Whether there is a kill switch or not is somewhat irrelevant. There is a larger than nonzero chance that there is a kill switch, and the US cannot be trusted anymore. So we have to assume there is a kill switch.
Lack of maintenance parts is just a kill switch with a timer.
Jet Fighters need a lot of maintenance, they are not like cars.
So a kill switch in software is not needed. If the US stops shipping parts, then it is only a matter of time before the Jet Fighters is an expensive paper weight.
Exactly. There probably is a kill switch (the temptation to add one is just impossible to resist), but it's not even needed. Stop maintenance, and in a matter of days these things can't fly.
F35 is networked heavily, for its sensor fusion and various abilities. It has probably 25 million LOC and is heavily software dependent. It should be viewed somewhat as a closed software product that needs heavy vendor support right from mission planning.
That's basically what the article says. And that even if there isn't a kill switch, these weapons rely on constant updates and cutting those off is effectively a kill switch, even if it wasn't designed as one.
Having a kill switch "just in case" really is a strategically logical move. Consider the case of Iran: In the 1960s and 1970s, the US delivered several US-built aircraft to Iran, including F-4s, F-5s, and F-14s, some of the most advanced fighters of that era. After the 1979 revolution, US-Iran relations collapsed. Despite the US cutting off spare parts and maintenance, Iran has been able to keep the aircraft operational to this day (likely through effortful reverse engineering). So now there is an adversary that is armed with equipment you provided. The obvious way to avoid that is to install a kill switch.
> After the 1979 revolution, US-Iran relations collapsed.
Amusing way of putting it, if you ignore the US/UK instigated 1953 coup of Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah who was busy selling out Iran to the western powers, yeah you can assuming US-Iran relations "collapsed". I'd say they collapsed in 1953 and 1979 was the aftermath.
With absolutely no military experience, I find this thought process hard to believe. Namely that the existence of backdoors is hard to conceal forever, and that their discovery would do worse damage than what Trump is doing now. Given most administrations seemed interested in maintaining friendship with Europe, I don't see the strategic benefit.
Selling expensive weapons that can never be used against oneself sounds like a pretty significant strategic benefit to me. Are there risks? Sure, but the US could just shrug if exposed. A kill switch seems likely.
