Summary
Lockheed Martin UK’s chief, Paul Livingston, defended the F-35 stealth jet program after Elon Musk called it obsolete due to advances in unmanned drones.
Livingston emphasized the F-35’s unmatched capabilities, including stealth, battlefield data-sharing, and cost-efficiency by replacing multiple aircraft types.
While Musk labeled the program overly expensive and poorly designed, Livingston argued drones alone can’t match the F-35’s capabilities or defend against threats like China’s J20 jets.
Despite criticism over cost and reliability, the F-35 remains integral to NATO defenses, with widespread adoption across 19 nations, including the UK.
It’s expensive, sure.
In some cases, it has no use. In a small Eastern European country, it makes more sense to buy drones, artillery and air defense. If the possible opponent is right next to you, an airfield hosting the F-35 would simply be smashed with ballistic missiles, leaving the fighter homeless. The same money in the form of other items would serve one better.
Far over the ocean, far in the rear - different things make sense. Projecting force quickly to a big distance or intredicting an opponent that does that - requires fighter jets.
For a country whose threat model involves supersonic bombers launching hypersonic missiles at its navy or shipping or coastline from beyond air defense range - that cannot be solved with today’s drones, but can be solved with F-35: “intercept the bombers before they launch anything, destroy their airfields”. Drones cannot currently stop a stealth fighter, or even stop an ordinary fighter: it will outrun them and possibly run circles around them.
Drones of the future? Could take any form. Maybe some day, the F-35 is indeed a mobile command post in the sky and drones do the hard job. But not currently.
what a take
yeah this must be why south korea, japan, singapore, israel, finland, poland, romania and greece don’t have, or procure, F-35
hardened hangars are a thing, and unlike magic drones, F-35s already exist
That is also why Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and several other countries aren’t planning to get any. Easier to let others have fighters, based in safer locations. Always possible to bring them forward to local air fields.
South Korea doesn’t have a rear area to rely on, even its capital is in artillery range from the north - it has no plan B except overcoming the opponent very fast (to decapitate a command chain, you need stealth strikes through their air defense).
Japan is an island far from the mainland - plenty of advance warning about an incoming ballistic payload. Poland has strategic depth like Ukraine. Greece doesn’t have that kind of a neigbour, but otherwise would qualify. Since it has very articulated landscape, it must optimize its ability for naval and air operations, so it needs good planes.
Romania and Finland are the countries in your list that fit my categories and make me think - maybe there is some benefit to a country with small strategic depth in having a very expensive air force.
In case of Finland, they have a large GDP per capita (enough to sustain an expensive project) and want their airforce to survive in range of the St. Petersburg air defense district of Russia (relatively densely armed). I think that, given the options (Jas-39 Gripen vs. F-35), they decided that “we must have an air force” and “nothing but a stealth air force will last in predictable conditions”.
In case of Romania, I keep wondering why they chose it. I think they simply added Ukraine to their strategic depth calculation and and concluded “we have plenty of strategic depth, there will be lots of advance warning if anyone comes at us over Ukraine”.
As for hardened hangars, the last ones over here (Estonia) to have them were the Soviets/Russians. Forward-deployed allied planes spend their time in lightly built above-ground hangars. I have no doubt in the planners knowing the state of the art. They simply aren’t that optimistic. There is every expectation that in case of war, planes cannot stay, but must temporarily retreat out of harm’s way. But you are correct to mention hardened shelters for planes, they should exist. But if one wants to keep operating in range of SRBM-s and attack drones - hardened everything, not just hardened hangars. (Sweden for example decided it wouldn’t have hardened everything, and designed a domestic fighter capable of flying off straight stretches of paved road.)
To summarize: if you foresee fighting in a phone booth, don’t choose a longsword. :)
in case of poland, you’re forgetting about ballistic missiles stationed in belarus and kaliningrad. in case of japan and to some degree south korea, there are also possible adversary’s naval assets