The plane’s cost per flight hour exceeds $40,000, more than double that of its alternatives—leading to mission-capable rates hovering below targets for six consecutive years.
Beneath the glossy marketing campaign that Lockheed Martin has crafted for their long-running
F-35 Lightning II multirole fifth-generation warplane lies a program plagued by astronomical costs, persistent technical flaws, and performance compromises. These issues render the F-35 overrated—and far too expensive for what it delivers.
That’s why claims that the F-35s and F-22s (the
far better of the two birds) will be used to fight any potential war against the People’s Republic of China
elicit snickers rather than fear from the rulers in Beijing. They know that the F-35 is totally overrated.
With a projected lifetime cost
exceeding $2 trillion, the F-35 exemplifies how unchecked ambition, bureaucratic inertia, and corporate interests can balloon into a fiscal hole, diverting resources from more practical defense solutions.
What to Know About the F-35 Lightning II
Designed as an ambitious
one-size-fits-all project that would keep the United States and a select grouping of its allies ahead of the competition, the plane has largely failed to deliver on its great promises.
The
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program was initiated in the early 2000s, and was intended to replace America’s aging fleet of fourth-generation warplanes with a single multirole platform. Early estimates pegged the total cost at around $200 billion. Reality has proven far harsher. By 2023, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), a federal government watchdog,
reported that the program would cost nearly $1.7 trillion over its lifetime, encompassing acquisition, operations, and sustainment. More recent analyses push this figure beyond the $2 trillion mark, factoring in ongoing delays and upgrades. This escalation stems from chronic cost overruns, with development alone ballooning due to concurrent design and testing—a risky
“fly before you buy” approach that led to retrofits and redesigns, benefiting defense contractors at the expense of taxpayers and national security.
Attempting to create one jet for three services—with variants for vertical takeoff, carrier operations, and conventional use—inevitably resulted in inevitable compromises and delays. The 2023 GAO report further detailed how the program has faced at least 12 accidents since 2018, exacerbating the already disconcerting reliability issues and gross project delays.
In 2024, the
F-35 reached full-rate production, a key benchmark for any major defense program. Yet even at that point, the “fly before you buy” approach was proving itself to be demonstrably weaker than the old way the Pentagon used to do business. Just as the F-35 was reaching full-rate production last year, there were already major modernization efforts underway, such as engine upgrades and software enhancements that continued driving up costs.
These overruns not only strained America’s budget, but they also impacted international partners—as seen in Canada’s auditor general
reporting a staggering $8 billion overrun for its F-35 acquisition in 2025. There is now serious speculation that Ottawa may abandon the F-35 altogether in favor of a 4.5-generation European warplane.
Of course, at least some of the blame for this about-face can be credibly laid at President Donald Trump’s feet, following his incendiary calls to annex Canada into the United States. But the true culprit is the bloated US defense industrial sector, which has regularly gouged its customers without regard for their political views or national origin.
The F-35 Costs Too Much—and Does Too Little
In the run-up to the F-35’s rollout, Lockheed Martin promised that the plane represented the pinnacle of military aviation because of its “adaptability.” In practice, this meant that there were massive tradeoffs between variants—negating its alleged air superiority and ground attack capabilities.
For instance, critics have long lampooned the
F-35 for its small wings, optimized for storage in the cramped hangar of an American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier but detrimental to speed and maneuverability. In simulated dogfights, the F-35 has underperformed against older jets such as the F-16. It even lacks the agility of specialized fighters, like the far better fifth-generation F-22 Raptor in those simulations.
Furthermore, the F-35’s engines have faced regular heat management issues, despite nonstop modernization efforts by the Defense Department. These heat management woes limit sustained high-speed operations and contribute to greater maintenance costs and service outages. Another GAO report, this time from 2024, shows that the F-35 fleet met readiness goals
only 30 percent of the time.
Hundreds of other defects remain uncorrected, most prominently including software glitches. While visiting a West Coast Air Force base that houses a substantial number of F-35s, this author was informed that a sniper overlooking the base with a .50-caliber rifle could cripple the F-35s located on the tarmac before those birds ever got airborne with some well-placed shots.
That’s right: an $80 million plane can be rendered combat ineffective by a single bullet.
Beyond development, the F-35’s true expense lies in its day-to-day operations.
Sustainment cost are skyrocketing, with the GAO noting in 2024 that they continue to rise even as planned usage decreases due to maintenance challenges.
The plane’s
cost per flight hour exceeds $40,000, more than double that of alternatives like the French Dassault Rafale. This has led to mission-capable rates hovering below targets for six consecutive years, forcing the US military to overspend on operations and maintenance by nearly seven percent in recent fiscal years.
Why Is Israel Buying More F-35s?
In the wake of the 12-Day War between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) claims that their
F-35I “Adir” variant ruled the skies over Iran. As a result, they have
put in a large order with Lockheed Martin, essentially breathing new life into what was a staid production line. Ultimately, however, few Western analysts dare to dig deeper into the claims of the IAF when it comes to the F-35I. Namely, just what were they really used for?
By all accounts, the Israelis relied more upon pre-war sabotage, drone strikes from
neighboring Azerbaijan, and standoff weapons
fired from relatively safe distances in nearby Iraq—standoff weapons that could have easily been fired from cheaper fourth-generation warplanes. With this in mind, why does Israel believe that the F-35 is worth its cost?
The F-35’s overrated status becomes even clearer when compared to its 4.5-generation alternatives. The
Swedish Saab JAS 39E Gripen offers advanced avionics, low maintenance costs—$4,700 per flight hour, less than one-eighth the F-35’s cost—and flexibility. Specialized fighters like the F-22 outperform the F-35 in air dominance, while drones represent a cheaper future for warfare.
This plane is
not anywhere near as revolutionary as its proponents proclaim. With costs spiraling to $2 trillion or more, persistent defects, and subpar performance in key roles, the F-35 drains what should be finite resources and creates key gaps in America’s already porous national defense system. Those resources, rather than being spent on an overpriced, underperforming fifth-generation bird, should be spent on newer, cheaper, unmanned systems.
As global tensions rise, the F-35’s legacy should serve as a cautionary tale: ambition without accountability leads to fiscal folly, not global dominance.
www.spiegel.de
www.aa.com.tr
www.aerotime.aero
.
