All that being said, the F35 does serve a role that others can't fill. When people think about fighters, generally two planes locked in a dogfight come to mind. This is a 20th century way of thinking about air superiority. Take the F22 as an example, it's well loved by both USAF pilots and the public, and is considered by many to be the most capable fighter in the world, yet in low speed maneuvers it can be taken down by a 4th gen jet that was designed in the 70s and costs a fraction of what the F22 does[0].
In a real combat situation, the older jet would never even see the F22 - that's it's real power, it's weapons and sensor platform are what make it the arguably best in the world.
The F35 can do a little bit of everything, but it's primary selling point is that it's essentially a flying digital weapons platform that can be adapted to any role - piloted or remote, wireless drone hub, recon, communications, sensor and targeting relay and so on. The general idea is that an F35 goes forward into the battle and projects the force of an air wing or carrier group with it's advanced communications and sensor package, all while being a capable fighter on its own.
[0]https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/yes-france-shot-dow...
It's good to be the largest military in your alliance, and to control the world's reserve currency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
For countries that are functionally vasals to the US, it's a risk-free decision, at least politically.
We also give the EU 1 Billion every 10 years and we aren't even a member. [1]
It's flawed in many ways, but there aren't many (any?) similarly-capable alternatives.
2) If the Pentagon can be bamboozled, what makes you think the furriners' militaries couldn't?