America’s $1 Trillion Jet… Grounded?

A new watchdog report shows barely one in four front‑line F‑35 fighters is fully ready for combat, even after years of massive spending.

Story Snapshot

Government Accountability Office says only about 25% of America’s F-35s can perform all assigned missions at any given time.
Air Force F-35A full mission capable rates fell from over half the fleet in 2021 to just 28.5% in 2025.
Watchdogs blame software delays, spare parts shortages, corrosion issues, and weak contractor incentives for the decline.
Pentagon now wants $13.7 billion more for sustainment fixes, raising fresh questions about accountability and priorities.

F-35 Readiness Numbers Paint a Troubling Picture

A new review from the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s official watchdog, shows America’s most expensive fighter fleet is not ready for prime time. Reports summarizing the findings say the full mission capable rate across all F-35 variants fell from about 38 percent in fiscal 2021 to roughly 25 percent in 2025, meaning only one in four jets could perform all assigned missions at any moment.^[2] The general mission capable rate, where a jet can perform at least one mission, also dropped from around 67 percent to 44 percent in the same period.^[2] For taxpayers who were promised a game‑changing fighter, those numbers are hard to ignore.

The picture is even more stark for the Air Force’s F-35A fleet, which is supposed to be the workhorse of American airpower. Coverage of the report notes that full mission capable rates for the F‑35A slipped from 54 percent in 2021 to 36.2 percent in fiscal 2024, then plunged to about 28.5 percent in fiscal 2025.^[1] That means more than seven out of ten F‑35As could not perform every mission they were designed for. At the same time, the overall mission capable rate for the F‑35 family fell from roughly two‑thirds of jets in 2021 to less than half by 2025, underscoring a broad readiness decline, not a one‑time glitch.^[1]

What Is Driving the Readiness Decline?

Government Accountability Office reviewers and Air Force officials point to several concrete problems behind the falling readiness. One major factor is software: the F‑35’s “Technology Refresh 3” upgrade ran into delays so severe that deliveries were frozen for about a year.^[1] After an interim software release, deliveries restarted, but the new jets were limited to basic training flights and still could not fly combat missions.^[1] Those aircraft counted in the inventory but not fully capable, dragging down the statistics while offering no real deterrent value to America or its allies.

Hardware and maintenance issues also play a central role. The watchdog’s work and related reporting describe ongoing shortages of spare parts, chronic corrosion challenges, and supply bottlenecks that keep jets in the hangar instead of in the air.^[1] A separate summary of the report notes that the Pentagon itself now warns that meeting new readiness goals will demand roughly $13.7 billion more than previously planned through 2031, with more than $7 billion of that depending on industry delivering extra parts and materials.^[3] Yet officials also caution that key suppliers, from canopy makers to engine manufacturers, may not have enough capacity even if the money shows up, raising doubts about whether throwing more cash at the problem will be enough.^[2]

Contractor Incentives, Oversight Gaps, and Accountability Questions

Beyond hardware and software, the Government Accountability Office is sharply critical of how the Pentagon has tried to motivate better performance from its main F‑35 contractor. Reporting on the findings says the department has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in “incentive fees” to boost readiness, but those payments “consistently” failed to drive the military’s own readiness goals.^[2] In some cases, performance thresholds for these bonuses were set below what the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps actually needed, meaning contractors could get extra money even when aircraft availability stayed too low.^[3] The watchdog warned that this kind of structure risks rewarding results that do not truly help American war‑fighters.

Just 28.5% of Largest Air Force in the World F-35As Fully Mission Ready✈️

The @usairforce's F-35A recorded the highest full mission-capable rate among all F-35 variants in fiscal 2025, yet only 28.5 percent of the jets could perform all assigned missions at any given time,… pic.twitter.com/VbjNStzrji

— Aviation A2z (@Aviationa2z) June 14, 2026

The concerns go deeper than just misaligned bonuses. Government Accountability Office reviewers also flagged weaknesses in how the F‑35 Joint Program Office tracks and documents sustainment performance and incentive payments.^[3] Put simply, the office did not always have clean, accurate records of what it paid and what it got in return. That kind of opaque recordkeeping makes real oversight harder and slows down reform. In response, the watchdog issued recommendations calling on the Department of Defense to tighten its data systems, redesign incentive structures to tie payments directly to readiness, and build real risk‑mitigation plans for industrial capacity and long‑term affordability.^[3] For citizens who value limited, competent government and strong defense, these steps highlight how far the program still has to go.