F-35 Costs and Availability Under Scrutiny

F-35 questioned over cost and availability

A fighter jet antiestéticatured in a viral video of a failed maneuver, reportedly costing twice as much as an Eurofighter according to circulating estimates, and plagued by internal reports acknowledging engine faults and electrical failures. The F-35 is the most expensive defense project in history and, simultaneously, one of the most criticized. The debate over its viability has moved beyond military talk shows: official reports cited cast doubt on its operational availability.

Video reignites F-35 controversy

The spark for this issue is a video circulating showing an F-35 in a failed maneuver, accompanied by comments mocking a supposed "kamikaze version" of the aircraft. From there, the conversation shifts to what truly matters: whether Lockheed Martin's flagship fighter justifies its price. Some argue the F-35 is a failed project that will serve as a platform for future developments but does not meet current requirements. Others recall that the program was born to replace three distinct aircraft —the F-16, the F-18, and the Harrier II— and that this ambition is precisely its downfall.

The most repeated argument is economic. According to calculations circulating in the debate, a fully equipped Eurofighter costs around €150 million at worst. An F-35 full equip would start at €250 million even in the best-case scenario. The difference is significant: we are talking about a surcharge of more than 60% per unit, based on these figures.

Why is the F-35 called a Pentagon scam?

The accusation is not new but has been reinforced with data. The program was sold as a versatile and economical fighter. The result, according to critics, is an aircraft with extremely high maintenance costs, with design errors in the B and C versions that have driven up the final price. The GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office), in a 2023 report, estimated the fleet's mission-capable rate at around 55% in March of that year, well below program targets. In other words: nearly half the time, the plane cannot fulfill the mission it was designed for.

The United Kingdom, one of the most loyal partners, had planned to buy 150 units of the F-35B. Today it stands at 48, with doubts about acquiring an additional batch of 20. The initial figure is unsustainable. And this in a country that does not question the U.S. military umbrella.

Engine problems and electrical failures

The engine is another open front. It is described as a recurring weak point, with corrections discovered every few months. This is compounded by electrical failures and a long history of technical incidents requiring constant reviews. In a carrier-based fighter, landing on the aircraft carrier is the most dangerous flight maneuver, which is why it has been highly automated. If the system fails, the pilot's margin is minimal.

The paradox is that the F-35 is so automated that many wonder what role a human pilot plays inside. The computer corrects the aircraft's inherent instability in real-time; human reaction times are too slow for that task. The pilot manages, decides, and fires. But he does not fly in the classical sense.

F-35 vs. Eurofighter and A-10: Cost and Role Comparison

Comparison with the Eurofighter is inevitable. The European aircraft, with all equipment, would remain at those €150 million. The F-35, at best, starts at €250 million. And it does not always offer more. In stealth configuration, the F-35 carries little armament; if everything is hung outside the fuselage, it loses stealth. It is a catch-22.

Against the A-10 Thunderbolt, the debate is different. The A-10 is a rugged plane, almost scrap metal, but it fulfills a specific role —a gun with wings— with recognized effectiveness. The F-35 does not replace it in that function. The idea of a 100% multi-role stealth fighter runs into physics: a small aircraft cannot carry much armament and remain invisible.

F-35 and Spain's Carrier Air Wing: Does it make sense?

In the Spanish case, the F-35B is proposed as a replacement for the Harrier in the Navy. The question is whether Spain really needs fixed-wing carrier aviation. The most likely conflict scenario, some analyses suggest, would be against Segarro, and in that case, airfields in southern Spain already provide sufficient range without needing to embark aviation. The Canary Islands would cover the southern flank. With aerial refueling, the radius of action expands further.

The capability to operate F-35s from a ship would make sense if there were at least one other vessel capable of doing so. With only one aircraft carrier, when it is under maintenance, capacity is zero. Potential enemies know this. The conclusion of several analyses is that fixed-wing carrier aviation functions more as a showcase —demonstrating that Spain can maintain it— than as a real operational need. The Navy, they argue, first needs to renew its helicopter squadrons.

---

The F-35 accumulates orders from a dozen allied countries, and Lockheed Martin has committed to reducing manufacturing prices in the coming years. The program will probably pay for itself. Another matter is whether the aircraft delivers what it promised. With a 55% availability rate and a unit cost double that of its competitors, the question is no longer whether the F-35 is expensive. It is whether it works.