Elon Musk recently made headlines for voicing his criticism of the F-35 fighter jet program through social media, as he prepares to advise President-elect Donald Trump on government efficiency in 2025. In a series of posts, Musk dismissed the military’s focus on traditional manned aircraft, particularly the F-35, which he referred to as a “shit design.” His remarks were directed towards the Pentagon’s F-35 program, which is the most expensive fighter program to date and is projected by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to cost around $2 trillion over its lifetime. Musk highlighted that as technology evolves, particularly with drone warfare, modern military strategies may need to pivot towards remote-operated systems rather than older manned designs.
Musk’s commentary comes in tandem with his newly formed responsibility in advising on improving governmental efficiency, a role he aims to undertake with Vivek Ramaswamy, who will lead Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency. In a recent column for The Wall Street Journal, Musk expressed concerns about the lack of oversight in the Pentagon’s massive budget, which exceeds $800 billion annually. He pointed out that the Pentagon has failed its audit for the seventh consecutive year, indicating a severe lack of financial accountability. Both Musk and Ramaswamy have made it clear that their department’s goal is to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in government expenditures, suggesting changes are necessary to optimize how taxpayer money is managed.
Musk’s critique is particularly relevant given the rising costs associated with the F-35 program, which has already reached approximately $485 billion due to recent expenditures aimed at enhancing engine cooling. With around 1,000 jets delivered to the U.S. military and allies, and a total of more than 3,000 planned for production, the operational lifespan of the F-35 is estimated to extend to 2088. This long-term financial commitment raises significant questions about the efficiency and necessity of such investments, especially as military technology continues to evolve rapidly, potentially rendering manned aircraft less relevant in future combat scenarios.
In the context of Musk’s criticism, the prevailing sentiment within the military establishment favors the F-35. Lockheed Martin has characterized the jet as “the most advanced, survivable, and connected fighter aircraft in the world,” underscoring its importance for modern joint military operations. A spokesperson from Lockheed Martin emphasized their commitment to working with Trump’s administration to fortify national defense, suggesting a strong belief in the capabilities of the F-35 despite Musk’s disparagement. Furthermore, the Pentagon reiterated positive feedback from pilots who express confidence in the F-35’s performance, asserting it as the aircraft they wish to deploy in combat situations.
Musk’s advocacy for considering drone alternatives to manned jets is not a new perspective; in the past, he has emphasized the need for the U.S. Air Force to explore remote-controlled aircraft that could leverage autonomous technology to enhance their combat effectiveness. He argues that a drone fighter, augmented by autonomy, would likely outperform traditional fighter jets like the F-35 in potential engagements. This vision reflects Musk’s broader insights into the direction of warfare and military strategy in the context of advancing technology.
Overall, Musk’s comments on the F-35 program reveal a critical stance towards established military procurement practices and a call for a reevaluation of how resources are allocated within the defense budget. While his upcoming role in advising Trump’s administration creates uncertainty regarding any direct influence over military spending, his advocacy for modernization and efficiency aligns with a growing discourse around the future of military aviation and the imperative to adapt to new technological realities. As defense priorities evolve, the ongoing dialogue about the F-35 and potential alternatives will remain vital for shaping the future of U.S. military capabilities.