Lately, after an orgy of rumors and developments, an important announcement came yesterday from the F-35 program office (Joint Program Office, JPO), i.e. the central agency of the Pentagon in the US, which manages the production and distribution program of the F-35 fighter for all users. What does it say? That “there is no kill switch for the F-35” and that “the program operates on the basis of well-structured agreements, which ensure that all users of the F-35 have the necessary capabilities to maintain and operate their aircraft effectively”.
This statement came after that of the Portuguese Minister of Defense, who said that he could not continue negotiations for a possible F-35 purchase, due to concerns about the “solvency of the US with its current administration”, so that support for the fighter is assured. While it was followed by a more civilized statement by the Canadian Minister of Defense, who said that he would “review the order of 88 F-35A fighters, which his country has already made, talking to other suppliers”.
The above is only the “peak” as recently the reports have intensified internationally, and from major media outlets, such as the Financial Times, the Guardian, etc. that They openly expressed concern about how “independent” this particular fighter is from American influence and control, with references even to a “kill switch”, that is, some ability of the US to automatically deactivate it or significantly degrade its operation, through some “hole” in its software.
The Swiss and Belgian denials
However, two of its users, Switzerland and Belgium, had rushed to defend the F-35. The former, in particular, had issued a press release from the Ministry of Defense stating that “remote control or blocking of the F-35 is not possible” and that “we do not need approval to use the aircraft and its missiles for defense, we do it autonomously, independently and at any time”. The Swiss denial is important as this country has diligently maintained a neutral status for nearly a century and is making an effort not to have “commitments” to its weapons systems.
Also, General Frederik Vansina, head of the Belgian armed forces, which already uses the F-35, made a similar statement, that the fighter is not “remotely controlled and we have no indication that this is possible”.
Practically and geopolitically speaking, such a “setting” that is supposedly hidden in the F-35, the US would hardly risk putting in, as if it were ever discovered – and in the defense sector such secrets cannot bear to remain in the dark – it would mean the collapse of American defense exports as no country in the world would trust such systems again. Plus of course the collapse of NATO and American alliances, as it would seem that the US is arming its friendly countries, but in a fraudulent way, which can at any time automatically undermine their national defense.
How can a weapons system be “turned off”?
But the crux of the debate about how “vulnerable” the F-35 is is not about a kill switch. Rather, it is centered and fueled by the new administration of Donald Trump, with its reckless statements and policies, which question all of the US’s alliance commitments, and have spread international concern.
So when Trump declares that “I will not defend NATO countries that do not pay enough for their defense”, when he starts a trade war first and foremost with the countries most friendly to Washington, when he threatens to withdraw American forces from Europe and “leave the Europeans to take over their defense”, that he may annex Greenland and Canada, generally implying that “anyone who wants the friendship of the US will now pay and submit or else suffer consequences”, it is impossible not to raise serious concerns about how radical the shift in American policy is, especially on issues of defense support.
So the F-35, but also any American weapon, may find itself exposed to the whims and caprices of Trump and his “young Turk” followers, if they decide that a country that owns them should be “punished” because it does not yield to their demands. In the much more “traditional” way that applies to any weapons manufacturer: That is, by cutting off the flow of spare parts, software upgrades, support for its management systems, ammunition, and so on. Plus, of course, the possible exclusion of the “disorderly country” from NATO telecommunications, information, coordination networks and all those systems and services that constitute the defense backbone of the alliance. Where especially the most modern weapons systems that are in great need of support, will find themselves degraded more quickly, but not of course the “next day”.
Thus, Trump has already done significant damage to the credibility of his country, whether in the defense sector or in the broader geopolitical sphere: as a “kill switch”, but not of software, but of logic and, above all, trust. And in order to repair this, the friendly and allied countries of the US should probably wait for Trump’s “orange” four-year term to pass, and with the hope that another one of similar perceptions will not follow. On the positive side, of course, this reversal of American policy is generating great political rallying activity within Europe, something that also strongly concerns Greece, which will, however, be called upon to seek a new range of international balances.
