World
Defense
The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II was meant to symbolize the future of air dominance — a stealth aircraft integrating advanced sensors, networked systems, and unrivaled interoperability with U.S. and NATO forces. Yet, despite its capabilities, several countries have either cancelled, paused, or reconsidered their F-35 orders in recent years. From Turkey’s removal in 2019 to Spain and Portugal shelving their plans in 2025, the trend signals more than just financial hesitation — it reflects growing discomfort with Washington’s political influence, rising sustainment costs, and the perceived loss of strategic independence that comes with American-made weapons.
U.S. Foreign Policy and the Trust Deficit
For many defense planners, the F-35 is more than an aircraft — it’s a system fully dependent on American infrastructure. Software updates, spare parts, and mission data are all controlled from the U.S. This dependency has raised serious political and strategic concerns. Countries fear that in the event of a diplomatic rift, Washington could delay parts or restrict operations, effectively grounding a multi-billion-dollar fleet.
This fear intensified after the Turkey incident in 2019, when Ankara was expelled from the F-35 program after purchasing the Russian S-400 air defense system. Despite having already paid around $1.4 billion and planning to acquire 100 F-35A jets, Turkey was abruptly removed from the partnership and lost both its investment and industrial role. That episode sent a clear message: the U.S. retains ultimate control over who can fly the jet — and under what terms.
While the widely circulated idea of a “kill switch” inside the F-35 remains technically unverified, many defense experts note that Washington’s control over mission software and encrypted communication links effectively gives it the power to restrict or disable critical functions. For countries seeking operational independence, this level of control has become a strategic liability.
Maintenance and Lifecycle Costs: A Heavy Burden
One of the major concerns surrounding the F-35 program is its extraordinary long-term sustainment cost. While the aircraft’s stealth technology and integrated systems are unmatched, maintaining them comes at a price few nations can easily afford.
According to reports from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Department of Defense program audits, the total lifetime cost of the F-35 program for the United States alone is estimated at around $1.7 trillion. This figure includes:
-
$438 billion for development and procurement, and
-
Over $1.3 trillion for operation and sustainment (maintenance, training, spare parts, and upgrades) over its projected service life through the 2070s.
This estimate covers only the U.S. fleet — not the global operators. Other F-35 users such as the UK, Italy, Japan, and Australia have their own separate sustainment budgets, which together add tens of billions more to the worldwide total.
In simpler terms, the $1.7 trillion cost is America’s own bill, not the global program cost. Each participating country bears additional expenses for national infrastructure, training, and spare parts, often pushing their per-aircraft lifetime cost far beyond initial expectations.
Even among wealthy European nations, maintaining the F-35’s stealth capabilities — including the need for climate-controlled hangars, specialized radar-absorbent coatings, and U.S.-approved maintenance facilities — has led to questions about whether its advanced stealth features justify the decades of high-cost dependency that come with ownership.
Political Leverage and Strategic Autonomy
Several European and Asian countries have realized that modern defense procurement is as much about sovereignty as it is about capability. Dependence on American aircraft creates a channel for political leverage — something that became evident as the U.S. used arms sales and service contracts as foreign policy tools. For nations pursuing independent defense strategies, such as France, Spain, and India, this kind of external influence is seen as unacceptable.
The result is a growing interest in alternative programs like the European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) and Britain’s Tempest project, both designed to ensure regional control over next-generation technology. Defense think tanks like RAND and IISS have repeatedly noted that strategic autonomy is now a key motivation for countries stepping back from the F-35.
Countries That Have Cancelled or Shelved F-35 Plans
-
Turkey – Initially a core industrial partner planning to acquire 100 F-35A fighters, Ankara was removed in 2019 due to the S-400 deal. The cancellation represented an estimated $10–12 billion loss in planned aircraft purchases and production work.
-
Spain – In 2025, Madrid officially shelved its plans to buy the F-35 and instead chose to continue investing in the Eurofighter Typhoon and the joint FCAS program. Spain’s preliminary F-35 budget allocation was valued at approximately €6.25 billion ($7.2 billion).
-
Portugal – Early discussions to purchase the F-35 were paused indefinitely in 2025, with Lisbon indicating it would prioritize European-built jets instead. Reports suggested the deal could have been worth around $6 billion.
-
Switzerland – Despite signing a 2022 agreement for 36 F-35A jets valued at CHF 6 billion ($7.5 billion), by mid-2025 the deal faced parliamentary opposition and public criticism. Lawmakers raised concerns over cost escalation and dependence on U.S. maintenance, prompting a review that may reduce or cancel part of the order.
In total, between $22–$24 billion worth of contracts and proposed purchases have been either cancelled, paused, or reconsidered from 2019 to 2025. While not every case represents a formal withdrawal, the financial scale reflects growing hesitation among partners to fully commit.
India’s Path of Independence: Why Rejecting F-35, Exploring Su-57 Partnership
Analysts’ View: The Shift Toward Control and Self-Reliance
Defense analysts describe these developments as part of a strategic realignment rather than a rejection of American technology. The F-35’s performance is not in question — it remains the most advanced operational fighter in the world. However, its political and economic model conflicts with the current global mood of national self-reliance.
Reports from think tanks like RAND and IISS argue that future fighter decisions will depend on data sovereignty and supply chain control as much as stealth or range. In their view, “dependency equals vulnerability,” and the F-35 represents exactly that for smaller air forces.
Lessons for Future Buyers
The U.S. will likely remain a dominant defense supplier, but the experience of recent years shows that buyers now demand contractual guarantees, localized maintenance rights, and independent mission control systems before committing to American aircraft. The F-35’s political baggage — coupled with its enormous sustainment costs — has created an opening for alternative platforms and regional partnerships.
Programs like France–Germany’s FCAS, Britain’s Tempest, Turkey's KAAN and even South Korea’s KF-21 Boramae are attracting new attention as countries aim to combine modern capability with technological independence.
Final Reflection
The F-35 remains a symbol of U.S. technological dominance — but also a reminder of its strategic overreach. In a multipolar world where nations seek greater autonomy, being bound to a single supplier’s political decisions is increasingly seen as risky. The cancellations and pauses by Turkey, Spain, Portugal, and the uncertain future of Switzerland’s deal all underline one reality: the next generation of airpower will not be decided solely by stealth or speed, but by sovereignty and self-determination.
