Follow us on social

F-35

F-35 crashes same day Lockheed CEO touts its success

The US military's biggest boondoggle keeps boondoggling

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex

The CEO of the world’s largest weapons company, Lockheed Martin, and the manufacturer of the U.S. military’s most expensive weapon system, the F-35 stealth fighter jet, told investors on Tuesday that Israel’s attack on Iran’s air defenses last October helped to "demonstrate [the F-35’s] value here, through the Israel experience.”

Taiclet’s boasts to investors about the program were quickly tempered by real world events the same day when video circulated of an out of control Air Force F-35 tumbling to a fiery crash in Alaska, after its pilot ejected. An “inflight malfunction” led to the crash, said Col. Paul Townsend, commander of the 354th Fight Wing, at a news conference. Townsend promised “a thorough investigation in hopes to minimize the chances of such occurrences from happening again.”

Even aside from the doubts raised by the crash, Tuesday's claim by Lockheed CEO James Taiclet, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny and actually highlights the serious problems with the F-35 program that is estimated to saddle U.S. taxpayers with a $1.7 trillion bill over the project’s lifetime.

Dan Grazier, a senior fellow and program director at the Stimson Center, flagged that Taiclet may be engaged in sleight of hand by touting the effectiveness of the Israeli variant of the F-35, known as the Adir, and the American variant used everywhere else in the world, in his earnings call claims.

“I don’t know that it’s even a valid comparison between the F-35 Adir and an American F-35s. They’re different platforms,” said Grazier. “The Israelis got a special dispensation that no other partner or customer in the program has. The Israelis worked out some arrangement where they have control over the key data rights in the aircraft so they can modify the F-35 in ways that no one else can. It's different from everyone else's F-35.”

Grazier also added that uncertainty about the use of F-35s in the attack on Iran’s air defenses calls into question Lockheed’s assertions.

“If the Israelis were able to destroy Iranian air defence systems but they did it with standoff munitions, then it raises the questions: Did it have to be done with an F-35?,” asked Grazier. “I’d be much more impressed if they said the F-35s flew directly over Iran and destroyed their targets at close range but if they destroyed air defense targets from a standoff range, then I want to know why they needed a stealth aircraft.”

A central critique of the F-35 program is that despite its cost the planes have an extremely low readiness rate. In April, officials acknowledged that the U.S. F-35s are only “mission capable” 55.7% of the time. Grazier says that lack of readiness was on full display in April when the U.S. military played a central role in combating a massive Iranian drone and missile attack on Israel but didn’t send F-35s.

“During that big attack by Iran on Israel, the U.S. didn’t send any F-35s. We sent F-15s. Why didn’t we use F-35s to defend against the Iranian attack?” he asked.

Taiclet assured investors that Lockheed “look[s] forward to a very productive working relationship with President Trump, his team, and the new Congress to strengthen our national defense” and said he is “focused on delivering the best mission-critical defense technology in the world and at the greatest value to the American taxpayer.” He also boasted about how F-35s give Israel the tools to start a new war in the Middle East.

The success of Israel’s F-35s in taking out Iran’s air defences help “clear the way for fourth-gen aircraft, drones to come in and devastate that country if the Israelis decided to do so,” said Taiclet, proudly telling investors that his company had provided Israel the independence and the weapons to start a war with Iran that the U.S. would likely get dragged into.

Were Israeli F-35s to complete this mission, Lockheed would certainly play a crucial role in thwarting Trump’s frequently touted track record of “no new wars” under his watch.


Top image credit: Brian G. Rhodes / Shutterstock.com
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
Lee Jae-myung presidential elections south korea
Top photo credit:June 2, 2025, Seoul, Korea: At Yeouido Park in front of the National Assembly, Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung held his final election rally. Tomorrow, on June 3, the presidential election will take place. (Credit Image: © Suh Jeen Moon/ZUMA Press Wire/ZUMA Wire)

Coup and impeachment boost  liberal in South Korea election

Asia-Pacific

UPDATE 6/3 8:50a.m. EST: Polls have closed in South Korea, with exit polling indicating that liberal Lee Jae-mying will win by a wide margin.


keep readingShow less
Cutting commands is just the start for broken military system
Top photo credit: NORFOLK, Va. (Apr. 15, 2008) Navy Capt. Patricia Cole, director of the Tailored Maritime Operations Center (T-MOC) at the Naval Network Warfare Command, inspects fellow officers during a command-wide bi-annual uniform inspection. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Corey Lewis File# 080415-N-2147L-001

Cutting commands is just the start for broken military system

Military Industrial Complex

On April 30, new Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Stuart Scheller, a former Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel, announced his intent to push for military reform, echoing the frustrations that led to his 2021 court-martial for publicly criticizing the Afghanistan withdrawal.

His call for accountability resonates with my decades-long work as an advocate for transforming the broken U.S. military personnel and leadership systems and addressing the deep-rooted issues in military culture. These would include bloated bureaucracies, careerism, a lack of ethical leadership, and fossilized military doctrine — all which Scheller’s remarks brought into sharp focus.

keep readingShow less
Emmanuel Macron,  Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz
Top image credit: TIRANA, ALBANIA - MAY 16: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz speak during a Ukraine security meeting at the 6th European Political Community summit on May 16, 2025 at Skanderbeg Square in Tirana, Albania. Leon Neal/Pool via REUTERS

In twist, Europe appears to be deliberately undermining Iran talks

Europe

In a dangerous echo of past miscalculations, the E3 — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — are once again escalating tensions with Iran, this time by threatening to trigger the reinstatement of U.N. Security Council sanctions (the so-called “snapback”) if U.S.-Iran nuclear talks collapse.

The E3 sees such a step as deploying leverage to force concessions from Iran on its nuclear program. However, it risks derailing diplomacy entirely and plunging the Middle East into deeper crisis.

Leading this charge is France, reprising its role as the E3’s most hawkish voice, reminiscent of its hard line in the JCPOA negotiations in 2015. At a closed-door U.N. Security Council meeting on proliferation at the end of April, French Foreign Minister Jean Noël Barrot exemplified this combative turn, saying that if the U.S. – Iran talks do not bear fruit, France and its European partners “will not hesitate for a second to reimpose all the sanctions that were lifted 10 years ago.”

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.