President Donald Trump appears to be urging India to buy the expensive F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters, even though one of his closest advisers has strongly criticized the aircraft’s design and performance.
“The F-35 design was broken at the requirements level because it was required to be too many things to too many people,” Elon Musk stated on X in November. He argued that the aircraft became overly complex and costly, failing to excel in any single role. According to Musk, success was never a realistic outcome for the F-35 program.
He took his criticism further, using a trash can emoji while attacking Lockheed Martin, the company responsible for the aircraft’s design and production. Musk called its designers “idiots” for persisting with the program despite its flaws. He also suggested that piloted fighter jets like the F-35 were becoming obsolete, as drones could fulfill similar roles at a lower cost and without endangering human lives.
Trump’s Announcement on Expanding Military Sales to India
During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent one-day visit to Washington, Trump revealed that the U.S. would significantly increase military sales to India this year, adding billions of dollars in new deals.
“We’re also paving the way to ultimately provide India with F-35 stealth fighters,” Trump stated in a joint press conference with Modi.
However, it remains unclear whether the F-35s will be part of India’s existing requirement for 114 Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) for the Indian Air Force (IAF) or if they will be sold through a separate agreement. Reports from Washington indicated that neither the White House nor Lockheed Martin provided clarification on Trump’s statement regarding the potential sale of F-35s to India.
Trump’s remark about boosting military sales suggests that a significant number of F-35s could be supplied to the IAF, likely through the U.S. government’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. However, manufacturing the F-35 in India under a technology transfer agreement seems unlikely due to the aircraft’s highly classified nature.
The only official response came from Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, who described the potential sale as being at a “proposal stage.” He did not confirm whether the Indian delegation was taken by surprise by Trump’s statement.
Misri also emphasized that military procurement in India follows a structured process that includes issuing a request for proposal (RFP), and no such process had been initiated for the F-35.
IAF Officers Skeptical About the F-35’s Suitability
Trump’s unexpected announcement has raised concerns among senior IAF officers, who fear the purchase might be driven by political considerations rather than operational and financial feasibility.
“The F-35 simply does not fit into the IAF’s overall operational requirements and profile,” said retired Air Marshal V.K. “Jimmy” Bhatia, a military analyst.
He noted that American defense equipment, particularly fighter aircraft, comes with multiple operational restrictions. Instead of purchasing F-35s—which cost between $80 million and $115 million per unit—Bhatia argued that India should focus on developing its own fifth-generation fighter with future upgrade capabilities.
Other IAF officers, speaking anonymously, suggested that Trump’s administration might be leveraging the F-35 sale to extract concessions on other issues, such as allegations of India’s involvement in a planned assassination of Sikh separatist Gurpatwant Pannun in New York or the ongoing U.S. investigation into businessman Gautam Adani over bribery and fraud.
“F-35s are not the best buy for the IAF despite their lethality, versatility, and stealth capabilities, as they are extremely expensive to procure and operate amid shrinking budgets,” said a two-star IAF officer. He pointed out that each F-35 costs approximately $36,000 per flight hour, making large-scale deployment financially challenging.
Even if India proceeded with the purchase, deliveries would take years. Another senior IAF officer explained that negotiations for such a deal would take considerable time, and even after an agreement was reached, the U.S. would likely prioritize deliveries to NATO allies before supplying aircraft to India.
Restrictions on U.S. Military Equipment Limit India’s Customization Options
A major drawback of acquiring F-35s is the limitation it imposes on India’s ability to customize and upgrade military equipment—something the IAF has traditionally done to enhance operational effectiveness.
India’s capacity to modify U.S. military hardware is severely restricted by agreements such as the End Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA), finalized in 2009. Under this agreement, India cannot modify or upgrade American military platforms without explicit approval from the U.S. government and the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). Historically, the U.S. has rarely granted such permissions.
“Such cradle-to-grave restrictions provide Washington with lasting leverage over the recipient country,” stated a one-star IAF officer. Unlike defense equipment from other countries, U.S. military hardware is subject to strict compliance with American strategic, political, and diplomatic objectives.
Among the more than 80 countries that have signed EUMAs with the U.S., only a few exceptions exist—most notably Israel. The Israeli Air Force has been allowed to integrate locally developed weapons and sensors into Lockheed Martin’s F-16s and, more recently, into some F-35s.
Additionally, all U.S. military sales to India under the FMS program are governed by the stringent “Golden Sentry” EUMA, which mandates physical verification of the equipment and dictates its eventual disposal. This agreement is even more restrictive than the “Blue Lantern” EUMA, which applies to direct commercial sales of American military hardware.
Although India’s Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government claimed in 2009 that it had secured favorable terms for the EUMA—allowing India to determine the timing and location of verification inspections—it did not address the long-term dependency on U.S. manufacturers for maintenance and upgrades.
Despite these restrictions, military officers argue that jugaad—India’s innovative approach to modifying and optimizing military equipment—has been crucial in enhancing the performance of imported weapons systems. Over the years, jugaad has allowed India to improve aircraft, ordnance, and military platforms, sometimes making them more effective than originally designed.
Jugaad has been extensively applied to Soviet/Russian and French fighter jets, often with no restrictions from the manufacturers. This flexibility has enabled India to adapt its military equipment for extreme climates, varied terrains, and diverse operational scenarios.
Capabilities of the F-35 Fighter Family
The F-35 family consists of three variants, designed for air superiority and strike missions:
- F-35A (conventional takeoff and landing)
- F-35B (short takeoff and vertical landing)
- F-35C (carrier-based version with catapult-assisted takeoff)
All three versions have electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities.
Powered by Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100 turbofan engines, the F-35 cockpit features large touchscreens instead of traditional gauges. Pilots use a helmet-mounted display system that provides real-time data and access to the aircraft’s Distributed Aperture System (DAS), which includes six infrared cameras for enhanced situational awareness. The fighter can carry a weapons payload of 6,000 to 8,100 kg.
Will the F-35 Deal Materialize?
In the coming months, it will become clear whether the proposed F-35 sale moves forward or if Trump’s statement was simply a negotiating tactic to gain concessions from India on other geopolitical and economic issues.