These are not difficult political questions. The US through NATO are forcing Belgium to buy F35s, and that'll be that. Out of all the jets allegedly in the running, only F35s can be used to drop US nukes. The very same US nukes which have been sitting around in Belgium for decades. The worst best kept secret in the country. No politician is willing/allowed to go on record about this, so they all pretend other jets are beinv considered.
It sure is silly to buy an expensive military plane if one cannot produce all parts including the engines domestically... how is hauling spares from across the Atlantic going to work in a hot situation?
Actually the Belgian F-16s were probably produced in Belgium. There were 2 European production lines, one in the Netherlands and one in Belgium, and Norway produced some parts and subsssemblies. Everybody understood the strategic importance of having redundant (and local) manufacturing capability, as well as the importance of sharing defense technology among allies.
Not many countries are capable of building their own fighter jets. Many use hand-me-downs from the US or Russia. Some more 'favoured' partners can buy them outright, but terms & conditions apply...
There are rumours about US intervention/approval being required when loading the F35 computer with mission details..
But in Europe there are several fighter programs. These include JAS 39 (from SAAB in Sweden), Eurofighter Typhoon (from BAE, Airbus and Leonardo; Great Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy), Raphael (from Dassault in France).
They are not strictly 100% European manufacture, I suppose, but could very well be.
There being several domestic European options, obtaining hardware from USA seems counter-productive. The F35 are very expensive, their quality seems supect, they are pushed through not on their technical merits but through political pressure (e.g. Norway), there are strings attached. All this is somewhat alarming. Also, any political guarantees attached to the purchase of the F35 are suspect, as this weeks promises may change next week - we all know the new administration is rather dynamic, in good and bad.
Could one buy a few for political reasons? Maybe, but maybe one or two would not be enough and with a larger block the cost becomes an issue.
The F-35 is vastly superior compared to any of the planes you listed (due to much better sensors, stealth (way lower radar cross section, meaning radars will only detect it once it is much closer vs a non stealth fighter), radar, sensor fusion, datalink with other aircraft, payload(due to having massive internal fuel tanks and much better sensors, while 4th gen fighters need to carry external fuel tanks and a targeting pod to complete air to ground missions)) as well as being cheaper than all but the Gripen (with the Gripen currently being the least capable).
Even we (the UK) can't (or least couldn't at the time) get access or permission to modify the source code on the F-35 and we (as a minor but only Level-1 project partner) partially build it.
IIRC the only country that can is Israel and they got a specific exemption.
Honestly I find the way our government rolls over to the US frustrating at times, As the customer we should hold a firmer line - flip side is though that arms deals are often a proxy for general diplomacy so we take it in the shorts on specific deals for long term advantages - It's all in the (great) game.
The UK government boxed themselves into a corner by designing their new aircraft carrier to only handle STOVL aircraft. And the only such aircraft available is the F-35B. If they had designed their carrier with catapults like the French did then they would have had a couple other aircraft options, and thus more negotiating power.
A CATOBAR setup was included in the designs at one stage but later scrapped for cost reasons. Building a carrier with a ski-ramp is a lot cheaper.
The disadvantage is as you point out, severely limited types of aircraft for operations. The advantage of the cheaper design was that two carriers could be produced - France, with a similar economy and military to the UK size-wise, has only one fixed-wing carrier.
Two carriers is a game changer, as it allows year round operational readiness. For the Charles de Gaulle it spent ~900 days at sea in its first six years[0] - less than half the time.
Always having a carrier ready with "compromised" aircraft has many advantages over a lower availability with better aircraft.
A CATOBAR setup was included in the designs at one stage but later scrapped for cost reasons.
I don't believe it was ever really included in the design. EMALS was undeveloped at the time, and where would you get the steam for a conventional catapult, with no reactor and no boilers? And where were the compartments to physically put the (huge) catapults and arrestor gear? And even if EMALS was available where would you get the electrical power to run it (no reactor remember) when the (gas turbine) engines full output would be needed to head into the wind for launches?
It was a tickybox, that's all. Because BAe could never take the risk that the UK would chose Rafales or Super Hornets, they had to make the F35-B, which coincidentally they also have a finger in the pie of, the only option.
This happens all the time. A country sells weapon systems to a second country, but will only maintain them if the relationship stays to the former's liking.
Seems unlikely we would see a war where shipping lanes between the US and Europe are blockaded for any length of time. Such a war would presumably turn nuclear pretty quickly, at which point getting spares for your F35s is a moot point.
