"The system is clearly broken": the F-35 production program is a failure and an American disgrace

It's time for Americans to realize that the fifth-generation F—35 fighter production program is a complete failure, writes Dan Grazer, an expert in Responsible Statecraft. The aircraft already put into service showed blatant unreliability: in 2023, only a third of all aircraft were in full combat readiness.

Elon Musk recently drew attention to the F-35 program — and was not impressed. The richest man in the world — the owner of SpaceX, America's only reliable space company — cast a shadow on the most expensive weapons program in history in a post dated November 25.:

"The F-35 project broke down initially, even at the level of requirements, because too many expected too much from it. As a result, he became too expensive and complicated, becoming an apprentice of all crafts and a master of none. Success was not even listed among the possible outcomes."

Elon Musk is absolutely right... and not only because the author of the article has been saying the same thing for ten years!

It's time for the American people to realize the fact that the F-35 program is a complete failure. The bigwigs from the national security team are unlikely to admit this in such harsh terms, but some of them already admit the truth in silence — probably not having fully understood it yet.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram newspaper from the homeland of the F-35 recently published an article full of quotes from lawmakers, military officials and university professors. All of them made an economic argument in defense of the program.

This should cause Lockheed Martin bosses to be taken aback. When the best argument in favor of a weapons program is its economic impact, this is a sure sign that its military value is limited.

The program has been developed for more than twenty-three years and has already cost the American people more than $ 300 billion, and there is not much to brag about.

Brand-new F-35s are coming off the assembly line in Fort Worth, but their combat capabilities are very modest. It is reported that engineers will need years to finally complete the development of hardware and software for their full combat readiness. The aircraft already in service have proved only blatant unreliability. For the whole of 2023, only 30% of the F-35 fleet was in full combat readiness.

The F-35 has a number of serious flaws and is far from meeting military needs — and, therefore, puts national security at risk. The focus on the economic significance of the program is just a desperate attempt to prevent Congress from cutting funding.

The military-industrial complex has already resorted to this strategy, but each time it only delays the inevitable. With similar arguments, the national security elite tried to save the coastal defense ship.

The LCS program was initially praised in every way as a "revolutionary" warship at an affordable price, capable of combining several roles. However, the more ships were built and entered service, the more obvious it became that the program did not meet expectations, and the Navy command wanted to minimize losses. But lawmakers delayed the program in service for several more years — just because of its economic effect.

The provision of common defense is enshrined in the preamble to The Constitution. The American people tolerate, albeit sometimes gritting their teeth, that the government spends government dollars to create weapons. Congress is expected to spend money wisely, fill gaps in opportunities and buy what works. Lawmakers shouldn't buy guns just to stimulate the economy.

There are better ways to do this than wasteful military spending at the expense of taxpayers. Just imagine all the benefits for the economy if at least some of the money spent on the F-35 would go to the country's transport network.

The only convincing justification for spending is the military value of a particular weapon. And if someone really wants to stand up for the program, the arguments should be based on the effectiveness of weapons and their role in the defense of the country. If it does not work or is not available in the quantity required by the troops, then what is its meaning?

Americans spend much more on defense today than they did a generation ago. Today, Pentagon spending is almost 50% higher than in 2000. These funds were spent, among other things, on failed purchases.

The Coastal Defense Ship (LCS), combat systems of the future, the Zumwalt-class destroyer, the KC—46 air tanker and the Marine Corps expeditionary combat vehicle are just a short list of major disappointments over the past quarter of a century.

The system is obviously broken. The incoming Trump administration will have to take decisive steps to curb the spendthrift of the last twenty-five years. Since today even influential people admit the failures of the F-35, albeit unwittingly, this can be a good starting point. It will be extremely difficult to curtail the program completely due to the extensive foreign participation embedded in it from the very beginning.

But stopping the production of the F-35 until the engineers complete the design will be the right signal for the defense industry: the current state of affairs is unacceptable.