Some partners are more equal than others. There are 3+ program levels depending on how much funding they put into the initial development and how many units they committed to order. This impacts the level of access they get. The UK is the only Level 1 partner. Italy and Netherlands are at Level 2. Others are down at Level 3 (except Israel, which had sufficient political influence to negotiate a special deal despite a relatively small investment).

I sympathize with the F-35 customers who are now feeling uneasy about their choice due to recent changes in US foreign policy. But that's the risk you take when you fail to adequately fund your military and try to get by on the cheap. Most of them had the option of joining at Level 1 at the time, and had they done so they would have much more leverage today.

> But that's the risk you take when you fail to adequately fund your military and try to get by on the cheap.

Except it's nuts to pretend like this system hasn't been working out great for the US. Competent leaders have expanded it for a reason.

> Most of them had the option of joining at Level 1 at the time, and had they done so they would have much more leverage today.

I think that Trump/Vance have run their mouth about the UK in roughly the same ways that they have about Canada and Ukraine and your claim is far from obvious. We have leaders who are stupid and will trash a good thing without a second thought.

I don't see how your point is relevant to the current topic which is narrowly about how investment (or not) into the F-35 program relates to input into the direction of the program.

The UK is a Tier 1 partner. The administration seems like it's one Xanax-fueled dream away from saying the UK should be the 52nd state and suspending technical support in the exact same way the US has done to Ukraine.

That's the relationship between the two. The problem is not that these nations weren't Tier 1 partners. The problem is that the current administration cannot be negotiated with in the most damning sense of "these people can't even be trusted to work for their own self-interest."

Well, no, unless they're also insisting on annexing the UK, and crippled UK military hardware while they're in an existential war. I haven't seen such reported.

I assume that the USA also a Level 1 Partner?

As the UK is also a Level 1 partner if they were so inclined they could provide the resources necessary to allow lower level partners to operate and maintain their F-35s?

No, neither the USA or UK are really independent on this program. They are mutually dependent on each other.

The USA does have all of the technical data packages so in theory we could probably get domestic suppliers to make the components we currently get from the UK but it would take several years. The reverse isn't true, though. The UK simply no longer has the capacity to support such a complex program on their own. They sacrificed their defense industry years ago and accepted dependence on the USA so that they could fund social programs.

UK, Italy and Japan are building a 6th gen fighter right now [1], with UK acting as the de facto most senior partner.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Combat_Air_Programme

> UK, Italy and Japan are building a 6th gen fighter right now

They are starting to /design/ it now. Tempest is supposed to enter service in 10 years' time, which I will believe when I see it.

I'm not suggesting that the UK attempts to make all the parts that are made in partner countries, merely that they have access to the information required to do so.

If that's the case they maybe they would be able to help the other partner countries develop the parts that they would otherwise require America to make.

> I sympathize with the F-35 customers who are now feeling uneasy about their choice due to recent changes in US foreign policy. But that's the risk you take when you fail to adequately fund your military and try to get by on the cheap. Most of them had the option of joining at Level 1 at the time, and had they done so they would have much more leverage today.

Your personal opinion is proven to be absurd and baseless for the single fact that the UK, a level 1 partner, was very vocal in its frustration for the "lack of U.S. commitment to grant access to the technology that would allow the UK to maintain and upgrade its F-35s without U.S. involvement."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...

You need to face the fact that as of now the US is an unreliable and untrustable partner, and depending on them for defense, even when it's to meet their end of the treaties, is extremely risky.

>as of now the US is an unreliable and untrustable partner

always has been. Trump is just an excuse, a façade, to make that insincerity bearable. "There are two americas". Bullshit.

Are we still pretending that any contract with the USA is binding ? Lets assume , trump kicks the bucket and vance succeeds him. Do you think a contract with Israel is still save, when a raging anti semite (who jumped selensky partlly because of that) is in power ? There are no laws, contracts and recourse in amedieval world. Sorry to all the unemployed lawyers

>But that's the risk you take when you fail to adequately fund your military and try to get by on the cheap. Most of them had the option of joining at Level 1 at the time, and had they done so they would have much more leverage today.

Weird logic. US is equally unrealiable no matter what level you bought yourself in to.