[jfernandezr]

The article doesn't mention it, but there is an increasing worry that the USA could remotely disable some jet functionalities at will, or that any basic operation should be monitored and approved by them. So, this is not a reliable weapon that any country would like, unless the politicians agree to be vassals for life.

[7jjjjjjj]

Even if there isn't a literal kill switch, there might as well be. Without a constant stream of maintenence and operations support from the USA there things are no good.

[cpursley]

And the F-35 is very very high maintenance. Requires much more ground maintenance time that it's predecessors or competitors. That's a real problem in an active combat situation because it means less plans in the sky.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Exactly. I doubt there are literal kill switches but if the US stops supporting you there doesn't need to be.

[scott_w]

Yep, I think people arguing “there is no kill switch” miss this point. There doesn’t need to be if the lack of updates makes an F-35 an expensive, inferior version of a jet they could buy elsewhere!

[_DeadFred_]

Mission Data Files (MDFs), sometimes also referred to under the broader term Mission Data Packages (MDPs) or Mission Data Loads (MDLs) are required for every mission, and they have to come from facilities within the United States. Currently from the U.S. Reprogramming Laboratory (USRL) at Eglin.

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2023/01/20/bae-systems-receive...

[randunel]

The US also stated that they "tone them down 10%" when selling them to other countries.

[wuschel]

This is very common for export variants of a high end military products.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Cite a source please.

[burnt-resistor]

This is an oft repeated conspiracy theory. The "kill switch" is repair parts and manufacturer support.

[msgodel]

This kind of software is really unacceptable in consumer electronics but with weapons it entirely defeats the point of the thing.

It's surprising any were sold outside the US at all.