At least 25 years after the launch of the F-35’s development, the United States has, for the first time, implicitly admitted that the most ambitious weapons programme of the modern era has failed spectacularly
The promise behind the F-35 was impossible from the start: a single aircraft that could meet the needs of different military branches, be stealth, supersonic, network-centric — and all at low cost. The vision was politically useful, but technically unattainable.
At least 25 years after the launch of the F-35’s development, the United States has, for the first time, implicitly admitted that the most ambitious weapons programme of the modern era has failed spectacularly.
Through carefully worded but revealing phrasing, a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) formalised what many experts, military analysts, and defence-industry insiders have whispered for years: the F-35 will never live up to the expectations that the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin themselves cultivated.
The major admission hidden behind technocratic language
On the surface, the report reads like a technical document. Yet one sentence from the “Highlights” page reveals the full depth of the admission:
“The programme plans to narrow the scope of Block 4 to deliver capabilities to the aircraft at a more predictable pace than in the past.”
In plain English, this means that many of the F-35’s key combat capabilities will simply never be delivered.
The much-touted “modernisation phase,” known as Block 4 — launched in 2019 — was essentially a deceptive way to continue developing the aircraft without openly admitting that the programme had completely derailed from its original schedule and budget, notes Responsible Statecraft in its analysis.
Block 4, which was supposed to add advanced features in electronic warfare, communications, navigation, and weapons systems, is now being drastically scaled back. Officials are abandoning critical technological components, tacitly accepting that the F-35 will never gain the capabilities it was sold on.
The biggest military procurement “fiasco” of the modern era
The F-35 was presented as the ultimate multirole fighter — designed to serve the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marines, as well as NATO allies.
Since 2001, more than 19 countries have participated in or invested in the programme. Its total cost has already exceeded $2 trillion, making it the most expensive weapons programme in human history.
And yet, the final product remains a fighter plagued by persistent issues of reliability, maintenance, functionality, and performance.
The official acknowledgment that many key capabilities will never materialise means that the U.S. sold a dream — and delivered an incomplete, unstable, and problematic system.
Political and geostrategic consequences
The problem is not just financial or technological; it carries serious geopolitical and diplomatic repercussions.
Countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy, Norway, Greece, Israel, Japan, and Australia have invested billions in the programme, on the promise that they were acquiring the most advanced combat aircraft in history. Now, these nations are realising that the promised capabilities will never materialise — and the costs continue to mount.
U.S. credibility as an exporter of military technology has taken a severe blow.
Future sales of transformative systems — such as the upcoming NGAD programme or AI-driven drone projects — are likely to be met with growing scepticism and mistrust from foreign partners.
From technological marvel to political scandal
The promise behind the F-35 was impossible from the outset: a single aircraft to meet the needs of multiple armed services, stealthy, supersonic, networked, and affordable. The vision was politically expedient — but technically impossible.
The F-35 programme evolved into a political instrument serving vested interests, job distribution, and the maintenance of domestic and international alliances. It was never purely a military project.
Its failure, therefore, is not merely technical — it is institutional.
It exposes the breakdown of the entire Western military-industrial model, which allows private conglomerates to mislead governments, parliaments, and the public with hollow promises of “military superiority.”
Deep concern across the alliance
The U.S. government’s admission of the F-35’s failure should mark a turning point — not only for the United States but for NATO as a whole and for all nations that depend on American technologies for their security.
How many other defence programmes are doomed by flawed design and political pressure?
How can a country plan its defence when even the most ambitious and costly project turns out to be illusory?
What does this mean for the military balance against powers like China or Russia?
The debate is only beginning. The F-35 is not merely a failure — it is a symptom of deeper strategic decline.
Greece Got Burned Too
Greece’s decision to purchase 20 F-35 fighter jets — with an option for another 20 in the future — represents one of the country’s most expensive and consequential defence procurements in decades. The initial phase alone is expected to exceed €4 billion, not including the additional costs of maintenance, infrastructure, logistics, and weapons integration necessary for F-35 operations.
The deal was presented as a strategic leap for the Hellenic Air Force and as a counterbalance to Turkey’s rearmament, particularly after Ankara was expelled from the F-35 programme for acquiring Russian S-400 missile systems.
However, in light of the recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) findings and revelations about the downgrading of Block 4 capabilities, serious questions arise about whether Greece’s investment remains technologically sound, economically viable, and strategically essential.
The central promise of the F-35 was that it would be the most advanced, multi-role, and networked combat aircraft in the world.
In practice, however — as the U.S. government now tacitly admits — many of the capabilities that made the F-35 “unique” will never be implemented.
Financial Damage for Greece
The acquisition cost of a single F-35 approaches or exceeds $100 million per unit, excluding operational support, pilot and technician training, spare parts, base upgrades, and compatible weapons systems.
According to GAO estimates and U.S. defence reports, the cost per flight hour can reach $40,000–$50,000, substantially higher than that of the French Rafale or upgraded F-16V (Viper) fighters.
Meanwhile, global fleet availability of the F-35 remains below 55%, due to chronic shortages of spare parts and persistent maintenance bottlenecks.
At a time when Greece has already committed billions to the Rafale, the F-16V upgrade, and new frigates, air-defence systems, and drones, it is legitimate to ask:
Are the F-35s an unnecessary “luxury step” — especially when they no longer offer the full range of capabilities once promised?
Strategic Dependence
The F-35 is fully controlled by the United States, with key functionalities reliant on continuous software updates managed through U.S.-based servers and authorisations.
This means Greece will never have full operational autonomy over the aircraft. It will not be able to modify the systems, integrate national weapons, or alter mission software without U.S. approval.
In practical terms, that leaves Athens vulnerable to political and strategic constraints dictated by Washington — depending on the U.S.’s shifting geopolitical priorities.
The case of Turkey serves as a stark reminder of how quickly such alignments can change.
In short, Greece will receive aircraft that are:
• Limited in electronic warfare capabilities,
• Prone to software bugs and reliability issues,
• Expensive to maintain and operate,
• And with lower operational readiness than the Lockheed Martin marketing narrative suggests.
The Greek F-35 purchase, once hailed as a symbol of prestige and technological supremacy, now risks turning into a high-cost strategic trap — one that ties Greece even more tightly to U.S. control, while delivering less-than-promised military power.
www.bankingnews.gr
At least 25 years after the launch of the F-35’s development, the United States has, for the first time, implicitly admitted that the most ambitious weapons programme of the modern era has failed spectacularly.
Through carefully worded but revealing phrasing, a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) formalised what many experts, military analysts, and defence-industry insiders have whispered for years: the F-35 will never live up to the expectations that the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin themselves cultivated.
The major admission hidden behind technocratic language
On the surface, the report reads like a technical document. Yet one sentence from the “Highlights” page reveals the full depth of the admission:
“The programme plans to narrow the scope of Block 4 to deliver capabilities to the aircraft at a more predictable pace than in the past.”
In plain English, this means that many of the F-35’s key combat capabilities will simply never be delivered.
The much-touted “modernisation phase,” known as Block 4 — launched in 2019 — was essentially a deceptive way to continue developing the aircraft without openly admitting that the programme had completely derailed from its original schedule and budget, notes Responsible Statecraft in its analysis.
Block 4, which was supposed to add advanced features in electronic warfare, communications, navigation, and weapons systems, is now being drastically scaled back. Officials are abandoning critical technological components, tacitly accepting that the F-35 will never gain the capabilities it was sold on.
The biggest military procurement “fiasco” of the modern era
The F-35 was presented as the ultimate multirole fighter — designed to serve the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marines, as well as NATO allies.
Since 2001, more than 19 countries have participated in or invested in the programme. Its total cost has already exceeded $2 trillion, making it the most expensive weapons programme in human history.
And yet, the final product remains a fighter plagued by persistent issues of reliability, maintenance, functionality, and performance.
The official acknowledgment that many key capabilities will never materialise means that the U.S. sold a dream — and delivered an incomplete, unstable, and problematic system.
Political and geostrategic consequences
The problem is not just financial or technological; it carries serious geopolitical and diplomatic repercussions.
Countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy, Norway, Greece, Israel, Japan, and Australia have invested billions in the programme, on the promise that they were acquiring the most advanced combat aircraft in history. Now, these nations are realising that the promised capabilities will never materialise — and the costs continue to mount.
U.S. credibility as an exporter of military technology has taken a severe blow.
Future sales of transformative systems — such as the upcoming NGAD programme or AI-driven drone projects — are likely to be met with growing scepticism and mistrust from foreign partners.
From technological marvel to political scandal
The promise behind the F-35 was impossible from the outset: a single aircraft to meet the needs of multiple armed services, stealthy, supersonic, networked, and affordable. The vision was politically expedient — but technically impossible.
The F-35 programme evolved into a political instrument serving vested interests, job distribution, and the maintenance of domestic and international alliances. It was never purely a military project.
Its failure, therefore, is not merely technical — it is institutional.
It exposes the breakdown of the entire Western military-industrial model, which allows private conglomerates to mislead governments, parliaments, and the public with hollow promises of “military superiority.”
Deep concern across the alliance
The U.S. government’s admission of the F-35’s failure should mark a turning point — not only for the United States but for NATO as a whole and for all nations that depend on American technologies for their security.
How many other defence programmes are doomed by flawed design and political pressure?
How can a country plan its defence when even the most ambitious and costly project turns out to be illusory?
What does this mean for the military balance against powers like China or Russia?
The debate is only beginning. The F-35 is not merely a failure — it is a symptom of deeper strategic decline.
Greece Got Burned Too
Greece’s decision to purchase 20 F-35 fighter jets — with an option for another 20 in the future — represents one of the country’s most expensive and consequential defence procurements in decades. The initial phase alone is expected to exceed €4 billion, not including the additional costs of maintenance, infrastructure, logistics, and weapons integration necessary for F-35 operations.
The deal was presented as a strategic leap for the Hellenic Air Force and as a counterbalance to Turkey’s rearmament, particularly after Ankara was expelled from the F-35 programme for acquiring Russian S-400 missile systems.
However, in light of the recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) findings and revelations about the downgrading of Block 4 capabilities, serious questions arise about whether Greece’s investment remains technologically sound, economically viable, and strategically essential.
The central promise of the F-35 was that it would be the most advanced, multi-role, and networked combat aircraft in the world.
In practice, however — as the U.S. government now tacitly admits — many of the capabilities that made the F-35 “unique” will never be implemented.
Financial Damage for Greece
The acquisition cost of a single F-35 approaches or exceeds $100 million per unit, excluding operational support, pilot and technician training, spare parts, base upgrades, and compatible weapons systems.
According to GAO estimates and U.S. defence reports, the cost per flight hour can reach $40,000–$50,000, substantially higher than that of the French Rafale or upgraded F-16V (Viper) fighters.
Meanwhile, global fleet availability of the F-35 remains below 55%, due to chronic shortages of spare parts and persistent maintenance bottlenecks.
At a time when Greece has already committed billions to the Rafale, the F-16V upgrade, and new frigates, air-defence systems, and drones, it is legitimate to ask:
Are the F-35s an unnecessary “luxury step” — especially when they no longer offer the full range of capabilities once promised?
Strategic Dependence
The F-35 is fully controlled by the United States, with key functionalities reliant on continuous software updates managed through U.S.-based servers and authorisations.
This means Greece will never have full operational autonomy over the aircraft. It will not be able to modify the systems, integrate national weapons, or alter mission software without U.S. approval.
In practical terms, that leaves Athens vulnerable to political and strategic constraints dictated by Washington — depending on the U.S.’s shifting geopolitical priorities.
The case of Turkey serves as a stark reminder of how quickly such alignments can change.
In short, Greece will receive aircraft that are:
• Limited in electronic warfare capabilities,
• Prone to software bugs and reliability issues,
• Expensive to maintain and operate,
• And with lower operational readiness than the Lockheed Martin marketing narrative suggests.
The Greek F-35 purchase, once hailed as a symbol of prestige and technological supremacy, now risks turning into a high-cost strategic trap — one that ties Greece even more tightly to U.S. control, while delivering less-than-promised military power.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών