The Pentagon’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2027 (FY27) includes a request for 85 F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighters. Of this total, 38 F-35A variants are earmarked for the U.S. Air Force. This allocation has drawn criticism from defense analysts who argue the number is insufficient to address the Air Force’s growing fighter aircraft deficit.
The overall defense budget proposal, which aims to restore “the readiness and lethality of the force,” allocates $30.6 billion for Air Force aircraft procurement. This represents a substantial increase compared to previous years; however, the plan notably refrains from providing specific funding figures for several critical aircraft programs.
According to a White House fact sheet detailing the budget request, a clear priority is placed on the “rapid development and production of the F-47 sixth-generation fighter aircraft.” Conspicuously absent from the fact sheet, however, are mentions of funding or prioritization for the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program, which involves unmanned aerial vehicles designed to operate alongside crewed fighters, or the B-21 Raider stealth bomber program.
An official from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) confirmed that the U.S. Air Force is slated to receive 38 of the 85 F-35 Lighting IIs requested in the FY27 budget. This figure has sparked concern among defense experts.
Retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, who serves as the dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, articulated that while a total procurement of 85 F-35s is meaningful for maintaining the stability of the industrial base, the allocation of only 38 F-35As to the Air Force is inadequate for its strategic needs. “If the budget does fund 85 F-35s overall, with only 38 going to the Air Force, my reaction is that this is a mixed signal,” Deptula stated. “On one hand, 85 aircraft is still a meaningful production number for the military and it helps preserve industrial-base stability, but on the other hand, 38 for the Air Force is not a serious rebuild rate for a service operating the oldest and smallest fighter force in its history.” He concluded that while this number “may keep the line warm, it does not reverse the fighter inventory shortfall.”
Analysis of recent procurement trends indicates that if approved, the Air Force would receive 14 more F-35s than it did in the previous year’s budget. However, this is also 10 fewer than the Air Force had specifically requested for its 2025 budget. Furthermore, this marks the first time in a decade that the Air Force’s share of F-35 fighters falls below half of the total number requested by the Pentagon across all services.
Deptula emphasized the underlying challenge facing the Air Force: the dual necessity of expanding its capacity while simultaneously modernizing its fleet. He cautioned against a perpetual “divest to invest” strategy if modernization efforts consistently fail to keep pace with the divestment of older aircraft. “In that context, 38 F-35As feels more like budget triage than a true recapitalization rate,” Deptula explained. “This number suggests the Air Force is still being forced to balance near-term procurement against other large bills—F-47 development, B-21, Sentinel, readiness recovery, munitions, and CCA. So, I would not call 38 F-35As a disaster in isolation, but I also would not call it evidence that the Air Force is being rebuilt at the speed the strategic environment requires.”
The concerns voiced by current analysts echo previous appeals from senior military figures. Last July, a group of 16 retired Air Force four-star generals, including six former Chiefs of Staff, sent a letter to Congress advocating for a significant increase in F-35 fighter purchases. General Philip M. Breedlove, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, underscored the F-35’s critical role as the most advanced U.S. fighter currently in production, essential for meeting the Air Force’s immediate “fight tonight” requirements.
Former Chief of Staff General T. Michael Moseley highlighted the F-35’s importance for interoperability with U.S. allies, many of whom have also acquired the aircraft. Moseley stressed that the Air Force should be provided with the necessary resources to upgrade the fighter with new engines and enhance its lethality, rather than being compelled to reduce its procurement. “Why wouldn’t we want to continue to build that airplane … in larger numbers?” Moseley questioned.
While the White House budget fact sheet provides limited detail on the F-35, it explicitly outlines a significant priority for shipbuilding. The proposed budget allocates $65.8 billion in FY27 for the procurement of 18 battle force ships and 16 non-battle force ships, signaling a considerable investment in naval expansion.
Deptula interprets this pronounced focus on shipbuilding as potentially more of a “strategic communications centerpiece” than an indication of reduced emphasis on airpower modernization. He advised caution against drawing premature conclusions regarding the F-47 or B-21 programs based solely on the initial budget overview. “The absence of public F-47 and B-21 details should not be mistaken for lack of priority,” Deptula said. “Aircraft modernization is still buried in broader procurement and development accounts. For Air Force watchers, that means we should be cautious about drawing conclusions on F-47 or B-21 until the detailed justification materials are public.”
Why This Matters
The Pentagon’s fiscal year 2027 budget request for F-35 fighter jets, particularly the allocation for the U.S. Air Force, carries significant implications across several critical domains:
- National Security and Air Superiority: The F-35 is a cornerstone of U.S. airpower strategy, designed to ensure air superiority in contested environments. Analysts’ concerns that 38 F-35As are insufficient to reverse the Air Force’s fighter shortfall directly challenge the service’s ability to maintain a decisive edge against emerging threats. An aging and shrinking fleet could degrade readiness, limit operational flexibility, and potentially compromise the nation’s capacity to respond to multiple global contingencies simultaneously.
- Alliance Interoperability: The F-35 has been widely adopted by numerous U.S. allies, establishing a common platform for coalition operations. Sustained and robust F-35 procurement by the U.S. reinforces this interoperability, strengthening collaborative defense capabilities and ensuring seamless integration during joint missions. Any significant reduction in U.S. F-35 acquisition could send mixed signals to allies and potentially impede future interoperability goals.
- Industrial Base Stability: The production of advanced fighter jets like the F-35 supports a vast network of defense contractors and high-tech manufacturing jobs across the United States. A consistent and predictable procurement rate is vital for maintaining the health and stability of this industrial base, preserving critical skills, and ensuring the capacity to ramp up production if future geopolitical conditions demand it. Fluctuations in orders can lead to workforce instability and higher unit costs.
- Strategic Budgetary Trade-offs: The budget request highlights the ongoing tension between immediate capacity needs and long-term modernization efforts. The Air Force’s “divest to invest” strategy aims to free up funds for future systems like the F-47 (sixth-generation fighter) and B-21 Raider. However, if the pace of investment in new systems does not outstrip the rate of divestment of older, but still capable, assets, the result can be a net decrease in overall force capacity and readiness. The explicit prioritization of shipbuilding in the budget also underscores the difficult choices faced by defense planners in allocating finite resources across competing service requirements.
- Future Technological Development: The lack of explicit detail regarding the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) and B-21 Raider programs in the initial White House fact sheet raises questions about the transparency and prioritization of these crucial future capabilities. While these programs may be “buried” in broader accounts, their importance to future warfare strategies is immense, and their development trajectory is closely watched by both allies and adversaries. The balance between funding current generation platforms and investing in next-generation capabilities is critical for maintaining a technological advantage.