Follow us on social

google cta
F-35

US gov't admits F-35 is a failure

With some wonky, hard to decipher language, a recent GAO report concluded the beleaguered jet will never meet expectations

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

Nearly a quarter century after the Pentagon awarded Lockheed Martin the contract to develop the Joint Strike Fighter Program into the F-35, the government finally admitted the jet will never live up to Lockheed’s ambitious promises — used to sell the $2 trillion boondoggle to nearly 20 countries around the world.

The Government Accountability Office released a report last month detailing the ongoing challenges the program faces. The first paragraph of the highlights page includes this sentence:

“The program plans to reduce the scope of Block 4 to deliver capabilities to the warfighter at a more predictable pace than in the past.”

The casual reader will be forgiven for possibly glossing over the passage because of its anodyne wording. But the statement is a profound admission that the F-35 will never meet the capability goals set for the program. “Reduce the scope of Block 4” means that program officials are forgoing planned combat capabilities for the jets.

Block 4 is the term to describe ongoing design work for the program. It began in 2019 and was termed as the program’s “modernization” phase. In reality, Block 4 is just a continuation of the program’s initial development process. Officials were unable to complete the F-35’s basic design within the program’s initial budget and schedule. Rather than making that embarrassing admission and requesting more time and money from Congress, Pentagon officials claimed the initial development process was complete (it was not) and they were moving on to “modernization.” What they really did was simply reclassify initial development work with a fancy rebrand.

So, when program officials say they plan to “reduce the scope of Block 4,” they are saying the F-35 will not have all the combat capabilities that were supposed to be a part of the original design.

This is a remarkable development. The American people have been paying a premium for more than two decades to develop and build the most sophisticated strike fighter jet in history. Pentagon officials, politicians, and defense industry executives have been saying for years that the United States needed the F-35 and all its planned capabilities to maintain a qualitive technological advantage over potential rivals. The combat capabilities at the top of the “scope” of Block 4 included some related to electronic warfare, weapons, communication, and navigation according to the GAO. These top-level capabilities were the ones for which the American people supposedly needed to pay a premium.

By admitting that the program cannot deliver the jets that were promised is really an admission that the entire project is a failure. The implications of that could be profound beyond the money that has been wasted throughout the past quarter century. There are 19 countries that either already are, or will shortly, operate F-35s after buying them from the United States. Several countries like the United Kingdom, Norway, and Italy have been a part of the program well before Lockheed Martin won the contract to develop the F-35. These countries have invested heavily in the program with the expectation that they would receive the most combat capable aircraft in history. All have seen their costs rise throughout the years and now they find out that the jets will never live up to the hype.

So, in addition to being a military disaster, the F-35 many also prove to be a foreign relations disaster as well. F-35 boosters in the United States sold the jet to the leaders of these countries with elaborate pitches of the combat capabilities they planned to deliver. There were also promises made early in the process about the program’s affordability, which seem comical today. The next time an American attempts to sell a “transformative” weapon abroad, they shouldn’t be terribly surprised if a potential customer expresses skepticism. F-35 customers have paid a fortune above the quoted price, receiving only a fraction of what was promised. The United States may find a shrinking market for weapons exports in the years ahead.

This should be a moment of deep reflection for the entire national security establishment. The F-35 was never going to live up to expectations because its very concept was deeply flawed. Trying to build one jet that could serve as a multi-role aircraft to meet the needs of just a single military branch is a highly risky proposition. When you try to build a single jet to meet the multi-role needs of at least 15 separate militaries, while also being a global jobs program and political patronage scheme, you get a $2 trillion albatross.


Top image credit: Brian G. Rhodes via shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
South Africa: Between Iran and a hard place (Donald Trump)
Top photo credit: President Cyril Ramaphosa (Photo: GCIS/Flickr) and Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

South Africa: Between Iran and a hard place (Donald Trump)

Africa

South Africa is struggling to unfurl its wings as a leading middle power and advance its relations with its fellow BRICS members while keeping out of the cross hairs of the U.S. president. This has been particularly hard considering that one member of the Global South grouping — Iran — is on Donald Trump’s current list of potential military targets.

South Africa joined BRICS in 2006. The organization is supposed to serve as an intergovernmental forum for member countries to connect on issues related to diplomacy, security, and economics. But the bloc has angered President Trump, who sees it as a threat to American leadership, particularly given China’s membership in the group.

keep readingShow less
Trump Khamanei
Top image credit: Bella1105/shutterstock.com

Could Trump bomb Iran before settling on a rationale?

Middle East

Shifting justifications for a war are never a good sign, and they strongly suggest that the war in question was not warranted.

In the Vietnam War, the principal public rationale of saving South Vietnam from communism got replaced in the minds of the warmakers — especially after losing hope of winning the contest in Vietnam — by the belief that the United States had to keep fighting to preserve its credibility. In the Iraq War, when President George W. Bush’s prewar argument about weapons of mass destruction fell apart, he shifted to a rationale centered on bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.

keep readingShow less
James Holtsnider
Top image credit: James Holtsnider, U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee to be ambassador to Jordan, testifies before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on nominations on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 11, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

New US ambassador's charm offensive is backfiring in Jordan

Middle East

Since arriving in Amman around three months ago to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Jordan, James Holtsnider quickly became one of the highest-profile envoys in the Hashemite Kingdom. In addition to presenting his credentials to King Abdullah II, Holtsnider has met with Jordanian soccer players, attended weddings, and joined tribal gatherings.

However, a January 14 request by a U.S. Embassy delegation for the ambassador to offer condolences at the family home of former Karak mayor Abdullah Al-Dmour showed that many Jordanians have little interest in participating in Holtsnider’s public relations initiative. Dmour’s relatives rejected the U.S. ambassador’s wish to visit. Dmour’s tribe issued a statement noting Holtsnider’s request “violates Jordanian tribal customs, which separates the sanctity of mourning from any political presence with public implications.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.