【By Observer Columnist Chen Feng】

Last week, during the meeting in Alaska, Trump specifically arranged for B-2 bombers and F-35 fighters to fly low over the area, and also lined up a long line of F-22 fighters on the ground as a backdrop, to fully demonstrate the military might of the U.S. military, and also to show off to Putin.

The F-35 is now the heart of the U.S. military, not only an important component of its air power, but also an important tool for maintaining global military hegemony and consolidating the alliance system. However, with Trump's tariff measures, the attitude of allies towards it has become more complicated.

Trump and Putin walking the red carpet, with B-2 and F-35 flying low

The military necessity of the F-35 is trivial

In August, Spain decided to redirect funds originally intended for the F-35 to meet NATO's 5% requirement, canceling the F-35 order; Switzerland was discouraged by a 39% tariff, and although the government said the F-35 procurement plan remained unchanged, it may reduce the number, while public opinion strongly demanded the complete cancellation. In fact, Canada also has voices, and India has decided to stop purchasing U.S. weapons.

Trump's tariff war has always been a mix of raising tariffs and pushing exports. In the process of deindustrialization, the U.S. manufacturing sector has fewer exportable products, and arms sales have become a "key product" with both sales and high profit, which has always been a major part of U.S. exports to allies.

Military procurement and sales are not only military issues, but also political and economic ones, but arms are first and foremost for military purposes.

In terms of military, the U.S. technology is advanced and reliable, which is indeed the best choice for many countries. As for the F-35, it often becomes the only choice.

The F-35 is the only fifth-generation fighter available for export in the Western world. The F-22 is not exported and has been discontinued. Other options... there are none. Since the existence of fighter jets, this is a unique situation, but not an unexpected one.

Fighter jets integrate a large amount of expensive and complex cutting-edge technology, and require a strong economic foundation to maintain the R&D and manufacturing system. The number of countries capable of developing and manufacturing advanced fighter jets is decreasing worldwide. But in the era of fifth-generation fighters, the number of countries that can develop and manufacture fighter jets has actually increased, but those that can be exported are still only the F-35. European countries currently have only the F-35 as the fifth-generation fighter in production.

Before fifth-generation fighters, stealth was the main feature, supersonic cruise was the second most important feature, and advanced situational awareness and networked capabilities are not exclusive to fifth-generation fighters, fourth or fourth-and-a-half generation fighters can also achieve similar capabilities after upgrades.

Stealth not only requires a low-visibility configuration and radar-absorbing coating, but also internal weapon carriage, which inevitably increases the size and weight of the fighter. The size and weight of the "medium" fifth-generation fighter is similar to that of the fourth-generation heavy fighter, placing higher demands on engine thrust and thrust-to-weight ratio. The technical threshold for high-performance fighter engines is higher than that of the fighter itself.

British and French fighters could keep up with third-generation fighters, but they couldn't keep up with fourth-generation fighters, so they pretended to make a breakthrough, launching the "two winds" (France's Rafale and the UK-Germany-Italy-Spain Eurofighter Typhoon) in the fourth-generation era, and then the "new two winds" (UK-Italy-Japan Tempest and France-Germany-Spain FCAS, the latter not yet named as "wind") in the sixth-generation era. In Russia, whether Su-57 counts as a fifth-generation fighter is controversial, and when the Su-75 will transition from model to real machine is a bigger question. Emerging fighter nations like South Korea, Turkey, and India either use "4.9-generation" fighters to pretend to be fifth-generation, or have only "PPT fighters" that have been delayed for years, or have been stalled for over a decade.

China is the only exception, not only producing the fifth-generation J-20 and J-35, but also leading the way in sixth-generation fighters.

For allies, the military necessity of the F-35 comes from three aspects:

1. Technological advancement

2. Replacement needs

3. Seamless interoperability

There are various criticisms of the F-35, but the F-35 is still advanced. Or rather, in the West, there is no more advanced option at present. In the early stages of the program, the F-35's design basis of "mainly strike, secondary air combat" was suitable for the U.S. Air Force and also for allies. That was the era when the West believed in "the end of history," where great power confrontation was no longer realistic, and "maintaining order" police actions were the main consideration. This order was obviously Pax Americana: "Peace under American rule."

China's rise does not aim to disrupt Pax Americana, but objectively not only disrupted it, but may also undermine it. The F-35's air combat capability is insufficient against the J-20 and J-35, let alone the sixth-generation aircraft. This is the anxiety of the U.S. Air Force, as well as Japan and Australia, but the F-15EX, F-16V, and F-18E are even less impressive.

In Europe, the issue is smaller. Unless Europe is blind enough to go to the Asia-Pacific to trouble China, the J-20 and J-35 are not Europe's problem. The speed and maneuverability of the Su-57 are certainly stronger than the F-35, but its stealth and "non-contact air combat" capabilities may give the F-35 an advantage.

Countries that currently possess F-35s

A more practical issue is replacement. For many allies, the technological advancement of the fighter is less of a military necessity and more of a visual necessity. In peacetime, they need an air force; in wartime, they need the ability to coordinate operations within the alliance framework.

Therefore, a certain level of compatibility and standardization is essential, ensuring that the combat power of the alliance forces is uniform, making it easy to integrate and coordinate tactically, and easy to supplement and support technologically. Ideally, seamless insertion into operations should be possible at the company or platoon level. Specifically, in the air battlefield, American fighters and allied fighters should be "transparent" within the unified NATO command and control architecture, making it the same regardless of who is involved.

Multi-nation fleets are not impossible to fight, but the problems of integration and support are greater. Therefore, NATO has long promoted equipment and ammunition compatibility and standardization. Although British and French fighters differ in appearance and technology from American fighters, they are highly compatible in use and maintenance, ensuring effective and reliable integration and mutual support in both training and operational activities.

However, no compatibility compares to using the same equipment. This not only ensures compatibility of ammunition, spare parts, and support systems, but also ensures consistency in training and tactics.

The compatibility of combat equipment is not only horizontal among allies, but also vertical in equipment replacement. There are existing systems and experience for training, tactics, support, and maintenance when replacing U.S. equipment, and allies don't need to explore on their own, which is a very advantageous factor.

For most allies, choosing the F-35 is less about combat power and more about equipment replacement. Most of the current fighter jets used by allies are F-16 and F-18, which are mostly reaching the end of their service life, making the switch to the F-35 natural. Among current and potential F-35 users, Australia, Canada, Finland, Spain, and Switzerland are all F-18 users, while Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Italy, Poland, Romania, Singapore, and South Korea are all F-16 users. Most are moving from new to old, with a few starting from used F-16s, from old to older. Only Czech Republic ("Gripen" user), the UK and Germany ("Eurofighter", "Tornado" user), and Japan (F-15 and Mitsubishi F-2 user, the latter is highly similar to F-16) are exceptions.

The political importance of the F-35 is weakening

Military is the extension of politics. Military allies are first political allies, and political allies are first economic partners. NATO, which claims to be the most successful military alliance in history, is precisely because it is built on the transatlantic economic prosperity since the Marshall Plan.

America did invest heavily in Europe, not only by stationing a large number of troops and directly supporting European defense, but also encouraging the reconstruction of European industry. The British "Harrier" vertical/short takeoff and landing fighter began as part of a NATO project funded by America.

But America is not that selfless. The purpose of vigorously supporting NATO is to ensure that the main battlefield of the Third World War is in Europe, not America. Britain and France are the same, but more specifically: the Third World War needs to be fought in Germany, far from their own territories. Germany is upset, as the Third World War would destroy their country, but without binding with the US, UK, and France, they wouldn't even have the chance to rebuild from ruins.

At that time, American funding for European industry was to benefit from Europe's still advanced industrial technology. During World War II, the U.S. military praised German tank and small arms technology, and British fighter engine and radar technology. The technological foundations of various countries were still useful to the U.S. Helping allies recover economically not only relieved the U.S. economically, but also boosted the U.S. politically and culturally. For Europe, which had just come out of World War II, there was no more glamorous industry than the military.

However, times have changed. In the shift from an industrial economy to a financial economy, and from a domestic-based economy to a globalized one, American capital has become wealthier, but the American economy has become increasingly hollowed out. To compensate for employment losses and social instability, the U.S. implemented trickle-down economics, with "unmerited" high salaries (such as American McDonald's fryers earning more than Chinese auto workers) being politically touted as "capitalism superiority," but in reality, it's just "spending money to buy stability."

But the trickle-down economics game can only continue if the profit growth rate exceeds the cost of maintaining stability. The biggest threat from China's rise lies here. China, as the world factory, accelerates American capital's profits, but also accelerates the U.S. economic hollowing out more. China's manufacturing not only leads in scale and efficiency, but also climbs the industrial food chain through technological progress, not only squeezing American blue-collar middle class, but also putting knowledge elites under pressure, causing the "stability cost" to skyrocket.

Economic hollowing also leads to political hollowing. Whether it's Trump's 1.0 era of coercion or Biden's era of inducement, the anti-China united front ultimately failed due to countries' economic dependence on China, even the U.S. itself couldn't decouple, forcing it to return to interdependence.

The U.S. Navy's F-35C Joint Strike Fighter conducting a test flight over the Chesapeake Bay

The economic base determines the superstructure, which is an unshakable truth. The collapse of the Soviet Union and China's rise are essentially economic, and the U.S. is increasingly feeling "poor despite having money." MAGA emerged accordingly, and the tariff war is Trump's killer move, trying to use anti-globalization to rebuild American manufacturing and employment, solidify the economic and social foundation of Pax Americana, and increase exports to earn money from around the world.

As the remaining strong industrial sector of the U.S., the American defense industry inevitably competes with European defense industries. The lack of competitiveness of European defense industries and the "better to buy than build" and "offer loyalty" mindset became the greatest opportunity for the American defense industry, and the U.S. is eager to define relationships based on military sales. At the same time, the era no longer needs the U.S. defense industry to complement European technology. In fact, except for the F-35, in most key defense technologies, the U.S. dominates the West, such as "THAAD" and "Patriot" air defense missiles, Mk41 VLS, "Tomahawk" and JSSM cruise missiles, AIM-120 and AIM-9X air-to-air missiles, "HIMARS" rocket launchers, LM2500 ship gas turbines, GPS, early warning aircraft, space-based ISR, etc., Europe lacks meaningful alternatives.

In an ideal scenario, Trump should have targeted China, which is the main part of manufacturing backflow. There is no need to consider military exports to China, but China's potential to absorb agricultural products and energy exports is unparalleled globally. Trump simultaneously needed to be lenient with allies, strengthen the anti-China united front, thereby locking in China's concessions. But before the U.S. used "poison pill" clauses to block the path for Chinese manufacturing to harm the U.S. in bilateral trade negotiations with countries, it needed to use "liberation day tariffs" as a transitional measure, which is the biggest leverage to force countries to surrender quickly.

This tactic immediately hit a brick wall.

China's thunderous counterattack stunned Trump, and before the tariff negotiations with countries even started, the U.S. supply chain faced a prospect of paralysis. Trump had to retreat, using a "ceasefire period" as a temporary solution, and implementing highly unequal tariff clauses in subsequent tariff negotiations. But this completely destroyed the economic trust between the U.S. and countries, and the naked self-interest also destroyed the vision of common prosperity, including the transatlantic economic symbiosis that Europe considered "sacred and inviolable."

There is no more mutual trust between China and the U.S., and China's counterattack strength has woken up Trump. The tariff war ceasefire has been extended repeatedly, and even after imposing "secondary tariffs" on India for "not rushing" to purchase Russian oil and support Russia's war in Ukraine, it has allowed China to remain "not in a hurry," resulting in a de facto "China exception." The U.S.'s indecision has shaken the political trust between the U.S. and countries.

In Europe, on one hand, the U.S. pressures NATO countries to increase military spending to 5% of GDP (but "America is an exception"), and on the other hand, wants the U.S. military to withdraw from Europe, and in the Ukraine war issue, ignores European interests, prompting Europe to re-evaluate the significance of U.S. defense for Europe, with the F-35 being the first to face challenges. High software integration excludes allies from independent upgrades and modifications, and high connectivity allows the U.S. to monitor the F-35's every move and mechanical status, with the "one-click shutdown" legend further locking in allies' doubts.

Nuclear capability is another issue. The F-35 has the capability to deploy B61 nuclear bombs. Contrary to many people's belief that "crossing the nuclear threshold immediately triggers mutual assured destruction," people now have a new understanding of nuclear weapons: tactical nuclear weapons are less mass killing weapons and more super powerful but targeting military objectives. This makes the F-35, which can deploy tactical nuclear bombs, have new significance. Germany and Italy ordered the F-35 for NATO nuclear sharing architecture's tactical nuclear strike missions, and the UK's additional purchase of the F-35 also has this intention.

The problem is: B61 is made, owned, and controlled by the U.S. Only when the NATO Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) launches a nuclear strike (including nuclear retaliation) on behalf of NATO, and with the simultaneous approval of the U.S. President and the UK Prime Minister, participating NATO combat aircraft can carry B61 to execute missions. The French President is not included, because France does not participate in the NATO nuclear sharing. France's tactical nuclear weapons are entirely under French control. The UK is a member of the NATO nuclear sharing plan, but the UK does not have tactical nuclear weapons, only strategic nuclear weapons mounted on the "Trident D5" submarine-launched intercontinental missiles.

The underlying reason for the U.S. withdrawing from European defense is the separation of U.S. security interests and European security interests. In this case, whether the U.S. is willing to cross the nuclear threshold for Europe is a big question mark, as the escalation path after crossing the nuclear threshold is not entirely under U.S. control. This undermines the foundation of NATO nuclear sharing, and the reasons for countries to purchase the F-35 are undermined.

Switzerland and Spain do not have the issue of NATO nuclear sharing, but if the U.S.-led European common defense is no longer a common goal, buying the F-35 is no longer necessary, and instead may anger public opinion. In Europe, the public perception of the U.S. has been greatly negatively affected by the tariff war and the Ukraine war, and in Canada, there is an added stimulus of the "51st state."

On the other hand, the 5% target for NATO is no longer a U.S. pressure issue. Europe must bear the burden of autonomous defense, and truly needs to invest together. This is not only direct funding to purchase equipment and establish new units, but also to rebuild European industry. FCAS is a key supported project. Continuing to purchase the F-35 is not "supporting the enemy," but at least dilutes investment in FCAS. In the near term, Spain can purchase the "Typhoon" to meet the need for enhanced defense. Spain is already a "Typhoon" member, and using the 5% target as an excuse to reject the F-35 has a meaning of "making Americans eat their own medicine"; Switzerland can turn to the "Rafale," which was in competition with the F-35, and Lockheed Martin refused to lock in the F-35 price due to future inflation adjustments and raw material price increases, forcing Switzerland to make a decision.

It's still unclear whether more potential F-35 users will cut or cancel orders, but the total value of Spain and Switzerland's orders is close to $15 billion. Germany may be affected by rethinking the NATO nuclear sharing mission, as Germany is also a key member of the "Typhoon" and FCAS. Italy is similar, but FCAS is replaced by "Tempest." Portugal is reportedly delaying its decision on the F-35.

Giving up the F-35 for political reasons has already begun. Turkey insisted on purchasing the Russian S-400 air defense system, and gave up the two F-35s already delivered but still in the U.S. for training. The UAE refused to abandon Huawei 5G and more tech cooperation with China, and also gave up the F-35 procurement rights. Purchasing the F-35 has always had the element of submitting a loyalty pledge, and in the current U.S. return to isolationism, even taking neighbors as enemies, it's not surprising that more countries will give up the F-35.

Countries are also developing their own fifth-generation fighters, such as South Korea's KF-21, Turkey's Khan, and India's AMCA. The progress and advanced degree of these projects vary, as well as their reliance on U.S. key technologies. If South Korea still has the idea of "snatching a deal under America's nose," Turkey and India are striving to free themselves from American control.

The F-35 was initially designed with economies of scale in mind, and the reduction of ally orders will inevitably affect the F-35's unit price, which is an unexpected pressure for the U.S. The U.S. is the country with the highest military spending in the world, but its military budget is becoming increasingly insufficient. Not only are the prices of its own military equipment rising sharply, but catching up with China requires unmeasured efforts, but the U.S. no longer has the resources for unmeasured efforts.

With the F-47 still a "PPT fighter" and the FA-XX not even a "PPT fighter," the F-35 is the only reliable newly manufactured fighter the U.S. can rely on in the foreseeable future. The F-15EX is always untrustworthy. Trump also had high hopes for the F-35. During the Alaska meeting, the F-22 was displayed on the ground, and the B-2 and F-35 flew to "show off military might." The F-35 was eventually used to escort Putin's plane, clearly showing that it is the U.S. Air Force's "star player."

As long as there is no war with China, the "two winds" are sufficient, and the "new two winds" are even more worth having; if there is a war with China, the F-35 is not advanced enough, but it is the only one that can take the stage and show off.

Europe, unless it has gone crazy, goes to the Asia-Pacific to trouble China, doesn't have the problem of facing the J-20 and J-35, and Japan, South Korea, India, and Australia have the option of "avoiding the J-20 and J-35." Only the U.S. "must" face the J-20 and J-35. This may determine the fate of the F-35.

For Europe, the "old and new two winds" may be more "worth having," and the "Tempest" is also Japan's wish. South Korea has the KF-21, Turkey and a host of Islamic countries have the Khan, and India has the AMCA. The U.S. still has only the F-35.

Perhaps the U.S. needs the F-35 more.

This article is an exclusive contribution from Observer, the content is purely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, otherwise legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow the Observer WeChat account guanchacn to read interesting articles daily.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7540100007848870463/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the 【Up/Down】 buttons below.