this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
281 points (99.6% liked)

News

37702 readers
1781 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Portugal has abandoned plans to buy F-35 fighter jets due to concerns over the Trump administration’s NATO stance and potential U.S. restrictions on foreign-operated aircraft.

Defense Minister Nuno Melo cited unpredictability in U.S. policy as a key factor, despite earlier Air Force plans to replace aging F-16s with F-35s.

Portugal now considers European alternatives like the Rafale, Gripen, or Eurofighter.

The decision reflects growing European unease over U.S. defense commitments, with other nations likely to reconsider American-made military equipment.

all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Veedem@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago

Pissing off the military industrial complex should be fun lol.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As we explained in detail in a previous article about the “kill switch” myth, according to which the U.S. government has the ability to remotely disable or limit the operational capabilities of foreign-operated F-35 fighter jets, international F-35 operators “are not allowed to conduct independent test operations outside of the Continental United States (CONUS) based on U.S. policy.

So, the only thing stopping this “myth” from becoming reality is a set of rules, not a physical obstacle or technical limitation. To me, that seems like a shallow reason to dismiss something as a myth.

We’ve already seen how much Trump respects the law, and how Elon is eager to dismantle/fire any regulatory agency/individual who is responsible for enforcement of inconvenient regulations.

The author of this article is alarmingly naive. Portugal is making a wise decision.

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And even if there's no kill switch, operating and maintaining the F-35 depends on expertise and supplies from the US.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 4 points 1 year ago

Yes. It’s just too easy to hobble the plane.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, the only thing stopping this “myth” from becoming reality is a set of rules, not a physical obstacle or technical limitation.

No, I think you've got it backwards.

There's no technical or electronic or mechanical kill switch. The method of limiting the use of the aircraft is entirely contractual agreements between the nations, telling the partners that they're not allowed to modify or test the aircraft without U.S. approval.

In other words, the kill switch itself is nothing but a set of rules, not a physical obstacle or technical limitation.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Uh, reread the bit you quoted. We’re saying the same thing.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We’re saying the same thing.

I read your comment to say "the only thing stopping the kill switch is rules," when I'm pointing out that "the only thing constituting a kill switch is rules," and those are two distinct ideas that have different implications.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 2 points 1 year ago

OOOOOH. I’m sorry. I misunderstood. Thanks for explaining!

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Good. The US can no longer be trusted to supply equipment to NATO countries.

[–] xzot746@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Canada needs to do the same.

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Or we need to buy them and jailbreak them.

[–] chrisbit@leminal.space 14 points 1 year ago

Wish Australia would follow suit with their submarine orders. If only they hadn't just made an $800m instalment...

[–] MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago
[–] missandry351@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol the Portuguese government just fell, we can’t really say much about other countries political stability

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

At least you guys have coalitions. The US parliament can never agree on anything, and the agencies shut down like every other year because of political shenanigans