The F-35 Lightning II, hailed as a marvel of modern aviation, is currently navigating a turbulent phase. While Lockheed Martin champions it as “stealthy, speedy, and the future of air dominance,” critics like Bill Sweetman point to a “$Trillion Dollar Trainwreck.” Both perspectives hold weight, but the immediate concern revolves around the Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) upgrade. This seemingly modest update has triggered a domino effect of delays, storage of newly produced aircraft, and congressional scrutiny, highlighting that even seemingly small issues can escalate into significant financial and operational challenges, far exceeding a symbolic amount like 35 Euros Dollars.
F-35A Lightning II at Edwards Air Force Base
An F-35A Lightning II arriving at Edwards Air Force Base, California, on August 1, 2022, marking the initiation of Technical Refresh 3 and Block 4 testing. (Credit: USAF/Chase Kohler)
The TR-3 upgrade, intended to pave the way for the more ambitious Block 4 enhancements, has instead become a bottleneck. Air Force Lt Gen Mike Schmidt, head of the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), expressed his frustration, admitting to “over-promising and under-delivering.” This candid acknowledgment underscores the severity of the situation, where even a relatively minor upgrade is facing significant hurdles. The delays have become so protracted that Congress is now contemplating reducing F-35 procurement, redirecting funds to address the root causes of these performance issues. The debate in Congress reflects a growing unease about the program’s escalating costs and persistent delays, making even a seemingly small sum like 35 euros dollars feel significant when multiplied across the program’s vast budget.
Congressman Adam Smith and Donald Norcross voiced strong concerns, highlighting the F-35’s projected lifecycle cost exceeding $2 trillion. They argue against rewarding “unacceptable program execution” with further aircraft purchases, especially when performance metrics are routinely missed. This congressional pushback demonstrates a demand for greater accountability and efficiency in defense spending, where even perceived minor inefficiencies can accumulate to substantial financial burdens, dwarfing the nominal value of 35 euros dollars.
Congressman Adam Smith questions F-35 program
Adam Smith, then Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, inquiring about the F-35A Lightning II at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, in October 2019. His stance has become increasingly critical of the F-35 program. (Credit: USAF/Tech Sgt Jensen Stidham)
The TR-3 saga is not an isolated incident. The F-35 program has faced a history of technical challenges. Past issues ranged from heat damage during supersonic flight to cockpit pressure regulation problems and helmet display glitches. These earlier challenges, while eventually addressed, foreshadowed the complexities inherent in such a technologically advanced aircraft, and serve as a reminder that even seemingly small component failures can have cascading effects, costing far more than 35 euros dollars to rectify.
TR-3 Troubles: A Deep Dive into the Upgrade Delays
The TR-3 upgrade was designed to be a relatively straightforward enhancement, focused on modernizing the F-35’s computational core. It included a new L3Harris integrated core processor, upgraded memory, enhanced cockpit displays, and the replacement of the problematic Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) with the Operational Data Integrated Network (ODIN). Despite its seemingly limited scope, TR-3 is now three years behind schedule, adding USD 330 million to development costs, according to the GAO. This cost overrun highlights how even seemingly minor upgrades can become budget-busters, making the idea of saving even 35 euros dollars per unit seem like a worthwhile endeavor in comparison.
The Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C2D2) methodology, intended for efficient half-yearly software updates, has faltered. Software builds have become bloated with defect fixes, and hardware design maturity issues have led to low manufacturing yields. General Schmidt revealed that only a fraction of planned TR-3 hardware was ready by the end of 2023, citing bottlenecks in component production. Even after resolving hardware issues, software stability problems emerged during flight testing, further delaying the program. This cycle of delays and setbacks underscores the intricate nature of modern defense projects, where even minor missteps can lead to substantial financial and timeline repercussions, dwarfing any potential savings of just 35 euros dollars in peripheral areas.
Flight testing, commencing in January 2023, exposed discrepancies between software performance in laboratory simulations and live flight environments. This software instability has proven stubbornly difficult to resolve, leading to repeated delays in deliveries. Initial target delivery dates have been repeatedly missed, and while some TR-3-enabled aircraft have been test-flown, they remain in storage, awaiting software clearance. The growing number of stored aircraft represents a significant financial and operational logjam, emphasizing that even small software glitches can create massive disruptions, costing exponentially more than 35 euros dollars in delays and storage fees.
F-35 TR-3 First Flight at Edwards AFB
Major Ryan ‘Bolo’ Luersen piloting the first F-35 flight in TR-3 configuration at Edwards Air Force Base, California, on January 6, 2023. The aircraft, AF-7, 07-0745, was a converted test aircraft. (Credit: USAF)
Reports in May 2024 indicated ongoing software problems, with test pilots experiencing radar and electronic warfare system failures requiring in-flight reboots. This persistent software instability raises concerns about the operational readiness and reliability of the TR-3 upgrade, highlighting that even seemingly minor software bugs can compromise critical aircraft systems, making the focus on larger systemic issues far more critical than saving a mere 35 euros dollars.
The delivery pause is impacting international partners. Belgium and Denmark face potential fighter gaps due to delayed TR-3 aircraft deliveries coinciding with F-16 retirements. The Netherlands, anticipating delays, opted for TR-2 configured aircraft to maintain delivery flow. The varying responses from international partners illustrate the global ramifications of the F-35 program delays, highlighting the interconnectedness of international defense partnerships, where even small delays can ripple across nations, impacting defense capabilities far more significantly than a negligible sum like 35 euros dollars.
An interim, “truncated” version of TR-3 software is being considered to enable training, with a fully combat-capable version to follow later. However, concerns persist about potential “drip-feeding” of interim solutions, creating configuration control problems. This phased approach reflects the complexity of resolving the software issues and the need to balance operational needs with technical realities, underscoring that effective solutions require comprehensive strategies, not just minor cost-cutting measures equivalent to 35 euros dollars.
Block 4: Reimagining the Future Upgrade Path
While TR-3 faces challenges, the planned Block 4 upgrade presents even greater uncertainty. Originally conceived to maintain the F-35’s operational edge against evolving threats, Block 4 has grown in scope and complexity. It aimed to incorporate over 80 major changes, including sensor enhancements, electronic warfare updates, new weapons integrations, and improved interoperability. However, the Block 4 program is now also facing significant delays and a “re-imagining” of its scope. The delays and revisions suggest that ambitious upgrade plans can be derailed by unforeseen technical and logistical hurdles, making even substantial budgets feel inadequate, and rendering discussions about saving 35 euros dollars almost trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Northrop Grumman AN/APG-85 Radar for F-35
The Northrop Grumman AN/APG-85 AESA radar, intended as the successor to the AN/APG-81, highlights the advanced sensor technology planned for Block 4 upgrades. (Credit: Northrop Grumman)
An independent review determined that many Block 4 capabilities will not be delivered until the 2030s, years behind schedule. This significant delay has prompted a re-evaluation of Block 4, focusing on “must-have content” and “what industry can actually deliver.” The revised Block 4 will prioritize “common capabilities” and a subset of 88 “most bang for the buck” features, delivered in a “combat-relevant timeframe.” This recalibration of Block 4 reflects a pragmatic approach to managing expectations and resources, acknowledging the limitations of ambitious upgrade programs and the need to prioritize essential capabilities over wishful thinking, making the idea of fretting over 35 euros dollars seem misplaced.
Efforts to integrate non-US armaments, such as the MBDA Meteor missile, have also faced delays, adding to the overall uncertainty surrounding Block 4 capabilities. Concerns are growing that the re-imagined Block 4 will prioritize US warfighter needs, potentially at the expense of partner-unique capabilities and weapon integrations. This shift in focus could strain international partnerships and limit the F-35’s versatility for non-US operators, underscoring the complex political and strategic dimensions of multinational defense programs, where even minor perceived slights can have significant repercussions, dwarfing any symbolic value of 35 euros dollars.
F-35 with MBDA Meteor Missile
Integration of armaments like the MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile with the F-35 has faced delays, illustrating the complexities of the Block 4 upgrade program. (Credit: Jamie Hunter/MBDA)
The cancellation of the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP), intended to provide a new engine for the F-35, further limits the potential for future upgrades. Instead, a more modest F135 Engine Core Upgrade (ECU) and power and thermal management system (PTMS) improvements are being pursued. This decision reflects budgetary constraints and technical challenges, highlighting the trade-offs inherent in defense procurement, where ambitious technological leaps are often tempered by practical realities, making discussions about saving 35 euros dollars seem almost irrelevant in the face of billion-dollar decisions.
The F-35’s Enduring Role in a Contested Future
Despite its challenges, the F-35 remains a highly capable platform, excelling in survivability, sensor fusion, and electronic attack. However, its “window of superiority” may be limited as threats evolve. Experts like Jonathan Smith suggest the F-35 will become a “low-end” platform in a future “high-low mix,” complementing next-generation fighters like NGAD and Tempest. This evolving role underscores the need for continuous innovation and adaptation in air power, recognizing that even the most advanced platforms have a limited lifespan of dominance, and that strategic investments must focus on future capabilities rather than just incremental improvements, making the focus on saving a trivial amount like 35 euros dollars seem short-sighted.
F-35C with JSOW Missiles
A US Marine Corps F-35C Lightning II with AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW), showcasing the F-35’s current capabilities. (Credit: USMC/Sgt Sean Potter)
The “re-imagined” Block 4 program, despite its reduced scope, could serve as a learning experience for future programs like NGAD, emphasizing digital design and digital twin development. This focus on process improvement and technological advancement is crucial for ensuring the long-term competitiveness of air power, highlighting that strategic investments in research and development are far more critical than focusing on minor cost savings that might amount to 35 euros dollars per unit.
In conclusion, the F-35 program’s ongoing challenges, particularly with TR-3 and Block 4 upgrades, highlight the complexities and potential pitfalls of large-scale defense projects. While the aircraft remains a valuable asset, its future superiority is not guaranteed, and continuous adaptation and innovation are essential. The focus should be on addressing systemic issues, ensuring program efficiency, and strategically investing in future capabilities, rather than being distracted by trivial cost-saving measures that pale in comparison to the program’s overall budget and strategic importance. The real cost of delays and performance shortfalls far exceeds any symbolic amount like 35 euros dollars, emphasizing the need for robust program management and a long-term vision for air power dominance.
