But is that really how nations decide which plane to buy?
Sure, technical capabilities are crucial, but don't political and economic factors significantly influence the adoption of the F-35? Factors like strengthening alliances, diplomatic influence, cost sharing, job creation, and export strategies.
My point is: you don't just buy a plane. You buy into an ecosystem where supply chains, political partnership, trade deals and long-term support are just as important. Take away some of that, and I'm sure for a lot of buyers the Typhoon or Gripen suddenly start looking a lot more attractive.
The F35 is better, but they're not going to trust or give business to the US anymore. The Typhoon, Rafale and Grippen are good enough, so we'll see more purchases of those.
You have to be an American to think that, right?
Obviously many countries have bought the F-35 because of some pressure from the US or as a way to buy protection. Nobody would do that again today.
Where the competition is less slanted, yes you see countries selecting Leopard for their MBT over Abrams (the US won't sell the advanced Abrams armor packages). But when it's F-35 vs. literally anything else, the competition is for second place. You only really choose something else when F-35 isn't an option at all. Threats aren't needed when you just have to do a fly-off.