this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
979 points (99.6% liked)

World News

43863 readers
3228 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Portuguese Air Force is no longer expected to acquire the 5th generation F-35 fighter from Lockheed Martin, all due to the review of the US position towards NATO.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lootboblin@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago

When Finland chose their new 64 F-35s. I supported it. Not anymore. We should have chosen our west neighbour’s Saabs.

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 11 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Bravo to Portugal!!! Setting a solid example of what the rest of 1st Class Europe should do with US weapon contracts. The current US political situation is playing a dangerous game with the US MIC.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

well you've got like, two options.

One of them is the swedes, and uh, it's not bad, the other is uh checks notes hm, well you've got the swedes at least.

Edit: not the swiss, i confuse the two, they're both european, don't @ me.

[–] Teknikal@eviltoast.org 13 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Have to be honest I'm not keen on the UK buying any more either I'd rather see Rafales on the new carriers or a tweaked eurofighter.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Euro fighter with vectoring engines, and better stealth would be doooope

[–] Teknikal@eviltoast.org 3 points 2 hours ago

Don't think that will happen with the Tempest program being the main focus for the raf but if they could make a carrier capable tranche version it could be a good stopgap.

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 13 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Asking stupid question... Isn't this kinda shit that got Kennedy killed? Fucking w the military industrial complex? Have those barons diversified enough to not care about this line of business or something? I thought this was kind of a backbone of our economy. So many jobs too.

[–] towerful@programming.dev 6 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Killing Donny wouldn't change much, tho.
America has shown it wants Donald or a Donald substitute.

Project 2025 is now Americas playbook.

Other countries changing military suppliers isn't going to change back to america for 10-15 years (hell, maybe even longer, I dunno what the service life of a jet platform is).
The risk that has surfaced of "America has an off switch" - even just the potential risk of rumors of an off switch - means all those military assets are useless when America elects unhinged leaders that are willing to subvert democratic process in order to run their playbook.
And America has shown it is willing to do that. Even prefers to do that

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

America has shown it wants Donald or a Donald substitute.

well they also voted for kennedy, and they still killed him, assuming that's how that works.

Other countries changing military suppliers isn’t going to change back to america for 10-15 years (hell, maybe even longer, I dunno what the service life of a jet platform is).

Other countries changing military suppliers isn’t going to change back to america for 10-15 years (hell, maybe even longer, I dunno what the service life of a jet platform is).

the service life of the f16 has been like forever, i think it's been close to like 70 years now? Hell of a modernization in between then and now, similar story with the f22, although it's quite a bit newer. Military equipment doesn't really have a service life, it's more so an effectiveness constant.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

That's all true, but Vance is a coward who will care more about his life than about what America wants.

[–] rippersnapper@lemm.ee 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The Donald has Hitler levels of luck in that regard.

[–] CherryBullets@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 minutes ago

Most dictators do, unfortunately. It takes several attempts and many courageous people willing to sacrifice to get there and sometimes that doesn't even stop the dictatorship, as the dictator has a successor lined up.

[–] b0s@lemm.ee 26 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Got to speed up the European 6th gen fighter development

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

That's how we get shitty aircraft. Need to speed up developing homebrew avionics for the F35s.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 hours ago (2 children)
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

it's trash, if you ignore literally everything it's good at, which is basically everything it's designed for.

Turns out cars aren't very good at crossing the ocean. Who would've thunk a fighter jet not designed for dogfighting wouldn't be designed to dogfight. Truly a baffling conundrum.

By all metrics available, the F35 is literally the most capable jet in existence, it's technological capabilities are literally unmatched.

[–] barnacul@lemmy.world 1 points 9 minutes ago

F35 is designed to be a multirole fighter-bomber, it's a jack of all trades, but has some serious tradeoffs in stealth and maneuverability. And before you go off (rightfully) about how dogfighting is mostly irrelevant in the modern age, manuverability is also how you crank to avoid missiles at long range.

The F22 can take on multiple F35s at the same time and smoke 'em.

[–] copd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

What makes you form that opinion?

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 2 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

that was also the logic that lead to russia thinking they could beat ukraine, uh, didn't work.

[–] TheFrirish@jlai.lu 15 points 12 hours ago

Thank fucking god

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 21 points 14 hours ago (5 children)

Dunno if you'll find a more European fighter than the Gripen.

[–] Denixen@feddit.nu 25 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Uses a license produced engine from US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_RM12), which has caused endless problems in exports for SAAB, since the US blocks them frequently when they are about to win a contract.

I would go for Rafale or Eurofighter and I am saying this as a swede. We need to replace the engines ASAP. Perhaps a UK, German or French one. Would probably take years to develop thought and likely a significant overhaul will be necessary.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 19 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Well, an easier fix is to just keep using the engine design, and stop paying the license fees.

What is the US gonna do? Stop supporting NATO? Put tariffs on exports to the EU? Stop being an ally, and ally themselves with Russia?

presumably NATO could group up, and vote to kick a country out of NATO, i assume this would be one of those cases, if they really caused trouble.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 9 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Use stolen military technology as a casus-belli maybe?

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

So, the US attacks a NATO member, kicking off Article 5.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Sure.

The USA is like 60% of NATO forces.

So this would more likely lead to the dissolution of NATO.

The point I was making is that the adults in the room would probably prefer to not kick the hornets nest despite preparing for the worst if the hornets nest kicks off.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] muddyuk@lemm.ee 47 points 18 hours ago

Why would anybody feel they can rely on American hardware anymore? Any country with any sense won’t be beholden to them as an ally now thanks to that idiotic mango.

load more comments
view more: next ›