The publication of the feature (No) Kill Switch, a few days ago, seems to have ‘hit the nerve’: it said ‘in clear’ something one is not going to hear from any of involved officials. Not even from the mass of the mainstream media. Unsurprisingly, it prompted many questions.
Benjamin is taking care to answer these and explain the repercussions.
***
When countries purchase the American-made F-35 fighter jet, they aren’t just buying an aircraft—they’re subscribing to an ecosystem. The F-35 isn’t merely a stealth jet with superior aerodynamics; its true power lies in its ability to network, process, and act on actionable intelligence. Without this network, the F-35’s value diminishes significantly. In this sense, owning an F-35 is less about military hardware and more about subscribing to an American-led defense architecture.
Imagine buying a state-of-the-art smartphone, but its full functionality is locked behind a subscription service. The hardware is impressive, but the value lies in the constant updates, cloud services, and access to a broader network. Without the subscription, you’re left with a device that underperforms and slowly becomes obsolete. The F-35 operates in much the same way.
The initial purchase of the F-35—the jet itself—is like the upfront cost of buying that smartphone. It’s expensive, sleek, and impressive. However, the true operational capability only comes with continuous access to:
-
Software Updates: The F-35 is driven by complex software systems that require constant updates to maintain operational effectiveness, security, and functionality. Without these updates, the jet’s capabilities degrade over time.
-
Actionable Intelligence: The F-35 is designed to integrate seamlessly with U.S. and allied ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) networks. Without access to this data stream, much of the F-35’s advantage in situational awareness disappears.
-
Maintenance and Parts: The jet relies on a tightly controlled supply chain managed by the U.S. and its defense contractors. Ongoing maintenance, replacement parts, and technical support are essential to keeping the aircraft mission-ready.
-
Security Patches: Cybersecurity is crucial for a data-heavy platform like the F-35. The U.S. controls the security protocols and patches, meaning any vulnerability is managed centrally.
Each of these elem
14 Comments
oceanhaiyang
why wouldn't all nations just reverse engineer them once they buy them?
adriand
Hence why Canada is now considering bailing on its purchase of F-35s.
The prospect of getting cut off is hardly theoretical: the US already partially halted support for Ukraine's F-16s (I'm not sure where this stands at this precise moment).
The US is clearly demonstrating it is an unreliable partner in defence. Western nations cannot buy into a platform when its supplier might go from being a democratic part of the West to aligning with dictators and autocrats literally overnight. This doesn't just mean that platforms like F-35 are vastly less desirable to Western militaries, it also means that other things we thought we could rely upon, like the nuclear umbrella, are also unreliable, which is likely to lead to nuclear proliferation.
somanyphotons
Lockheed Martin must be really annoyed at the current administration. Who's going to want to put in new F35 orders now
readthenotes1
"Imagine buying a state-of-the-art smartphone, but its full functionality is locked behind a subscription service. "
Why is the word 'imagine' necessary?
—
Also, love the advert at the bottom "Hate subscriptions?"
nradov
This previously submitted article covers some of the same topics in greater technical detail.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43329336
neilv
So what's the "vintage Linux ThinkPad" of fighter aircraft — capable, maintainable, affordable, and no-nonsense? F-16?
(I'm going to start thinking of my big ThinkPad T520 as an F-15E.)
maxglute
It's hilarious (really borderline treasonous) as a "joint strike fighter" program, no none US partners thought maybe they could secure some sort of sole-source provider deal to at least have some leverage. Well I think Martin Baker does all ejection seats.
Sharlin
The Commander of the Finnish Air Force gave an interview on the matter (Finland recently purchased 64 F-35As). He dismissed any concerns, of course – what else could he officially say?
> He expressed confidence that the United States and Lockheed Martin would ensure the operational capability of Finland’s F-35 fleet in all circumstances, given the decades-long partnership. He also noted that all modern weapons systems, including those used in Europe, contain software components primarily originating from the United States.
https://yle.fi/a/74-20150575
rqtwteye
Let's hope Europe finally starts developing their own again. It will be good for jobs and technical knowledge. Globalization can be good but for critical things like weapons or also chips, it's better to have capability at home.
I think Trump may be miscalculating the situation. The Ukraine war already caused a shift of some countries away from the West towards Russia/China. With Trump being so openly hostile towards former allies, the US may lose influence world wide.
delichon
I've read speculation about robocars that will drive themselves back to the dealership if you're late on a payment. An F-35 can operate as a big drone. They don't even have to send Maverick to repo it. On its next outing it can fly itself home at the administration's whim. Which may be inconvenient for the pilot, their wingman, their mission, etc.
r0ckarong
You wouldn't download a national defense grid.
hipsterstal1n
These planes that we sell, not just the F-35, all come with a bevy of support from US folks. I have friends and family that travel that globe, visiting US allies, in order to support, train, and meet with counterparts in the respective countries to assist their use of US aircraft they purchase. These friends and fmaily also get flown around if there are any accidents or investigations involving these planes. The F-35 is just the next step in the "subscription service".
jlkuester7
The "issues" described here seem to me to be basically just run-of-the-mill aquisitions considerations. Is anyone out there buying any kind of enterprize-grade hardware in any industry and not doing the due dilligence to consider operating costs over the lifetime of the unit? All technology of sufficient complexity requires a supply chain to be in place to support it. Folks are not just waking up today and realising those F-35s they bought will need to be supported or maintained.
The only thing remotely newsworthy here may be a story around a loss in global confidence in the US "brand", but I think the actual implications of that (if any) still remain to be seen….
mwinatschek
Could that become a problem with any electronic product made by US companies? If their government demands Apple, Google & Co. to remotely brick computers, phones, and tablets for whatever reason, why should I bother buying them in the first place?