F-35 Procurement Halved as Pentagon Reprioritises Budget
This downsizing is part of a broader strategy by the Department of Defence to shift funding toward emerging defence priorities and cost-saving measures. The Navy and Marine Corps are also affected: the Navy's carrier variant request has dipped from 17 to 12 aircraft, and the Marine Corps' numbers have been reduced by two.
Analysis indicates that delays tied to the F-35's TR-3 software upgrade have created bottlenecks in deliveries. Lockheed Martin paused shipments for software integration and sustainment testing; Congress also withheld acceptance of about 20 jets until those issues are resolved. Despite these setbacks, Lockheed still managed to deliver 110 F‑35s globally in 2024, and the F‑35 programme continues to represent approximately 30 percent of the company's annual revenue.
Defence analysts describe the halving of F‑35A orders as both a fiscal recalibration and a window of opportunity. One investment commentary noted that while the short‑term cut may rattle markets, the production backlog and sustained international demand—especially among NATO allies—could help cushion Lockheed's pipeline. Already, partner nations such as the UK, Italy and the Netherlands have active procurement plans, while recent buyers like Germany, Greece, Singapore and Romania are proceeding with their orders.
ADVERTISEMENT
The shift comes amid a wider Pentagon push to realign procurement budgets; recent directives aim for an 8 percent reduction in total defence spending over five years. Cuts will support new programmes such as the F‑47 sixth‑generation fighter, Collaborative Combat Aircraft drones, hypersonic weapons and border security initiatives.
House appropriations hearings have highlighted this transition, with Pentagon leaders confirming investment of more than $4 billion in next‑generation combat platforms in fiscal 2026, including funding for the F‑47 and the CCA 'loyal wingman' drones. Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth described these as vital to maintaining air dominance in increasingly contested environments.
Lockheed Martin has urged stakeholders to view the F‑35 as a long‑term strategic asset. The company's finance chief told investors that a final contract is anticipated once TR‑3 upgrades are cleared, signalling confidence in the jet's future viability.
International sales remain central. With over $176 billion in export backlog at the end of 2024, Lockheed's reliance on foreign partners has grown. The U.S. share of global F‑35 orders has dropped from 70 percent a decade ago to about 55 percent today. Advocates argue that the jet's fifth‑generation stealth and interoperability continue to give it a unique edge over systems like Saab's Gripen E or Dassault's Rafale.
Still, risks persist. Continued TR‑3 roll-out delays could erode confidence, and broader fiscal dynamics—such as the fate of reconciliation spending and geopolitical tensions—could further influence procurement.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy is forging ahead with its own next‑generation development: opting out of Lockheed for the F/A‑XX carrier fighter competition in favour of Boeing and Northrop Grumman designs. The Navy will continue to acquire F‑35C jets, purchasing them alongside future carrier‑based platforms.
Budget documents reveal the Air Force intends to allocate $24.8 billion to aircraft procurement in FY 2026. F‑35A purchases form a smaller slice of that pie, with funds also directed to the hypersonic ARRW missile, Boeing's F‑15EX fighters, T‑7A trainers, and KC‑46A refuellers.
In the meantime, Lockheed is focusing on resolving the TR‑3 integration challenges and progressing Block 4 upgrades—critical for retaining export competitiveness and meeting evolving defence needs. Despite reduced U.S. orders, strong international demand and technological advancement keep the F‑35 programme poised for continued relevance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
6 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Once again, politicians are choosing their voters
Maresa Strano, Tribune News Service Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast. In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they're ready to 'fight fire with fire' with their own partisan gerrymanders. It's a tempting strategy. But gerrymanders for a good short-term cause are still unfair to voters, and this tit-for-tat constitutional hardball is just another stop on the longer road to democratic collapse. If party leaders insist on running from competition, then it's time for voters to run toward it. And in many states, the best tool available to do that is the citizen-led ballot initiative — a way for ordinary people to demand fair representation when legislators won't deliver it. Ballot initiatives allow voters to bypass gridlocked and unresponsive legislatures and change the rules of the game directly. In states that allow them, citizens have enacted reforms that legislators refused to touch: Michigan's citizen-led independent redistricting commission cleaned up partisan gerrymandering; Maine's switch to ranked-choice voting elevated and protected moderates like Rep. Jared Golden and Sen. Susan Collins; Arizona's public campaign financing system increased competitiveness. These reforms didn't come from the top down; they were bottom-up demands for a democracy that works. Initiatives work. They help realign public policy with the public interest where the gaps are largest and make elected officials more accountable. And when they're used to fix the deeper structural problems — like single-member districts, winner-takes-all elections — they can even make themselves less necessary over time. That's why we need them now. So we won't need them as much in the future. Unfortunately, not everyone has access to statewide ballot initiatives. Only about half of the US states allow citizens to place new laws on the ballot. The rest — including Texas — leave voters in a Catch-22: They need structural reform to make government responsive, but can't get reform because government isn't responsive. Right now, voters in states that have a statewide initiative process but haven't yet adopted independent redistricting commissions should start organising for that — or, even better, for multi-member state legislative districts elected via proportional representation, which would make gerrymandering obsolete. Voters in places like Nevada, Missouri, and Florida don't need to wait for their state legislatures, the courts, or Congress to upgrade their systems. By contrast, Texas's roughly 19 million registered voters currently have no pathway to change that that doesn't begin inside the statehouse. And polling suggests Texans aren't thrilled with the status quo. A recent survey found that 63 percent of Texas voters view the redistricting push as unnecessary. Another Texas poll from 2010 found 68% support for adopting a statewide initiative process. Several bills to create one in Texas have been introduced in recent years. For now, though, the people's hands are tied. Creating a new ballot initiative process is no easy task. It bumps into the Catch-22 as before. In every state without ballot initiatives, creating a process for them requires a constitutional amendment, which, absent a constitutional convention, must be initiated by the legislature. However, there's a difference between political reform groups asking lawmakers to vote to create an independent commission and a large, broad-based coalition asking them to give the public a new way to propose ideas in the future. That second ask — about democratic process, not specific policy outcomes — might be harder to reject without political consequences. We've been here before. Between 1898 and 1920, amid corruption, inequality, and political capture, 21 states enshrined initiative systems into their constitutions. Many lawmakers supported the change not out of principle, but because they saw the writing on the wall. Ballot initiatives aren't perfect. They can be expensive, distorted by special interests, or weaponized to harm vulnerable communities. But in moments of democratic backsliding, they're one of the only tools voters have to rebalance the system and reclaim their power. Let's use and expand their use now — strategically and responsibly — so we can build a democracy that no longer needs them.
Sharjah 24
10 hours ago
- Sharjah 24
Striking Boeing defense workers turn to US Congress
"We respectfully ask you to join us in supporting this vitally important, highly skilled workforce," the machinist union said in letters to the Missouri congressional delegation, describing Boeing's latest offer as "substandard." Some 3,200 members of the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers District 837 have been on strike since August 4 after rejecting a contract proposal. The two sides have not held talks since the walkout, representatives of both sides said. The strike affects Boeing facilities in St. Louis and St. Charles, Missouri and Mascoutah, Illinois. "We ask you to urge the Boeing Company to promptly return to the bargaining table with new ideas and proposals in order to seek a fair and equitable settlement to this disagreement," said a letter signed by IAM International President Brian Bryant. Products produced at the affected sites include the F-15 and F-18 combat aircraft, the T-7 Red Hawk Advanced Pilot Training System and the MQ-25 unmanned aircraft. Prioirties for the union include fair compensation, with wages that meet the cost of living and "a contract that respects seniority and experience," the IAM said. Boeing said its offer includes 40 percent average wage increases, as well as more vacation and sick leave. "We're surprised to hear the IAM International call our offer 'substandard' after hailing it as a 'landmark' agreement which they endorsed just three weeks ago," said Boeing Air Dominance vice president Dan Gillian. "We remain ready and willing to listen to any constructive proposals from the union." The St. Louis local's stoppage follows a bruising Boeing strike last fall in the Pacific Northwest region of some 33,000 workers that halted production at factories that assemble Boeing commercial planes. Boeing executives have characterized the St. Louis strike as manageable, noting that they had prepared for a stoppage before the workers joined the pickets.
Zawya
17 hours ago
- Zawya
Stablecoins fuel liquidity, not yet money: Mike Dolan
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.) LONDON - Treasury market bulwark or catalyst for a liquidity bubble? No one's sure whether the now government-blessed "stablecoin" explosion will juice or destabilise the economy. When Congress passed the so-called "Genius Act" on stablecoin legislation last month with bipartisan support, it triggered another wave of speculation about just how much havoc these dollar-pegged crypto tokens might wreak, including fears of fraud, tax evasion and instability. Those pushing back on the crypto-Cassandras have put forward much more benign forecasts, arguing that stablecoins, given their limited retail use, will remain firmly encased in the esoteric financial world, muffling any potential negative impact on the wider economy. But these instruments are connected with arguably the most important part of the financial system: the U.S. Treasury market. Key to the new legislation is a requirement that stablecoins - so far mostly used by crypto traders to move funds between tokens - are fully backed by liquid assets such as cash or short-term Treasury bills. Issuers are also required to disclose the composition of those reserves monthly. And with a market cap in excess of $250 billion that could explode to some $2 trillion within three years based on some estimates, stablecoins have the potential to pack a serious systemic punch. Perhaps ironically, the link to Treasuries actually offers one of the more positive takes on the stablecoin phenomenon. Some of its proponents argue that it will generate commensurate demand for U.S. Treasury bills as stablecoins expand and allow the U.S. government to more easily front-load its rising new debt issuance, shortening the maturity profile of its debt. In doing so, it could leave long-term debt yields relatively undisturbed even as U.S. deficits expand. That seems like a neat twist. As it stands, the amount of bills outstanding totals about $6 trillion, just over a fifth of outstanding Treasury debt and still below historic averages as a share of the overall market. All else equal, if both stablecoin demand and bill issuance were to expand by $1 trillion over the next three years, then the bill share of the Treasury market would only rise back to where it was about 20 years ago - an outcome that seems fairly unexceptional. There's a catch though. A large chunk of the cash going to stablecoins is merely redirected from elsewhere, such as bank deposits or money market funds already directly or indirectly underpinning Treasury debt. Stablecoins' effect on the Treasury market, therefore, may be far more limited than first thought. 'SHADOW BANKS' WITHOUT CREDIT Harder to parse is the degree to which mushrooming stablecoins might impact liquidity in the broader financial system. As analysts at Cross Border Capital point out, creating a token that can be spent instantly like a banknote but is backed by securities with average maturities of several months or more could, theoretically, have a significant impact on market liquidity. In effect, the stablecoin transforms a basket of Treasury bills and notes into an instantaneous asset with zero duration. Two big offsetting features apply, however. The lack of retail use for them means the impact on real-world liquidity or consumer prices may be limited and the fast-money liquidity boost is left within the financial world - most clearly in crypto markets themselves and wider asset prices at the margins. Dangerous bubbles can blow here of course, but at least participants are there at their own risk. The second point is that even though stablecoins might add liquidity, they, unlike banks, don't actually expand the money supply via lending and credit creation. And if the money flowing to them is merely coming from bank deposits anyway, then there's a risk that the expansion of stablecoins could actually reduce credit expansion at banks and weigh on the velocity of money in the economy at large. "The GENIUS Act is unlikely to unleash a 1970s-style credit boom, but it does signal a shift in who controls the supply of money from banks to a more explicit public-private hybrid system," the Cross Border report concluded. "Most action will be in financial markets, not in the high street." Ardent critics of stablecoins fear this risks turning into a government-sanctioned return to privately issued money that could be as prone to corruption, fraud, panics and instability as when it was last in vogue in the 19th century. And crucially, disintermediation of the regular banking system could in time undermine the Federal Reserve's ability to regulate liquidity and money in the wider economy. But as long as this phenomenon remains largely the preserve of the esoteric financial world, those thornier issues remain largely theoretical. The size and growth of this universe is less the concern than its integration with the real world. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters -- Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. Follow ROI on LinkedIn. Plus, sign up for my weekday newsletter, Morning Bid U.S. (By Mike Dolan; Editing by Jamie Freed)
