The
F-35 fighter jet, formerly known as JSF, has recently been in the
spotlights due to its use by Israel in bombing Gaza. Less attention
has been paid to the role of this US fighter jet in European air
forces in times of a shifting security paradigm and changing global
structures of power.
Although
there is a growing
political gap between Europe and the United States, the Lockheed
fighter continues to gain more position as the backbone of European
air power. The F-35 is the most expensive weapon system ever. The US
general accounting office (GAO)
estimates the total costs for production and overhaul for the US
alone (2,470 fighters) at over $2 trillion.
The
F-35 is not just military hardware. For part of the Western European
security elite it is also a tool to strengthen the ties with
Washington so that the US will continue to be military involved in
the old continent.
To buy or not to buy
NATO-Europe and EU countries like Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, and neutral Switzerland have all ordered the F-35. Orders also come from countries with indigenous fighter production: the (German\Italian\ French\British) Eurofighter, the (German/French/Spanish) Future Air Combat System FCAS and the (British/Swedish/Turkish) Tempest. Only France and Spain stay out of the F-35 acquisition spree, as well as Sweden with is own Gripen fighter jets.
Turkey has been trying for years to buy the F-35 (while locally working on the KAAN fighter).
At the same time, the newly developed European fighters FCAS and Tempest are running into trouble; and the European position on the extremely important international fighter market stays weak compared to the US which also has more fighters on sale besides the F-35. This is not only caused by nationally divided production in Europe, but is also the result of political choices to keep the US glued to Europe. For smaller countries it is a way to counterbalance with Washington against Berlin, London and Paris. But is this wise? Even in the security establishment, the reliability of the US administration is seriously questioned. A Foreign Policy columnist recently bluntly remarked 'NATO’s Leader Is Totally Lost' and rhetorically asked: 'What does Mark Rutte think he’s doing?'
The US northern
neighbour Canada, is openly reevaluating
the purchase of F-35's because of souring relations.
(Although silently Ottawa
seems
to be giving
in.) In Switzerland, major political
Swiss
Socialist Party declared
that they “will
not support a special defence budget that includes the controversial
US F-35 fighter jet as a major budget item.” But
past upheavals show that the F-35 will not be stopped. In general,
countries speak up but do not change course over this purchase. As if
the world still is the same as a decade ago.
Long
term dependency
The acquisition of the F-35
by NATO-Europe and EU countries is also in the interest of the US.
Selling arms, especially major weapons like fighter jets, creates
long term dependencies on the customer side.
One of the
issues regularly discussed recently is the 'kill switch' on the F-35
so the the US can 'switch it off' from a distance. Amongst others
European
Parliamentarian and former French
military intelligence director Christophe Gomart claimed
the existence of this kill switch, comparable with backdoors
in communication software which gives
e.g. governments remote access to a computer or communication. But
German Minister
for Defence Pistorius said he cannot
believe a kill switch to be part of the Lockheed fighter jet as this
would mean a complete collapse of US arms exports. Dutch former
Commander-in-Chief Dick Berlijn said: “I
do not believe in a kill switch (…) But the Americans could also
frustrate the deployment of the plane in other ways, for example by
ending weapon supplies. Or halting software updates.”
Tyler Rogoway of the
War Zone wrote
in a long article on this issue: “You
don’t need a ‘kill switch’ to severely hamper the utility of an
exported weapons system, you just stop providing support for it and
it will wither away, some systems very quickly. The more advanced the
faster the degradation.”
Another issue is the source code to the fighter, which is secret, so
Europe is not able to adept it to the use of other than US weapons
without help and the green light from Washington. These kill switch,
update and adaptability issues are similar with other major weapons
(e.g. missiles) acquired in the States.
The
end of Trump era?
The proponents of
military cooperation with the US argue that Trump is not Washington
and that his reign will come to an end. They claim there are also
other tendencies in the Pentagon and Democrats may follow another
policy. One of the examples is John F. Kerry, who wrote an guest
essay in the New York Times in which he
complained about the policy of the current Administration. One of his
grievances is that Trump endangers the arms sales to Europe, a
continent which buys 35% of all US arms, making Europe the commercial
military enterprises' largest regional customer. (Europe is closely
followed by the middle East (33%) and
Asia and Oceania received 28% per cent of US arms exports in
2020–24). Apparently Kerry underestimates the European addiction to
US major weapon systems.
Annalists who warn against the
dependency on the US point at several issues. Besides the threat
towards Greenland, there is also the recent National
Security Strategy (NSS)
published
by the White House.
This document is full of white supremacy visions (and even Great
Replacement theory), denies the climate crisis and openly threat with
US intervention in social political discourse in European nations.
The European Union is portrayed as an enemy of political liberty and
sovereignty and a proponent of migration policies “that
are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of
free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering
birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.”
The White House is ready to help tackling these threats and
intermingle in European politics. It will do this not for free, but
for unhindered entrance to European markets.
One can argue the
NSS is published by the White House under Trump and that Trump is a
temporarily aberration. There is however also a recent Pentagon
report: the
National Defence policy. This more
military driven paper ranks threats and missions: Defending the US
Homeland and deterring China comes on top. Everything else, including
Europe, is secondary. And even article 5, the holy grail of NATO, is
not longer guaranteed. The text promises “limited
support from the United States” and
“we [the USA] must—and
will—prioritize defending the U.S. Homeland and deterring China.”
As for the Russian threat: “Moscow is
in no position to make a bid for European hegemony. European NATO
dwarfs Russia in economic scale, population, and, thus, latent
military power.” (Note how this
contrasts with the advise of Mark Rutte to adversaries of 5% BNP
European military spending that
they better “should
start to learn Russian”. The US
policy change is not limited to the White House. The policy to leave
Europe to itself will not disappear when the Trump regime comes to an
end (if it does).
A fresh
European look
The current
US government sees no difference between foreign policy and trade
deals. The subtlety herein is exchanged for mercantilism as existed
before the First World War. The notion is that one does not find
friends at the market square. The Trump administrations stepped in
this direction in an
executive prioritising weapons sales
Washington has embarked on what Trump described as an “America
First Arms Transfer Strategy.”
NATO
spokesperson Rutte follows the Trump route to to keep the major NATO
member on board and the Alliance afloat. Why NATO member states
continue to sponsor the US military and its industry is harder to
understand. Currently, European countries are depending on Lockheed,
Pratt & Whitney and other big US military companies to keep one
of their most important military assets in the air. While for White
House, they are just vassals: used when needed and forgotten when
this suites better.
Now is the time to reconsider F-35
acquisitions. It is also time for a fresh look at European peace and
security policies. At present they are dictated by a USA on a global
confrontation course. It is now the moment for Europe to change in
another direction. That does not mean raising military budgets to the
excessive US military spending standard, at the cost of welfare,
education and civil infrastructure, but a policy away from
confrontation, using diplomacy, nuclear disarmament and strict arms
(export) control. Europe should leave the dangerous military
escalation road that the Trump administration is pushing us to.
Dutch involvement – example of F-35 co-production
A number of Dutch companies work on the F-35. This participation is widely questioned by campaigners since the F-35 deployment of Israel during its attacks on Gaza and neighbouring countries. It turned out that the Netherlands has no control over the export of its F-35 components and Dutch products end up in violations of human rights and international law. The control of Dutch products is in Washington.
Also mentioned is
Airbus involvement (with Dutch research organisation NLR) in the
F-35 by providing an “embedded
training system for fighter aircraft (E-CATS),”
and
states this
“application enables F-35 fighter pilots to train securely against
realistic constructive threats anywhere, anytime.” With
the same system Airbus is involved in the EFA and FCAS fighter
programs.
According to the NIDV, eight
entities with facilities in the Netherlands are presently working on
the F-35. They are located across the country and despite the
controversies around the F-35 their numbers is growing.
|
Paricipation in F-35 mentioned in NIDV INDUSTRY GUIDE |
||||
|
Compagny |
2021 |
2023 |
2025 |
2026 |
|
Aeronamic |
|
|
|
|
|
Airbus |
|
|
|
|
|
Aviolanda Aerospace |
|
|
|
|
|
GKN Fokker |
|
|
|
|
|
Hive Aerospace Collective |
|
|
|
|
|
NLR |
|
|
|
|
|
OneLogistics |
|
|
|
|
|
Patria (formerly NEDAERO) |
|
|
|
|
|
In
Parliamentary documents a wide range of companies is named |
||||
