Dassault Rafale vs. F-35, Eurofighter vs. F-35: Can Europe Break Free from U.S. Airpower?

Introduction: Europe’s Fighter Jet Conundrum

European air forces are at a crossroads. For the past two decades, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II has positioned itself as the dominant fighter jet within NATO, with many European nations either purchasing the aircraft or facing pressure to do so. But not everyone is convinced that the F-35 is the best option. Cost overruns, maintenance issues, and concerns over U.S. control of key systems have led to a growing backlash against the aircraft. As a result, countries across Europe are reassessing their fighter jet programs, leading to renewed interest in homegrown alternatives like the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon, as well as future European fighter projects like FCAS (Future Combat Air System) and Tempest.

The debate is about more than just aircraft specifications. It is a matter of strategic autonomy. The United States exerts significant influence over F-35 operations through its centralized ALIS (Autonomic Logistics Information System) and later ODIN (Operational Data Integrated Network), which require U.S. oversight for maintenance, software updates, and operational data sharing. This has led to fears that Washington could effectively ground allied F-35 fleets at will. Some European leaders, most notably French President Emmanuel Macron, have been vocal about reducing dependency on U.S. military hardware, arguing that Europe needs independent defense capabilities.

The political climate has only intensified these concerns. Donald Trump’s erratic stance on NATO, including suggestions that the U.S. might withdraw support for the alliance, has made it clear that European nations cannot always rely on Washington. His recent threats to annex Canada, Greenland, and Panama may be rhetorical, but they reinforce the perception that Europe’s long-term security interests may not always align with U.S. policy. Portugal’s quiet decision to withdraw from the F-35 program and Canada’s reconsideration of its F-35 contract despite already signing it are further signs that the aircraft’s once-unquestioned dominance is now under scrutiny.

This article examines the Dassault Rafale vs. F-35, the Eurofighter Typhoon vs. F-35, and whether European nations should break free from the NATO-imposed F-35 monopoly or double down on U.S. airpower. The stakes have never been higher.

Dassault Rafale vs. F-35: Stealth vs. Multirole Prowess

Origins & Design Philosophy

The Dassault Rafale and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II embody two fundamentally different philosophies in modern air combat. The Rafale, designed by France’s Dassault Aviation, was built for multirole supremacy and strategic independence from the United States. It was meant to operate in various combat roles—air superiority, ground attack, reconnaissance, and nuclear deterrence—without relying on American logistics or oversight. In contrast, the F-35 was conceived as a stealth-first, network-centric fighter that prioritizes integration with NATO allies and operates as a flying command center in contested airspace.

The F-35 is a single-engine aircraft with a focus on stealth and sensor fusion, designed to evade detection and engage enemies at long distances before they even know it’s there. On the other hand, the Rafale is a twin-engine fighter with exceptional maneuverability, agility, and advanced electronic warfare capabilities, designed to fight and survive in a variety of mission environments.

Critics argue that the F-35’s obsession with stealth comes at the cost of traditional air combat prowess. While its stealth capabilities give it an edge in Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat, its maneuverability, speed, and close-range dogfighting ability fall short compared to the Rafale. The Rafale’s higher thrust-to-weight ratio and superior agility give it a distinct advantage in close-quarters combat, where missiles and countermeasures often make or break an engagement.

Performance & Combat Capabilities

The F-35 is optimized for first-strike capability, utilizing stealth to detect and destroy enemies before being seen, whereas the Rafale thrives in both stealth-denied and traditional dogfight scenarios. The Rafale’s Meteor missile system outperforms the AIM-120D AMRAAM used by the F-35, particularly in range and sustained velocity. Unlike the AMRAAM, which loses speed over long distances, the Meteor’s ramjet propulsion allows it to maintain high speeds even at extended ranges, making it a more lethal BVR weapon.

In a stealth-heavy environment, the F-35’s advantage is clear—it can engage enemies without being detected. However, if an F-35 is forced into a close-range fight, its subpar maneuverability and lower thrust-to-weight ratio make it highly vulnerable. The Rafale’s superior aerodynamics, electronic warfare suite (SPECTRA), and countermeasures allow it to survive and even excel in high-intensity engagements where the F-35 struggles.

Logistics, Costs, and Maintenance

The F-35’s cost and maintenance requirements are among its most controversial aspects. While the initial unit cost has come down due to large-scale production, the real burden is in sustainment. The F-35 costs over twice as much per flight hour compared to the Rafale, and its reliance on U.S.-controlled software and logistics systems (ALIS/ODIN) means that every operational decision is tied to Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon.

By contrast, the Rafale is marketed as an aircraft offering full operational sovereignty. It does not use any U.S.-controlled components, meaning France and other operators do not need American approval for maintenance, software updates, or system upgrades. This makes it a preferred choice for nations that want a high-end fighter jet without Washington’s oversight, including India, the UAE, Greece, and Indonesia.

For countries looking at lifetime costs, the F-35 is a financial and logistical burden, requiring specialized maintenance facilities, constant software updates, and long wait times for parts and servicing. The Rafale, while still expensive, is a more predictable and independent investment.

Electronic Warfare & BVR Combat: The Rafale’s Secret Weapon?

The Rafale’s SPECTRA electronic warfare system is regarded as one of the best in the world, offering radar jamming, missile approach warning, and countermeasures that significantly enhance survivability. While the F-35 relies on stealth as its main defense, the Rafale actively manipulates the electromagnetic spectrum to avoid detection and disrupt enemy targeting.

Another key difference is resilience against electronic warfare and cyber threats. The F-35’s heavy reliance on software, AI-driven mission systems, and centralized control makes it more vulnerable to cyberattacks. The Rafale, designed for independent operations, has been hardened against such vulnerabilities, making it a more robust platform in scenarios where electronic warfare plays a critical role.

Export Success and Geopolitical Considerations

The F-35 has been aggressively marketed by the U.S., with NATO members pressured to buy into the program to ensure interoperability across allied air forces. However, several countries have recently reconsidered their commitments to the aircraft.

• Portugal withdrew from the F-35 program in early 2025, citing cost concerns and a preference for alternative defense investments.
• Canada, despite signing a contract for the F-35, has begun reconsidering its purchase, with government officials openly discussing alternatives such as the Gripen E and Rafale.
• Switzerland’s F-35 deal remains controversial, with internal opposition pushing for a reevaluation of the procurement decision.

Meanwhile, the Rafale continues to gain traction internationally. France has successfully sold the aircraft to India, Greece, Egypt, the UAE, and Indonesia, with more deals likely in the pipeline. Its biggest selling point is strategic autonomy—buyers know that they will not be dependent on the U.S. for operational readiness, spare parts, or mission planning.

Geopolitics also plays a role. Macron has been a vocal critic of European reliance on American military hardware, arguing that Europe should develop its own defense capabilities rather than continue feeding into the U.S. arms industry. With Trump’s unpredictable stance on NATO, threats to abandon allied nations, and erratic foreign policy, European leaders are more inclined than ever to look for alternatives to U.S. defense systems.

Verdict: Dassault Rafale or F-35?

The F-35 is a formidable aircraft when used in its intended role—stealth-first, long-range strike, and data-driven warfare. However, its high costs, reliance on U.S. oversight, and limited effectiveness in traditional air combat make it a controversial choice.

The Rafale, while not as stealthy, offers a more balanced package—high-end performance, superior dogfighting capability, advanced electronic warfare, and operational independence.

For nations that value stealth and deep integration with U.S.-led military operations, the F-35 remains the most viable choice—as long as they are willing to accept its logistical burdens and long-term sustainment costs.

For those that prioritize a cost-effective, sovereign fighter that excels in multiple combat roles, the Rafale is the superior option.

The real question is not which aircraft is “better,” but which one aligns best with a nation’s strategic needs. If stealth, networked warfare, and U.S. military integration are top priorities, the F-35 is the answer. If dogfighting capability, cost control, and operational independence are more important, the Rafale wins every time.

As Europe reevaluates its dependence on American defense systems, and NATO’s future remains uncertain, the Rafale’s appeal is likely to grow—especially among countries looking to escape the F-35’s logistical and political constraints.

Eurofighter Typhoon vs. F-35: The European Heavyweight’s Struggle for Relevance

Development History & Industrial Backing

The Eurofighter Typhoon was born out of a multinational effort involving Germany, the UK, Italy, and Spain to develop a fourth-generation fighter capable of challenging the U.S. F-15 and Russian Su-27. It was envisioned as a highly agile, air superiority fighter with state-of-the-art avionics, supercruise capability, and excellent dogfighting performance. Unlike the F-35, which was designed primarily for stealth and multi-role flexibility, the Typhoon was optimized for raw air dominance.

In contrast, the F-35 program was a massive, globalized effort led by the U.S., bringing in partners from the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, and several other NATO allies. The idea was to create a one-size-fits-all solution, replacing legacy aircraft across multiple air forces. This approach, however, resulted in compromises in speed, maneuverability, and overall air superiority performance—areas where the Typhoon still holds a distinct advantage.

Despite these strengths, Eurofighter has struggled to maintain relevance against the F-35’s marketing juggernaut. Germany, Italy, and the UK have all placed orders for the F-35 despite continuing to operate the Typhoon, indicating a strategic shift toward stealth-based warfare and U.S.-aligned logistics and command systems.

Aerial Combat Performance: Maneuverability vs. Stealth

The Typhoon and the F-35 serve fundamentally different roles in combat.

• The Eurofighter excels in speed, agility, and high-G maneuvering, making it a lethal dogfighter. It was built to outperform fourth-generation Russian and American jets in close-range engagements.
• The F-35, in contrast, relies on stealth and beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagement, avoiding direct combat whenever possible.

In a dogfight, the Typhoon holds a massive advantage. Its twin-engine design, high thrust-to-weight ratio, and ability to supercruise (fly at supersonic speeds without afterburners) give it an edge over almost any other fighter jet in the world—except possibly the F-22 Raptor.

However, modern air combat increasingly prioritizes BVR engagements, where stealth, radar detection, and missile technology matter more than dogfighting ability. The F-35’s low observability allows it to engage enemies from long distances without being detected, making it difficult for a Typhoon to even get into a dogfighting position.

That said, stealth is not an invincibility cloak. New radar technologies, especially low-frequency AESA radars, are increasingly capable of detecting stealth fighters at longer ranges. If an F-35 is detected early, it is highly vulnerable—especially against a Typhoon armed with the MBDA Meteor missile, which has a longer range and better terminal performance than the F-35’s AIM-120D AMRAAM.

Cost & Operational Viability

Despite its dogfighting prowess, the Eurofighter faces challenges in affordability and modernization.

• The Eurofighter’s maintenance costs are lower than the F-35’s but still high compared to other European fighters.
• Upgrades are fragmented across multiple nations, meaning each operator modernizes its Typhoon fleet at a different pace, leading to interoperability issues.
• Unlike the F-35, which is heavily subsidized through U.S. defense partnerships, the Typhoon does not receive the same level of financial backing, making each upgrade a costly process.

Meanwhile, the F-35, despite being the most expensive fighter jet in history, benefits from its mass production and multinational investment. Nations buying into the program are incentivized to standardize their fleets around the F-35, ensuring logistical and operational compatibility with U.S. and NATO forces. This creates a network effect, where more countries buy the F-35 simply because everyone else is using it.

However, the long-term sustainment costs of the F-35 remain a major concern, with projected lifetime expenses surpassing $1.7 trillion. Some NATO members, like Portugal and Canada, have already begun reconsidering their commitments to the F-35, questioning whether the logistical burden and maintenance headaches are worth the investment.

Export Market & Political Factors

The Eurofighter has struggled to compete with the F-35 in global sales. While it has secured deals with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar, its market presence is dwarfed by the F-35’s aggressive international expansion.

• The UK and Italy, despite being Eurofighter partners, have purchased the F-35 in large numbers, signaling a shift toward stealth-based air combat.
• Germany, one of the largest Eurofighter operators, recently announced its purchase of F-35s for its nuclear deterrence role, sidelining the Typhoon for key missions.
• France, the only major European power not involved in the Eurofighter program, has instead focused on the Dassault Rafale, which has seen greater export success compared to the Typhoon.

A major reason for this disparity in sales is U.S. political influence. The F-35 is more than just an aircraft—it is a geopolitical tool. Nations that buy the F-35 are not just purchasing a jet; they are aligning themselves with U.S. military strategy and securing access to American defense infrastructure.

For countries looking to operate outside of Washington’s control, the Eurofighter (along with the Rafale and Sweden’s Gripen) offers a more independent alternative. However, with Macron and other European leaders increasingly calling for a break from U.S. defense dependence, the Eurofighter’s relevance may see a resurgence—especially as NATO’s political future remains uncertain.

Verdict: Eurofighter Typhoon or F-35?

Choosing between the Eurofighter and the F-35 depends on a country’s strategic priorities.

• If a nation prioritizes stealth, networked warfare, and deep integration with NATO, the F-35 remains the logical choice—despite its high maintenance costs and U.S. oversight requirements.
• If a nation wants a fast, agile, and highly survivable air superiority fighter, the Eurofighter Typhoon remains one of the best dogfighters in the world—especially when equipped with next-gen missiles like the Meteor.

In the short term, the F-35 is winning the procurement battle. But in the long term, Europe’s defense landscape is shifting.

With Trump’s repeated threats to abandon NATO, European leaders are rethinking their reliance on American-built jets. Macron and other EU leaders have explicitly stated their desire for a European-led defense initiative, which could reignite interest in aircraft like the Eurofighter and future projects like FCAS and Tempest.

For now, the F-35 has the advantage due to its stealth and NATO standardization. But as Europe moves toward greater military independence, the Typhoon may not be down for the count just yet.

European Fighter Jet Alternatives: What Comes After Rafale and Typhoon?

The Franco-German FCAS (Future Combat Air System): Europe’s Bet on 6th-Gen Warfare

With the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon both reaching the limits of their upgrade potential, European powers are looking ahead to the next generation of air superiority fighters. The most ambitious effort is the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), a joint project between France, Germany, and Spain, led by Dassault Aviation and Airbus Defense.

FCAS is not just a new fighter jet—it is a full-spectrum air combat system that integrates unmanned drones, AI-driven mission planning, and next-generation stealth. The core platform, known as the New Generation Fighter (NGF), is set to replace both the Rafale and Eurofighter by the 2040s.

The key features of FCAS include:

• Advanced stealth technology, designed to be more resistant to emerging radar systems
• AI-driven avionics, reducing pilot workload and increasing battlefield situational awareness
• Loyal wingman drones, which will operate alongside the manned fighter, executing strike and reconnaissance missions
• Next-generation electronic warfare systems, potentially surpassing even the F-35’s capabilities

However, political infighting has already slowed the project’s progress. France and Germany disagree on industrial workshare, intellectual property rights, and leadership control, raising concerns about whether FCAS will suffer from bureaucratic inefficiency and cost overruns.

Additionally, Macron’s push for European defense autonomy is a double-edged sword. While it ensures that FCAS will not be dependent on U.S. technology, it also limits the number of potential buyers—many NATO nations are reluctant to invest in a fighter jet that lacks direct U.S. military integration.

Despite these hurdles, France remains committed to making FCAS a reality, believing that a purely European alternative to the F-35 is essential for long-term strategic independence.

The UK-Italian-Japanese Tempest Fighter Jet: A Rival to the F-35?

While France and Germany focus on FCAS, the UK, Italy, and Japan have teamed up to develop Tempest, a separate sixth-generation fighter jet that aims to challenge the F-35’s dominance.

Unlike FCAS, which is primarily a Franco-German effort, Tempest is heavily backed by the British defense industry, with BAE Systems leading development. Italy’s Leonardo and Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are also major partners, signaling a shift in European defense cooperation outside of traditional EU partnerships.

Tempest is being designed with:

• Supercruise and thrust-vectoring for superior maneuverability
• Adaptive engine technology, allowing it to change power output based on mission needs
• A modular open-systems architecture, making upgrades easier and reducing long-term costs
• Stealth and electronic warfare capabilities, rivaling or exceeding the F-35

Japan’s involvement is a game-changer. By integrating Japanese defense technology into the Tempest program, the UK and Italy have secured access to one of the most advanced avionics and sensor industries in the world. This partnership also undermines U.S. efforts to keep Japan fully dependent on American-made aircraft.

Unlike FCAS, which struggles with French-German disagreements, Tempest has moved forward with fewer political roadblocks, making it a serious contender in the race to define Europe’s next-generation airpower.

Sweden’s Gripen E: The Smart Alternative

For nations that cannot afford the F-35’s long-term maintenance costs or do not want to be entangled in U.S. defense politics, the Saab Gripen E presents an attractive alternative.

Despite being smaller and cheaper than the F-35, Rafale, or Eurofighter, the Gripen E punches above its weight in electronic warfare, beyond-visual-range combat, and cost-effectiveness.

The Gripen E’s advantages include:

• An advanced AESA radar and electronic warfare suite, rivaling the Rafale’s SPECTRA and the F-35’s passive sensor fusion
• The ability to take off and land on short, makeshift runways, making it more adaptable to real-world combat scenarios
• A price tag and sustainment cost that are significantly lower than the F-35’s, reducing financial burdens for smaller air forces
• Complete independence from U.S. control, with all critical systems developed in Sweden

The biggest downside? Gripen E lacks stealth. While its electronic warfare capabilities help compensate, it does not offer the same low-observability advantages as the F-35 or the upcoming FCAS and Tempest jets.

However, for countries that prioritize flexibility, affordability, and sovereignty like Canada, the Gripen E remains a strong alternative.

The Future of European Airpower: Can Europe Break Free from U.S. Influence?

The F-35 remains dominant, but cracks are forming in its monopoly. The rapid rise of European alternatives signals that nations are no longer willing to blindly follow U.S. defense procurement policies—especially under the specter of Trump’s hostility toward NATO, threats of abandoning allies, and aggressive rhetoric toward Europe.

Key takeaways:

• FCAS is Europe’s long-term play for independence, but its political struggles could delay its deployment beyond 2040.
• Tempest is a serious alternative to the F-35, particularly for nations looking to maintain ties with both Europe and Japan while reducing dependence on the U.S.
• Gripen E remains the best low-cost alternative for countries seeking performance without Pentagon oversight.

As Europe reassesses its military-industrial future, one question remains: Will the continent’s air forces continue relying on Washington, or is this the beginning of a truly independent European defense strategy?

With Portugal pulling out of the F-35, Canada questioning its purchase despite signing a contract, and Macron doubling down on European defense autonomy, the balance of power in aerial warfare is shifting.

For now, the F-35 still rules the skies—but its days of uncontested dominance may be coming to an end.

The Future of European Fighter Jets: Can Europe Break Free from U.S. Airpower?

Will Europe Ever Break Free from U.S. Airpower Dominance?

For decades, European defense has been deeply intertwined with the United States, with NATO serving as the primary framework for air combat standardization. The F-35 program exemplifies this dependence, as it was marketed as the only viable choice for European nations wanting to maintain interoperability within NATO.

However, recent geopolitical developments have intensified European concerns about over-reliance on the U.S.. Donald Trump’s open hostility toward NATO, threats to abandon allies, and bizarre statements about annexing Canada, Panama, and Greenland have sent a clear message—the U.S. cannot be trusted as a permanent security partner.

This uncertainty has led key European nations to reconsider their approach to defense procurement:

• Portugal’s withdrawal from the F-35 program in 2025 was largely overlooked by the media but marked a significant break from NATO’s standardization efforts.
• Canada, despite signing an F-35 contract, is still exploring alternative fighter options, a clear sign that U.S. pressure alone is not enough to force long-term commitment.
• Macron’s push for European defense autonomy has fueled further investment in projects like FCAS and Tempest, which are designed to reduce reliance on U.S. military technology.

At the core of this shift is a growing realization: Europe cannot afford to remain strategically dependent on a country that may, at any given moment, decide to abandon its alliances for political reasons.

Is the F-35 Unstoppable?

The F-35 remains a powerhouse, but it is far from invincible. Nations are waking up to its logistical nightmares, sky-high sustainment costs, and software vulnerabilities.

Some of the biggest challenges facing F-35 operators include:

• Maintenance Dependency: Every F-35 operator is reliant on Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon for software updates, spare parts, and mission readiness. This means that if Washington decides to cut off support, an entire nation’s air force could be grounded overnight.
• Sustainment Costs: At over $42,000 per flight hour, the F-35 is one of the most expensive fighter jets in history to operate. Many nations underestimated the long-term financial burden of keeping it combat-ready.
• Stealth Limitations: While the F-35’s stealth is an advantage today, emerging technologies—low-frequency radars, AI-driven sensor fusion, and infrared detection systems—are already eroding that edge. In a future conflict, stealth alone may not be enough.

Despite these issues, the F-35 still dominates the market due to:

1. NATO pressure—the U.S. wants its allies flying the same aircraft for ease of integration.
2. Lockheed Martin’s aggressive lobbying—billions have been spent ensuring politicians and defense leaders push the F-35.
3. The network effect—once multiple NATO nations committed to the F-35, others felt obligated to join in order to avoid being left behind.

But cracks are forming. If alternative European fighters like Tempest or FCAS prove viable, expect more countries to reconsider their long-term investment in the F-35.

Which Fighter is Best for Europe?

Given the changing geopolitical landscape, each of the leading European fighter jets offers a unique advantage:

• Dassault Rafale – Best for nations seeking operational independence, a proven combat record, and lower sustainment costs than the F-35.
• Eurofighter Typhoon – Best for air superiority and high-G dogfighting, particularly for nations that want to maintain NATO interoperability without fully committing to the F-35’s logistical constraints.
• Saab Gripen E – Best for cost-conscious nations looking for a smart, highly capable fighter that operates independently of U.S. restrictions.
• FCAS (Future Combat Air System) – Best for long-term European strategic autonomy, assuming France and Germany can overcome political hurdles.
• Tempest Fighter Jet – Best for next-generation warfare with European-Asian collaboration, particularly for UK-aligned nations that want high-tech capabilities without full U.S. dependency.

The F-35 still offers unparalleled stealth and networked warfare capabilities, but for European nations that value sovereignty, cost control, and long-term strategic flexibility, alternative fighter programs are becoming increasingly attractive.

Final Verdict: The Shift Away from U.S. Airpower Has Begun

The dominance of the F-35 is not guaranteed forever. While many European nations have already signed contracts for the aircraft, the political landscape is shifting in ways that suggest future generations of European fighter jets will move away from U.S. oversight.

• Macron’s vision of European defense independence is already shaping future fighter projects.
• The UK-Italy-Japan Tempest project is a serious contender in the race for next-gen air superiority.
• The Rafale and Gripen continue to prove that alternatives to the F-35 exist today—not just in the future.

As NATO’s internal divisions deepen, and European leaders grow tired of Washington’s erratic foreign policy, expect a gradual but undeniable pivot toward indigenous European defense solutions.

For now, the F-35 remains the dominant force in European airpower—but its days of unquestioned supremacy are numbered.

Conclusion: The Shifting Balance of Aerial Power

The F-35’s dominance in European air forces is undeniable, but it is no longer an uncontested reality. Portugal’s quiet withdrawal, Canada’s reconsideration, and growing European resistance to American defense dominance all signal a broader shift—one where Europe is no longer willing to rely exclusively on U.S. military technology.

For decades, NATO airpower revolved around U.S.-made jets, but the political instability of Washington, rising costs of the F-35, and increasing concerns over operational sovereignty are forcing European leaders to reevaluate their fighter jet strategies. The Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Gripen E, and next-generation projects like FCAS and Tempest are not just alternatives; they represent an emerging European vision of strategic autonomy.

The next decade will be critical. European nations must decide whether to double down on the F-35, despite its logistical burdens and long-term costs, or commit to developing an independent fighter jet ecosystem. The decisions made today will shape Europe’s defense posture for generations—and determine whether the continent remains militarily dependent on the U.S. or finally builds a self-sustaining airpower industry.

With Trump openly questioning NATO’s future, threatening to abandon allies, and even suggesting territorial annexations, European governments no longer have the luxury of blind faith in U.S. security guarantees.

• Macron has already signaled France’s intent to lead an independent European defense framework.
• The UK, Italy, and Japan’s Tempest project is proof that nations are looking beyond the F-35.
• FCAS, despite its political challenges, is a clear rejection of U.S. defense dependency.

For now, the F-35 remains the dominant force in NATO airpower, but its future is no longer certain. The cracks in U.S. airpower hegemony are widening, and as Europe accelerates its own fighter jet programs, Washington’s grip on the continent’s aerial forces will inevitably weaken.

The age of unquestioned American military supremacy in Europe is ending. What replaces it—whether a truly independent European airpower strategy or just another iteration of U.S. dependence—will be decided in the coming years.