Spain Hesitates on F-35B Purchase Amid No STOVL Rivals

Spain Hesitates on F-35B Purchase Amid No STOVL Rivals

The F-35B lands vertically; it does not take off. This technical precision, repeated ad nauseam in discussions about replacing the Harrier on the LHD Juan Carlos I, debunks half the headlines. The other half is debunked by a stubborn fact: there is no real alternative on the market. Not now, nor for years. The vertical takeoff aircraft Spain needs for its flagship is, today, the same one many consider an expensive fiasco full of flaws.

The Harrier, with over 50 years of service, remains the benchmark. A fighter that can carry half the warload of its successor and which is no longer manufactured. The question hovering over this issue is not whether the F-35B is better, but whether Spain can afford to maintain fixed-wing carrier aviation without it.

Why is the F-35B the only vertical takeoff option?

There is no competition. Russia has no operational STOVL beyond experimental prototypes. Europe never developed a Harrier substitute, an omission some call a major strategic error. The French Rafale, an excellent aircraft, has no vertical takeoff version. Turkish drones on the LHD Anadolu are the path Ankara chose when Washington blocked access to the F-35, but they do not equate to a manned fighter with air-to-air combat capability.

The US monopoly in the STOVL segment is total. The program's bad publicity contrasts with the volume of international orders, an indicator critics attribute to the lack of alternatives, not the aircraft's quality. Spain has not yet formalized the purchase, but the Navy's renewal—which would include two new LHD-type ships—suggests the decision is approaching.

F-35 Technical Failures: Myth or Operational Reality?

The combat record is the most repeated argument by those defending the aircraft. Israeli F-35s reportedly neutralized Iranian air defenses and reduced what was anticipated as a prolonged Israel-Iran war to two missile salvos. If having F-35s prevents open conflict, the cost per unit—around $200 million—is justified alone, they argue.

On the opposite side, engineers cited in the discussion describe the F-35 as a "jack of all trades, master of none": expensive, with compartments reducing bombing capacity, and whose heavier version cannot engage other fighters in air combat. Dependence on software to adapt configurations in flight raises doubts about reaction in real danger scenarios. The criticism is not minor: an aircraft that must be limited via software to protect its radar signature is an aircraft conditioned by its own design.

Does Spain Need a Vertical Takeoff Carrier Aircraft?

Here consensus breaks down. One school argues Spain does not need fixed-wing carrier aviation: targets in North Africa are within reach from the peninsula and the Canary Islands, and in a European conflict, planes would operate from allied airfields. The aircraft carrier concept would be an imperialist relic, useful only for those wanting to project force thousands of kilometers away.

The opposing stance points to Segarro. Without carriers and without submarines—the S80 accumulates delays—deterrence capability crumbles. The submarine, not the carrier, is the quintessential deterrent weapon: a single modern submersible can condition the balance in the Strait. Drones and hypersonic missiles complete the picture of alternatives some consider more cost-effective than a manned fighter.

Real Cost: $200 Million Per Unit vs. Drones and Submarines

The economic comparison is brutal. A downed F-35 means $200 million lost. With that money, dozens of long-range attack missiles can be launched or a drone squadron funded. The Ukraine war has consolidated this logic: cheap drones against expensive armor, missiles against infrastructure. The fifth-generation manned aircraft begins to look like a luxury from another century.

The LHD Juan Carlos I, designed for transport, amphibious assault, and simultaneous air operations, is described in the discussion as a "useful behemoth" that excels in none of its functions. The alternative would pass through specialized ships and drone carriers, not a hybrid trying to cover everything and covering nothing.

---

The Spanish decision remains open. The F-35B has no competitor, but neither does it have a clear use case for a country that does not aspire to invade anything. Buying it would miccionan assuming the cost of maintaining a capability that might never be used. Not buying it would miccionan renouncing fixed-wing carrier aviation. And there, exactly there, the discussion remains stuck.