My comment was a reflection on discourse of the article here. The US has pulled support for providing further jamming reprogramming but way the article is written clearly was giving readers the impression the systems are US specific and only able to be programmed by the US.

Evidenced by most comments on HN at the time I posted not being about the software support per se being withdrawn but jumping off the premise it was only programmable by the US, with comment chains ranging from US software and supplied aircraft can't be trusted to going so far as talking about kill switches. This led to a very noisy, knee-jerky discussion based on an incorrect basis.

Quotes from the OP's article:

> Ukrainian pilots are not receiving updates, and the programs could soon become obsolete [...] France’s Mirage 2000s are equipped with their own powerful jammers, and the Americans are not involved in their programming.

> In the longer term, the Ukrainians could refit their F-16s with non-American electronic countermeasures [...] But that could take time and money...

Now contrast to the original Forbes citation which explained the US team doing the reprogramming wasn't even familiar with the system until being tasked to reprogram it for use in Ukraine, doing so in just two weeks and it being a multi-national effort with two European countries and an overseas facility.

Had the discourse began with that there would still be criticism of the government's decision, given the US was leading the reprogramming effort, but with clarity on what was occurring.