.
And ignored the fact I wasn't even responding to you. But of course, it's all about you....chum.
Initech
(104,517 posts)
J_William_Ryan
(2,651 posts)Trump can sell F-16 fighter jets to Russia, North Korea, and Iran – our new allies.
underpants
(189,975 posts)😆
paleotn
(20,266 posts)and the Metroplex in general. F-35's are assembled by Lockheed in Ft. Worth. And pinch every F-35 component manufacturer all across the country. That's the thing these idiots don't understand. NATO allies may not always spend as much as some would like on defense, but much of what they do buy is American. Well, was. And every American weapon system and the vast majority of constituent parts are produced inside the US. A huge jobs producer. Was anyway. Good job, magats. Seems they're adept at only one thing....shooting themselves in the face.
madville
(7,642 posts)Is there something comparable to the F-35 as far as capabilities?
slightlv
(5,395 posts)but as great a warfighter as we can be, we definitely are not alone in it. I'm sure there are other countries who can build things (including planes that stay in the air) just as well, or maybe even better, than we can. It's going to be a hard lesson for all of us to learn, but the saying "No man is an island" is true in war as well as in peace. Isolationism never works out very well. And Isolationism, coupled with aligning only with dictatorships is going to work out all the worse, IMO.
spudspud
(588 posts)They have 4.5 gen fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon, Sweden's Gripen E/F, and France's Rafale, but none are stealth capable. The Gripen has modern electronic warfare but not the same class of payload/weapon capacity and projection. They have next gen fighters in devlopment like the FCAS (Future Combat Air System), but that's probably 15+ years out. They're not buying Chinese junk or Russian junk for obvious reasons. Their only current option aside from the European fighters, would be to piggyback/align with Japan's stealth fighter they are developing, but I don't know when that will even be available.
Emrys
(8,573 posts)Different ones have different strengths and weaknesses. Some are multi-role, like the F-35, which inevitably means compromises. Its complexity also means it needs a lot of maintenance, and there have been problems ensuring its availability as a result.
Much is made of the F-35 being a "fifth-generation" fighter, but in exercise dogfights, it's been bested by the Eurofighter Typhoon. It's also been beaten by the old F-16 a number of times.
The main selling points of the F-35 and what makes it "fifth-generation" are its stealth (though that may be compromised to a certain extent by problems with its structure and coatings) and its ability to network with other aircraft and facilities, which aren't always going to be a dealbreaker. The hope is that the F-35's stealth and other capabilities mean it would avoid the need for dogfighting.
Current alternatives include Saab's Gripen (I believe never been shot down nor failed a mission, has also beaten the F-16), the Typhoon and Dassault's Rafale (which is also very capable). Others are in the pipeline, such as Turkey's KAAN (depending how you define "European" ), which is still in development, as is the UK's Tempest, but they're not likely to be ready until the early to mid-2030s.
IronLionZion
(48,501 posts)What's it going to take? Those planes are around $100 million each.
Old Crank
(5,498 posts)Old Crank
(5,498 posts)Why buy from a potential enemy?
BidenRocks
(1,328 posts)Yet Ukraine is kickin' ass with drones.
Even cardboard drones.
Take that MIC.
Besides, most air combat is beyond visual so the radar and munition are more important than the plane.
Highly contested multi threat targets are supposed to be the 35s forte.
The Saab Viggen is a very good aircraft. I think Canada will go that way along with Portugal.
artemisia1
(983 posts)BidenRocks
(1,328 posts)twodogsbarking
(13,366 posts)