[SR2Z]

> But that's the risk you take when you fail to adequately fund your military and try to get by on the cheap.

Except it's nuts to pretend like this system hasn't been working out great for the US. Competent leaders have expanded it for a reason.

> Most of them had the option of joining at Level 1 at the time, and had they done so they would have much more leverage today.

I think that Trump/Vance have run their mouth about the UK in roughly the same ways that they have about Canada and Ukraine and your claim is far from obvious. We have leaders who are stupid and will trash a good thing without a second thought.

[refulgentis]

Well, no, unless they're also insisting on annexing the UK, and crippled UK military hardware while they're in an existential war. I haven't seen such reported.

[jhanschoo]

I don't see how your point is relevant to the current topic which is narrowly about how investment (or not) into the F-35 program relates to input into the direction of the program.

[SR2Z]

The UK is a Tier 1 partner. The administration seems like it's one Xanax-fueled dream away from saying the UK should be the 52nd state and suspending technical support in the exact same way the US has done to Ukraine.

That's the relationship between the two. The problem is not that these nations weren't Tier 1 partners. The problem is that the current administration cannot be negotiated with in the most damning sense of "these people can't even be trusted to work for their own self-interest."