Italy Refuses To Continue Purchasing F-35 Fighters, Mulls Walking Out Of Existing Contracts

Donate

Italy Refuses To Continue Purchasing F-35 Fighters, Mulls Walking Out Of Existing Contracts

Illustrative image

Italy will not purchase any more US-made F-35 stealth fighter jets and will review the existing order for 90 planes, Italian Defense Minister Elisabetta Trenta said in a television interview with La 7 broadcaster.

Trenta also rulled out any new coontracts on with the US for the purchase of F-35 warplanes. The defense minister emphasized that the order for 60 F-35A and 30 F-35B jets, which Italy concluded in 2012, may be placed under review.

“We won’t buy any more F-35s. We are assessing what to do regarding the contracts already in place,” she said noting that strong financial penalties could mean that “scrapping the order could cost us more than maintaining it.”

“In view of the existing contracts signed by the previous government, we are carrying out a careful assessment that exclusively considers the national interest.”

According to Trenta, the termination of the contract can negatively impact Italian workers involved in the production. She listed other merits of the deal such as “technological activity” and “important research” in a Facebook post accompanying the interview.

In 2012, Italy already downsized its initial order for 135 F-35 jets to 90. 10 of these 90 jets were received.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • HardHawk

    at least one of them began to think and say no.

    • Ronald

      Canada has already canceled its order and is paying the penalty.

      • jako

        Because Canada having lots of water surfaces needs 2 engine fighter jets for security reasons ( if one engine fails F-35 falls down )
        And they need fighter jets with much bigger range and true multi-role fighter jets.
        And F-35 is nothing of mentioned.

        • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

          Why they chose the F-18H for it’s dual efficiency better than F-16 jet Canada needs it’s own Aviation sector developing fighters and Helicopters would be cheaper for taxpayers in the long run costs and benefits will be a plus win-win situation.

          • jako

            “Canada needs it’s own Aviation sector developing fighters ”
            That was resolved long time ago when Canada under US pressure “have decided” to give up on the project long time ago in 1958-59
            And that was very good airplane!
            Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/DSC_6934_-_Canadian_Pride.jpg
            https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c1/e5/7c/c1e57c9066174fa450c6d161693ee9d1.jpg

          • Sinbad2

            Competition is Americas greatest enemy, and they have a long history of destroying competition.
            The US used to have a lot of cable cars, many cities used them.
            So GM bought the cable car companies, sent them broke, then sold buses to the cities.

          • My dad worked on that project. Cost controller for Iroquois engines. Cancellation stressed our family. We sold our home and moved. Dad has to find new work.

          • jako

            Yeah.
            What waste of such good design and know-how that is irreversibly lost.
            Being US allay is not only about advantages….

        • OperationMongoose

          nonsense. the two engine thing is 50s thinking.

          • dbw

            Till you’ve been in the position of loosing/shutting down an engine…
            Which by your comment I suspect you haven’t.

          • Sinbad2

            2 engines over water is mandatory in most countries, and that includes choppers.

          • Robert Lavoie

            No it’s not a 50 thing…it’s a true reality thing for us her need that safety margin for large distances to cover ..got to remember that 90%of Candas population lives with in 100miles of the US boarder.Also we have 3 oceans to cover and protect..and our extream tempatures play factors as well in our equipment purchase for defense of the country….

          • jako

            Yet how many of F-16 US have lost in recent years (and not only US) due to engine failure?
            There are even 1 or 2 F-35 lost to the fire accidents.
            Also in war when one engine is damaged airplane falls down if it doesn’t have another one.

          • Mark Doldon

            Canada has lots of lakes, but other than the coasts, time over water can be arranged to be very short. There are loads of reason to scrap F-35, but the number of engines is not a large one.

          • OperationMongoose

            Jet engines are much more reliable than the 50s and when one engine goes it often damages the other engine. Also rescue is much more advanced.

      • wazzel

        Canada should do a deal with Airbus or SAAB and get as far away from the 20 year old F-35 nightmare.

  • leon mc pilibin

    The F35s are the most expensive pieces of junk ever assembled.

  • Hrky75

    It’s just “Art of the Deal” turned on it’s inventor. No government can afford writing off millions of Euros already wasted on faulty and corrupt international procurement contracts. It opens your political flanks for easy opposition attacks. Paradoxically it’s much safer, politically, to continue wasting money after negotiating a well publicized but insignificant price reduction…

    • Barba_Papa

      Politically it may be safer to throw more money after a bad decision, but it takes real political guts to do the opposite.

      • Hrky75

        Guts and politics don’t go in the same sentence in this day and age..After some populist theatrics, for internal consumption only – Italians will continue shoveling cash into this disaster …

        • Barba_Papa

          Some do. Thatcher may have led her country down the path that made it a slave to big capital, but she did have guts. She had a vision and stuck to it, even when it seemed like electoral suicide. That’s the only thing I can respect the bitch for.

          It is very rare for this to happen, but occasionally it does. And if they can combine it with the charisma that can sway voters political mountains may be moved. I think that every politician wants to be like that, to have the courage to say ‘damn the poll results, we’ll go through with this’. Just like ordinary people like to think of themselves that when the going gets tough, they will do the good thing and become a hero. But……. if that quality would be that common, why are there so few heroes when the going gets tough?

          • Hrky75

            Tear gassing striking miners, molesting N Ireland Catholics and than fighting a war on the other side of the ocean – mostly to divert the attention from internal UK problems – with an army and a navy totally unprepared, winning by sheer luck and the fact that enemy was even more incompetent…Not my definition of guts – I’d call it pathological stubbornness…But even if it was guts, she did rule more than 30 years ago – which fits into my “not this day and age” comment. And who were UK PMs after here – spineless wimps whose only goal was getting a cookie and a pat on the back from their owners in Washington: Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May.

          • Barba_Papa

            In all fairness, I never said I liked the bitch. I respect her for being willing to do unpopular things. I still hope she roasts in hell though because that the only thing I respect her for.

          • Hrky75

            Agree. Only she could have gotten the islands back with less lives and money spent with the help of Reagan and the US squeezing the Argie’s balls a bit…It’s just that “war time” PMs and presidents – once they become those – are cut an enormous amount of slack by friends and foes alike. And for that you need to spill some poor, uneducated, Cockney blood. These days you use super-secret nerve agent to poison some dispensable hobos and blame Russia – a recipe from the same Witch’s cookbook…

    • Mark Doldon

      Totally disagree. Its MUCH easier to throw away money already spent by another government, who typically takes the blame.

      • Hrky75

        Nope. The old government “invested” in a project of “vital national security” and it took only some “spare change” to finish it successfully. The new government “gave up” on this “sound investment” without getting anything in return – the bns are spent and are not to get returned by the Americans, are they. Therefore – we “invested”, they “squandered”… I’ve seen banks remaining in government ownership and burning through billions of tax payer’s cash for years, because PM’s and government ministers refused to be THE one to pull the plug…

  • Lena Jones

    Everyone now wants Chinese or Russian Supersonic weaponry. The American Military Industrial Complex is up shit creek. Israel, UK, and France too. Their weapons are fast considered as archaic. Fred Flintstone thug guns.

  • Rob

    F-35 is good for training pilots but not for front line dog fight because of its capabilities. F-35 is also very expensive to use it for training pilots.

    • jako

      J-15 is naval version and J-31 is not operational yet

      As far as I know J-20 and is not for sale but J-31 will be…

      • Rob

        The naval version fighter jet can be used on land but the land version will need adoptation / modification.

        • jako

          They can ….. but nobody buys naval versions if they don’t have carriers to put them onto…
          Who would buy J-15 …which country?

          “land version will need adoptation / modification”

          No it doesn’t work that way.
          There are no “adoptable”, “land version” airplanes on air carriers.
          No such thing exists.
          Naval airplanes are produced to be naval and “ground” airplanes are only for ground be cause “adaptation” you talk about is not small and can’t be improvised. .

          • Rob

            OK, can you please tell me that what is the difference between naval jet and land jet?

          • Barba_Papa

            Naval jets need stronger landing gear and an arresting hook for take offs and landings. This means compared to normal aircraft that the landing gear needs to be beefed up. And the arresting hook that has to be added. Since parking space on a carrier is at a premium the wings probably need to be foldable as well. Overall that makes naval jets more expensive then land based jets. That has not stopped them from successfully marketing them though. The F/A-18 has been sold to several countries with no carriers, who didn’t mind paying more then for an F-16, because they preferred having jets with 2 engines instead of one.

            In the case of the J-15, it would make no sense for any country other then China to buy them as its a navalized version of an already existing land based design, the Sukhoi Flanker. You might as well buy the current production versions in both Russia or China instead.

          • Sinbad2

            The FA-18 has greater range than an F16, but both are very old, 40 years for the younger FA-18 and 43 for the F16.
            If they were cars they would be classics, and only be used at special events of vintage cars.

          • jako

            There is SUPER-Super Hornet F-18 new upgraded version in the works (if not ready )
            To make stop-gap between dilapidated naval air-force needs and slowly arriving troubled F-35 (and with limited capabilities )
            Navy actually prefers new upgraded F-18 to F-35 hangar queen super star.

          • Sinbad2

            Yes well the FA-18 might be old, but it is reliable.
            The US used to build good planes, probably because of the German engineers they took prisoner at the end of WWII.
            But they have been going downhill for quite some time.
            First flight for the FA-18 was 1978, and they went into service 5 years later.
            The F22 and B2 took 9 years from first flight to introduction. The F35 supposedly took 9 years, but they fudged the numbers by introducing them before they were finished, those original aircraft will most likely never be used(parts maybe).

          • jako

            “Sukhoi Flanker. You might as well buy the current production versions in both Russia or China instead”

            You can’t buy Flanker in China simply because Russia has made agreement with China NOT to SELL Russian Flanker’s because they are illegal copies (not regular license produced SU-30 airplanes like India builds them)
            So they have clinched agreement with China to at least NOT to sell them and make competition to Russian SU-30 on the cheap….
            China has NEVER sold single Flanker to anybody not even to Pakistan..

            BTW very nice explanation on “naval jets”!

          • PZIVJ

            Good post, also you noted the price difference. :)

          • Tudor Miron

            Barba_Papa, sorry but I have to say that you just don’t get it. Only real difference between “naval” and “land” aircrafts is that naval jets have to shift priority towards very low speed peroformance – under 300kmh. Landing gear, hook and folding wings adds weight and that again puts even more emphasis on their low speed characteristics.

          • Barba_Papa

            Have you ever seen a naval jet? The F/A-18 used to the the F-17. It’s a light weight compared to the original. And the landing gear of the navy version of the F-4 Phantom is heavier then that of the land based versions. They all need stronger landing gear because landing and take off at a carrier deck puts additional strain on aircraft that they don’t experience while landing on land.

          • jako

            Naval arresting hook
            and structure of the plane that can support catapults or (resist wear and tear of arresting gear forces) are main difference
            For details you must ask experts and I am not one
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/US_Navy_010816-N-0295M-003_An_arresting_wire_falls_away_from_an_S-3B_Viking's_tail_hook_as_it_stops_after_landing_aboard_the_aircraft_carrier_USS_Constellation_(CV_64).jpg

          • Barba_Papa

            Italy has a carrier, I think its called the Garibaldi. But its a Harrier carrier. STOVL only. So that basically eliminates almost everything that is not an F-35B from the option list. Which is why its bad to design a STOVL. It made sense when the cheaper Harrier was still around, but carriers usually outlive the aircraft they carry. And then you are up shit creek once you need a replacement. Text book case why its bad to design carriers round an aircraft instead of the other way around. Short term budget driven thinking, never a good thing.

          • jako

            Italy is NATO country.
            NATO country would never buy Chinese airplane and as you have said they have aircraft carrier for STOVL only .
            The thing is that only customer for Chinese J-15 (outside of NATO) is in theory India.
            Because they have air carrier (and Russian MIG-29K on it)

            But India is practically enemy of China so that sale is out of option.
            That’s all I wanted to say.
            I have also seen article where one Western annalist is claiming that China wants to replace J-15 with some new naval airplane because they have problem with that plane.(but that might be Western propaganda )
            (J-15 is copy of Russian SU-33 which they have bought from Ukraine as prototype)

            article
            China’s Aircraft Carriers Have a Big Problem: Fatally Flawed Fighter Planes
            http://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-aircraft-carriers-have-big-problem-fatally-flawed-fighter-planes-25072

          • Sinbad2

            The National Interest is a Nazi propaganda rag, they once had a true story, but that was many years ago.

          • jako

            Thanks :-)) I know that
            Sometimes they are not so extreme – they used to be much worse.

            For your information 90% of the texts that concern Russian weapons on “RI” are from “National Interest”
            Why?
            You ask them!
            Also
            Sputnik is publishing their garbage articles almost regularly like they are almost happy that “Western press” talks about their weapons

          • Sinbad2

            I guess any publicity is better than no publicity?

          • Barba_Papa

            If the J15 is a copy of the SU-33 that may explain why it is flawed. It’s just too big and heavy an aircraft to be used for operating from a carrier without catapults. Probably why the Russians developed and the Indians ordered it as well, a navalized version of the Mig-29. Too bad for the Chinese the Ukrainians did not have an old navalized prototype of the Mig-29 lying about.

          • jako

            J15 is a copy of PROTOTYPE.
            Because Ukraine have kept one prototype of SU-33 all the others were in Russia.
            And in my opinion that might be the reason why they might have problems.
            Because they have copied non-developed, non-matured version of the airplane.

            “It’s just too big and heavy”
            It is bit simplistic logic. SU-33 is not under-powered airplane. So being “big and heavy” is not direct issue. Carrier without catapults limit their airplanes on the maximum load.
            So they can carry less in ammunition and fuel than they would normally carry if the carrier is with the catapults

            There is no such thing as “an old navalized prototype of the Mig-29”
            Specially not in Ukraine.
            Because MIG-29K is created by Russia not USSR.
            You confuse names because MIG-29 is very old design.
            But MIG-29K (NAVAL modernized version) is relatively new version of MIG-29
            In service since 2010. So not to confuse with some 30-40 year old MIG-29 model.

          • Tudor Miron

            I can’t agree here. Any “naval” version will do fine from the ground field. Their main difference is more lift (due to their need for very short take off run) at the cost of more drag. Just look at F-18 flaps.

          • jako

            ” Any “naval” version will do fine from the ground field”
            I don’t know about him but my argument was not if “naval” version will do “fine” or bad.
            The argument was that nobody buys “naval” airplanes without having air carriers (as far as I know )
            If you have any example of something that proves opposite, I’m all ears.
            Russia had there naval airplanes on the ground field during long repairs of Kuznetsov.
            They had also trained pilots on their new MIG-29K
            On the training ground field “Nitka” in Crimea built in Soviet times for training flights for the naval pilots.

    • Sinbad2

      The F35 is good at what it was designed to do, make lots of money for Lockheed.

      • Tudor Miron

        Exactly.

    • And how many hours of service are need for one hour of flight. I was told many. so not Russian.

  • Redadmiral

    90 Junkbirds at a cost of $18 billion PLUS. Super Size Rip off of the century

  • Tony B.

    People have missed the point that the trick to this turkey has been to get every potential customer’s country to also manufacture some part of it. Thus, if Italy stops buying they will lose jobs to some other country.
    Methinks the proper term for this sort of chicannery is called “extortion.”

    • Bob

      When the manufacturing of components within a project is vastly spread out like this, that defies the cost benefits of standard business transportation and assembly practices, it’s known as the ‘political engineering’ of a product.

    • FlorianGeyer

      Stalin used the same technique of control:)
      He diversified production to make different areas interdependent on each other.

  • Peter Moy

    Hopefully the Italian defense minister stands up for her country and cancels this multi-gazillion euro deal. Stealth? I don’t think so with all the needed under wing ordnance. The version with an internal stores bay also has its limitations in terms of payload. This F-35 is about the size of the old Harrier II. Compare this with the payloads of aircraft like the Su-30, Su-34, or even the Tornado. No contest. Senora Defense Minister should expect a visit from the diabolical war freaks in Washington soon.

    • Assad must stay (gr8rambino)

      theres no point in buying american planes anymore, russian is the way to go :)))

  • Real Anti-Racist Action

    Italy, save yourselves and sign alliances with Iran and Russia and Lebanon. They are your healthy future, and to obtain the future, you must tear down the past UK-Empire and all those sub-servants of the old UK-Empire.
    https://dailystormer.name/

    • Sinbad2

      If Italy disobeys American orders, the US will destroy the Italian economy.

  • Jesus

    Italy needs to break the American clutches of control and opt for an independent approach to procurements that make sense. The Typhoon is a proven aircraft that did rather well against F22, why spend so much money on some junk that is clearly inferior to F22.

    F35 comes with strings attached, the aircraft’s strong suit is avionics that can be remotely controlled and turned off if US is displeased for any reason, turning a 200 million aircraft into generation 3 aircraft.

    • Nexusfast123

      Turning it into a very large paper weight as you could not fly it.

  • Attrition47

    Let’s hope that the Italians have the bottle to mean what they say.

  • iosongasingsing

    Italy can resell them to the Turks.

    • Sinbad2

      The US would only allow sale to approved purchasers, which means nobody.

    • jako

      It is OK
      Turkey will go for it if Italy accepts lots of kebabs as payment…

      • iosongasingsing

        Do you remember when the bandits, pirates, Turks blocked the Saipem ship out of Cyprus? We could start from there, we also extract gas for them and so they pay us the F35.

        • jako

          I’m not so sure they will receive any F-35 in Turkey in the first place…
          Those 2 they have “received” are in US for training of the Turkish pilots.

  • Smaug

    I never understood what gave someone the idea of merge together all fighters in service, clearly no one fighter can do the job of the F22, Harrier, and F16…
    Still I imagine that most nations would buy a few as it’s the easiest way for most of them to get stealth.

    • Peter Moy

      Good point. Nowadays that is most likely due to inter-service rivalries and cost factors. The only aircraft I can think of that broke that pattern is the F-4 Phantom II for the US Navy, Air Force and Marines. That aircraft in its many versions will always be a unique classic in the history of military aviation.

    • Tudor Miron

      “Stealth” didn’t work even against Yugoslavia (F-117). Those who still buy it are simply making money out of ignorance of their population.

      • Smaug

        Stealth is near that simple, and that’s a pretty arrogant thing to say, anyway.

    • Nexusfast123

      Stealth does not work as it has to carry extremal ordnance for most missions (not stealthy). The other thing they sell it on is the sensors but they can be jammed and spoofed.

  • Sinbad2

    Italy will buy them, because the contract will have penalty clauses, that will mean Italy will pay more money by cancelling the contract than completing it. That’s standard on all US weapons sales.
    The Americans make Shylock look like a nice guy.
    Buy them, park them, and try and forget about the money they wasted.

  • Nexusfast123

    Give them to the dim Brits and Australians as they think they will work.

  • alejoeisabel

    Israel is happy because it’ll get more planes for free.

  • Ole Johansen

    When Norway had the fake process of purchasing the F-35, both Eurofighter and JAS Grippen was in the competition. They where soon to notice that Deep State Norway was just playing a theatre as F- 35 was choosen way before the so called “choice”.

    At this point the representative from Eurofighter made what I beleive is a “freudiean slip”, while going public in Norway with the following information:

    “In the nose of F- 35 there is a little box that contains software the owner of the F- 35 can not evaluate.”

    This is not correct in the sense of that being the excact words, but what was said is that the bird might be a trojan. Most up to date technology lovers would know what Boeing Uninterruptable Auto Pilot is.

    A “Jesus” in this debate writes the following:

    “F35 comes with strings attached, the aircraft’s strong suit is avionics
    that can be remotely controlled and turned off if US is displeased for
    any reason, turning a 200 million aircraft into generation 3 aircraft.”

    I think Jesus is on the right track, but goes opnly half the way. While he says they can turn the plane of(F-35), I say they can be used just as a drone no matter what the owner nation says and the pilot does. It will be remote controlled from either Ramstein og a base in Florida.

    With this trojan horse installed in Norway, a war between Norway and Russia is now in the hands of the US and Deep State. Its my believe that they want a conflict for many reasons.

    One of them being the fact that a Russian occupied Norway(after a false flag operation with F- 35 by remote), the huge Norwegian Oil fund will become a NATO war chest.

    That if “Jesuit Jonas” or “Jude Jens” is in power. “Jude Jens is of course our psycopat and traitor Jens Stoltenberg and “Jonas Gahr Støre”, the leader of the infiltrated Norwegian “Labour Party”.

    As long as the elected goverment is able to go abroad, they will have the entire oil fund that is already placed abroad.

    I have spent ten years looking into the issue of that little box mantioned by the Eurofighter representative at that time in order to figure out what this is about. Its clear to me that we buy a airplane with drone functionality, but not with the drone controller. The seller kept that one.

    While here I like to share my thoughts about the Norwegian Air Force that seems to be the endgame of our nation through insisting on having the F- 35, despite knowing about the “unknown functionalities” of the mentioned box. This after the complete asshole bombing of Libya, setting Europa into “immigration flames” purposly.

    It was well known that if you take out Gadaffi, Europe will face consequenses through enormous immigration, as seen happening. So thanks to the Norwegian Air Force that dropped 50 000 kilo of explosives over Libya and getting us 50 000 immigrants in exchange.

    As for me I understand that the future is set and its a matter of getting to a nice place on another continent in order to watch how the theatre of war evolves in Norway.

    Further reading about BUAP can be done here:

    https://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/07/flight-control-boeings-uninterruptible-autopilot-system-drones-remote-hijacking/

    Anyone that does a simulation of BUAP connected to AIS will see a great start of a new kind of war ;-)

  • FlorianGeyer

    Expect Victoria Nuland ( Nudleman) to be handing out Pizza soon and a violent Colour Revolution to replace the current ‘Regime’ in Italy very soon :)

  • wazzel

    They already have 10 and STILL CANT GET THEM TO FLY. The F-35 is a giant piece of government boondoggle shit.