 "Why India was right to resist the F-35 temptation")
Not long ago, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II was the crown jewel of the global arms bazaar. Stealthy, supersonic and versatile, the fighter jet was hailed as the most advanced combat aircraft of its generation.
It was a technical marvel that promised air superiority to those who could afford its eye-watering price tag.
Of course, there was much excitement in India, too, when US President Donald Trump, during his meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Washington last month, announced they were “paving the way” for India to acquire F-35s.
Some self-styled experts had even proclaimed that F-35 would boost its military preparedness significantly, especially against the backdrop of a rapid modernisation of its forces by increasingly aggressive China and a swift shift by Pakistan from the Washington camp to the Beijing group.
Indian authorities, however, were quick to distance themselves from the speculative talks of acquisition of F-35s.
India’s Foreign Secretary, Vikram Misri, was quick to temper expectations, clarifying that any potential purchase was still at the proposal stage and that no formal process had begun. Since then, Indian authorities have distanced themselves from talk of an imminent acquisition– and in retrospect, they were right to do so.
From the hefty price tag of the aircraft to the strings that come attached with such platforms from the US, many reasons could be responsible for India keeping its distance from the F-35s.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsRegardless, it ultimately appears that the choice was a wise one.
The F-35 is now a cause of concern for all buyers. Worries range from the possible existence of a “kill switch” to Trump’s capriciousness.
Global unease sets in
In recent weeks, several US allies have begun to rethink their commitments to the F-35.
Portugal’s defence minister raised concerns about the “recent US stance in the context of NATO” when discussing plans to replace its F-16s. In Canada, newly appointed Prime Minister Mark Carney has called for a review of the country’s $13 billion F-35 procurement deal.
Germany’s order of 35 F-35s now faces fresh scrutiny, while a Danish lawmaker went so far as to suggest a boycott of American weapons altogether.
What’s changed?
The one word answer to that is “trust”.
For one, the F-35 is prohibitively expensive. With unit costs north of $80 million and lifetime maintenance costs running into hundreds of millions more, the aircraft is a financial sinkhole even for wealthier militaries. But the real issue isn’t just cost– it’s control.
The F-35 is not merely an aircraft; it’s a flying data hub. Its functionality depends on continuous software updates, mission data files, and system patches– nearly all of which are controlled and distributed by a US-based unit at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. Countries operating the jet are barred from making independent modifications or conducting certain types of tests.
In effect, the F-35’s operators are perpetually dependent on US oversight to ensure the plane’s combat effectiveness.
While most of these countries had accepted the aircraft’s limitations under the assumption that the US would always remain a reliable partner, the unpredictability of Donald Trump’s second term has eroded that confidence.
His apparent sympathy for Russia, his disruptive approach to Nato, and his transactional style of diplomacy have all raised questions about the wisdom of tying national defence assets to US control.
For European nations wary of Trump’s stance toward Russia and Nato, this is a strategic red flag. But India’s case is more nuanced.
A different set of concerns
Unlike European capitals, New Delhi does not view Russia as an adversary. India maintains longstanding defence ties with Moscow, and many of its current frontline aircraft– including the Su-30MKI– are of Russian origin.
Its defence calculus is shaped more by China’s regional assertiveness and Pakistan’s military posture than by the Kremlin’s intentions.
Nevertheless, India’s concerns mirror those of others when it comes to preserving operational sovereignty and flexibility.
Past experience has shown how deeply entangled US arms deals can become. Pakistan, for example, operates US-made F-16s under tight conditions– it is prohibited from using them for purposes beyond counterterrorism and is barred from stationing them alongside its Chinese-built JF-17s. India has no desire to inherit such restrictions.
Moreover, the F-35 would add yet another layer of complexity to India’s already diverse air fleet, which includes French Rafales, Russian Sukhois, indigenous Tejas jets, and older Mirage 2000s. Integrating an entirely new system would strain logistics, maintenance, and mission interoperability.
For India, the F-35 was not really a serious consideration for acquisition. So, beyond the symbolism of being offered the platform, there wasn’t a tough choice to be made.
The global sentiment around the F-35s now does provide reassurance that there won’t be the regret of a “missed opportunity”.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
