WASHINGTON — The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin are discussing a potential mega‑deal for the F‑35 Joint Strike Fighter that could span up to ten years, covering both production and sustainment of the stealth aircraft, according to sources familiar with the talks.
Officials have considered a multi‑year F‑35 procurement contract for years. The latest push aligns with the administration’s effort to expand long‑term buying of critical weapons, such as munitions. A successful combined production‑and‑sustainment deal could be worth tens of billions of dollars.
“There’s been talk about a 10‑year, multi‑year buy that would include production as well as sustainment,” said Matt Milas, president of Honeywell Aerospace’s defense division, in a September interview. Honeywell is a key supplier for the F‑35 program.
A source familiar with the negotiations, who requested anonymity, confirmed ongoing talks around a multi‑year production and sustainment deal. However, they expressed doubt about its effectiveness.
Multi‑year procurement “makes sense where the department has seen success with munitions contracts. It makes less sense for aircraft lot buys,” the source noted, especially because some aspects of F‑35 modernization are still in development. They added that “the complexities of sustainment present multiple unique challenges.”
The potential agreement could include bulk buys of spare parts, with increased flow beginning around the jet’s 21st production lot—expected in roughly three years. Increasing spare‑part availability is seen as a key way to improve the fighter’s low readiness rates.
Proponents argue that multi‑year agreements give industry predictability, allowing long‑term investments and economies of scale that can reduce costs. Milas said the primary benefit of an F‑35 multi‑year agreement would be on the sustainment side, since the aircraft’s production rate is expected to remain at 156 per year.
“It’s more about the sustainment and how do you get more spares and get that bulk buy up front so that you’re not going year‑to‑year or small lots,” he added.
It remains unclear whether the production and sustainment agreements would be linked, structured as separate arrangements, or cover the same time period.
Lockheed spokesperson said, “The company continues to advocate for a multi‑year contracting approach which would provide additional stability for the F‑35 industrial base. As demonstrated with other successful programs, this would enable predictable production rates, cost efficiency, and continuous modernization essential to maintaining air superiority and warfighter readiness.” The company referred further inquiries to the government. Pentagon officials and the F‑35 Joint Program Office declined to comment.
Lockheed has previously pushed for a larger sustainment deal in the form of a performance‑based logistics (PBL) contract spanning five years. Such agreements pay contractors based on outcomes like equipment availability or readiness rates. Company officials once expected a PBL to be reached for the F‑35 by the end of 2023, but lawmakers require certification that any PBL would either reduce maintenance costs or increase readiness—a hurdle not yet cleared.
The world’s largest defense contractor is again backing a long‑term sustainment contract, though it may not be formally a PBL, according to Dina Halvorsen, vice president of F‑35 global sustainment. In a Sept. 14 briefing, Halvorsen said, “A multi‑year performance‑based contract is still in discussion. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a PBL. We are looking at advocating for a multi‑year agreement for sustainment on the F‑35 program.” A source close to the talks described the proposal as “PBL by another name” and expressed doubt that Lockheed can successfully demonstrate long‑term cost savings, noting that congressional approval has not yet been granted.
The fiscal 2027 defense authorization bill, led by the Senate Armed Services Committee, includes language permitting the Pentagon to enter multi‑year procurement contracts for the F‑35. The House version contains similar provisions, with additional guardrails: it would not authorize multi‑year F‑35 procurement until the defense secretary certifies that the contract includes the full complement of initial spare parts and alternate mission equipment for each aircraft and that the contract achieves at least a 5 percent cost saving. Neither bill explicitly mentions or authorizes a multi‑year sustainment agreement, leaving a key piece of the broader proposal unresolved. Both chambers must reconcile language before final passage.
The F‑35 program is projected to run through the 2080s, with sustainment accounting for a large portion of its nearly $2 trillion lifecycle cost. Improving mission‑capable rates is a top focus, as past government watchdog reports have identified readiness problems caused by limited depot capacity, spare‑part shortages, and insufficient access to technical data for military maintainers.
More than 1,000 F‑35s have been delivered, but many newly delivered jets have been held for training as officials work to clear a new combat upgrade. Aaron Mehta contributed to this report.
