First of all, Norway shares their border and coastline with Russia, who would like nothing more than to gain more control over Norway’s fisheries and oil fields, although they’re certainly more friendly now than they were during Soviet times. Second of all, the EU also wants a cut of Norway’s fisheries and oil, although on far better terms. As such, the USA has always treated Norway fairly and favourably in order to gain access to our oil fields. Thus it’s only natural that the favour is returned.

On top of that, Norway has for at least a hundred years had very close ties to the USA due to emigration. Compare that to the rather lukewarm political help Norway got from Sweden during WWII (though their hands were obviously tied) and the strategically insignificant position they’re in to help in future conflicts, given that they are still outside the NATO—where Norway is of course heavily entrenched with their former P.M. Jens Stoltenberg as the current General Secretary. Thus it was an easy call to ditch Sweden’s JAS Gripen in favour of the F35, despite some issues with data transmissions.

While the JAS Gripen perhaps has similar capabilities to that of the F16—which is in fact a far superiour defensive dogfighter compared to the F35—the F35 is a better ground attack plane, and it has stealth.

If an F35 is ever in an actual dogfight it has failed already- it should kill an opponent before the opponent is ever aware of its presence.

You are of course correct, but see it from Norway's perspective: They're looking to replace their aging fleet of F16's. Their goal was air defence; to shoot down incoming threats. The Fighting Falcon's really excel at that. By purchasing the F35 Norway is forced to take a more aggressive and preemptive stance. That might not be in Norway's best interest given it small size and comparably small, though technologically advanced, army.

Because developing good warplanes is extremely expensive and difficult. Also using same equipment as your allies has advantages - can secure external parts supply during a war, foreign planes can easily use your fields, etc. Of course, buying foreign planes comes with risks as well - parts supply might be embargoed, other countries will know something about your plane, etc.

Judging by Norway's likely adversary (Russia), in all likelihood the risks were judged to be small compared to the advantages of using the best available plane from a country (US) usually not in good terms with Russia.

Norway is way too small of a country to develop its own weapons and airplanes. It has 2% of the GDP that the United States has. The cost of the F-35 project would deplete the entire Norweigan sovereign wealth fund. Secondly, what is the likelihood that Norway gets into a war with the United States versus Russia?

If Sweden can develop fighter airplanes, why can’t Norway?

Sweden can't develop a fifth generation fighter airplane. It's just too expensive.

It will be interesting to see if France tries next time. The UK, Germany and Italy certainly can't.

The plan seems to be to do it in common with Germany and Spain: https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2019/06/franco-g...

The UK is already in early stages of design for a potential replacement to Eurofighter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Tempest

We will be working with Sweden on it as well.

The Gripen first flew 31 years ago, even at the time was considered an outrageously expensive project given the market size (Wikipedia tells me only 247 were ever built!), and frankly there's significant disagreement as to whether it even represents an improvement over the F-16's everyone else was buying at the time.

It was a stretch, and they made it work. But I don't think you'd call this a success. The Viggen was closer to that, and it was a 1960's design.

Actually we can. The US is a big customer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongsberg_Defence_Systems

I'm not saying Norway doesn't have technical or defense capabilities. I'm merely noting that Norway doesn't have the budget to develop state of the art fighter jets solely to provide the Norweigan government. In the case that it did develop one, it would still need to sell the plane to other countries like the US, and then the original OP's question comes back into play of why would the US do that given it has the leverage? International trade can help breed specialization alongside monetary and strategic alliances. I gather Norway would rather have the state of the art weaponry to defend itself from Russia and the US would want that as well.

You said above:

> to develop its own weapons and airplanes.

This can be read in two different ways I guess, and ccsalvesens reply is a valid reply to the way I'd read your post, -namely that "Norway can neither make their own weapons nor their own planes".

You seem to have meant that Norway cannot develop both weapons && planes, true?

Just trying to clear out the source of the misunderstanding here.

Because you're not going to use weapons against the nation that you bought them from.

Funny story: in the 80s the Iraqis were our allies and we (the British) sold them a bunch of kit, including their camouflage uniforms.

In the first Gulf War happened and the British forces deployed in regular temperate camo. Everyone assumed it was because the supply chain was incompetent but the real story was it was too risky to fight in the same kit as the Republican Guard!

Iran is still flying F18 Hornets at last check.

If you look to history, this really is not the case. Part of UK military strategy from the beginning of empire to the present day, is to sell arms to the people that you end up invading.

Meanwhile America made and sold a lot of guns into the middle east that are now used to kill Americans (among other people).

Well, people buy Teslas...