Three variants, three doctrines. The F-35A, B, and C explained: missions, capabilities, developments, and real costs of the world’s most ambitious program.
In summary
The F-35 Lightning II is not a single aircraft with minor variations. It is a family of fighters designed to meet three distinct operational needs: air combat, short takeoff and vertical landing, and carrier-based operations. Behind a common airframe and shared avionics, each variant involves structural compromises, different performance levels, and specific costs. The F-35A is the lightest and least expensive, optimized for air superiority and ground attack from land-based bases. The F-35B, with its STOVL capability, sacrifices range and payload to offer unique flexibility from austere platforms. Finally, the F-35C is designed for aircraft carriers, with an enlarged wing and increased endurance. Understanding these variants, their software developments, and their budgets means understanding the industrial and strategic logic of a program that is already shaping Western air power.
The F-35 as a combat system rather than an aircraft
The F-35 was designed from the outset as a combat system. The aircraft is only the visible node of a system that combines sensors, data fusion, tactical links, and scalable software. This philosophy explains why the variants share more than 70% of their components, while remaining profoundly different in their use.
The heart of the program is based on a promise: a pilot must see further, decide faster, and strike before the enemy. Data fusion aggregates radar, infrared sensors, and external information to produce a single tactical image. This approach reduces cognitive load and allows heterogeneous forces to work together.
This common logic should not obscure a simple reality: each variant of the F-35 is the product of a tough compromise, dictated by the primary mission assigned by its user forces.
The logic of the three variants
The Joint Strike Fighter program imposes a rare constraint: satisfying the US Air Force, US Marine Corps, and US Navy simultaneously. Each required a different aircraft. The result is not an “average” aircraft, but three specialized platforms based on a common foundation.
The differences relate to structure, aerodynamics, fuel capacity, landing gear, and even internal payload capacity. These choices directly influence cost, maintenance, and exportability.
The F-35A as the backbone of the air force
The F-35A is the most widely produced and exported variant. It is designed to take off and land conventionally from standard air bases.
The main mission of the F-35A
The F-35A is replacing entire fleets of F-16s and A-10s in several countries. Its core mission is versatility. It must ensure air superiority, precision ground attack, and reconnaissance from the first day of a conflict.
Its internal 25 mm cannon allows it to maintain autonomous air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities, an important point for certain national doctrines.
Key capabilities of the F-35A
The F-35A is the lightest variant. It carries approximately 8.3 tons of internal fuel, giving it a greater range than the F-35B. Its typical internal load allows it to carry two 900 kg (2,000 lb) guided bombs and two air-to-air missiles, while maintaining stealth.
It is also the only one certified for the US tactical nuclear mission with the B61-12 bomb, a major political factor for some European allies.
The evolution of the F-35A
Early versions suffered from software limitations. Recent blocks are gradually correcting these shortcomings. The ramp-up is based primarily on the evolution of mission software, rather than major hardware changes.
The transition to the Block 4 configuration should improve computing power, available weaponry, and electronic warfare management.
The F-35A budget
The F-35A is the least expensive of the three. The flyaway unit cost is around $80 million, according to recent production batches. The cost per flight hour remains higher than that of a modern F-16, but it is gradually decreasing as the program matures.
The F-35B and the constraints of short takeoff
The F-35B is the most technically complex variant. It must take off over short distances and land vertically, a requirement imposed by the US Marine Corps and certain allies.
The specific mission of the F-35B
The F-35B is designed to operate from amphibious ships, rough runways, or forward bases close to the front line. This capability allows forces to be dispersed and reduces dependence on large, vulnerable air bases.
This is a strategic asset in contested environments, where infrastructure can be quickly neutralized.
The technical compromises of the F-35B
The STOVL capability relies on a lift fan and a swivel nozzle. This architecture imposes significant compromises. The F-35B carries less internal fuel, approximately 6.1 tons, which reduces its range.
Its internal payload is also limited. These constraints are not accidental flaws, but the price to pay for unique operational flexibility.
The operational evolution of the F-35B
The early years highlighted thermal management issues during vertical landings. These limitations have been gradually corrected through software adjustments and adapted procedures.
The F-35B has demonstrated its ability to operate from British and American ships, confirming the variant’s suitability for expeditionary operations.
The F-35B budget
The F-35B is the most expensive variant. Its unit price regularly exceeds $100 million. Maintenance is also more demanding due to the complexity of the STOVL system.
The F-35C and the naval aviation dimension
The F-35C is optimized for operations from catapult-equipped aircraft carriers. It meets the specific requirements of the US Navy.
The mission of the F-35C
The F-35C is designed to project air power far from the coast, in heavily defended environments. It is gradually replacing the F/A-18 carrier-based aircraft, offering increased stealth and better network integration.
Features specific to the F-35C
This variant features an enlarged wing, reinforced control surfaces, and a more robust landing gear. These choices improve low-speed lift, which is essential for carrier landings.
The F-35C carries approximately 9 tons of internal fuel, giving it the best range of the F-35 family. This endurance is a major asset for naval operations.
The evolution of the F-35C
Initial tests revealed difficulties during carrier landings. Gradual modifications have enabled the aircraft to achieve full operational capability.
The F-35C benefits directly from software developments common to other variants, while retaining its specific naval features.
The budget for the F-35C
The unit cost of the F-35C is between that of the A and B variants, at around $95 million. Onboard maintenance remains costly, but is comparable to that of the naval fighters it replaces.
Export variants and national choices
The F-35 is currently used or ordered by more than fifteen countries. The F-35A is by far the most exported variant, chosen by air forces seeking stealth capability without naval constraints.
The F-35B has only been selected by nations with aircraft carriers or those seeking expeditionary capability, such as the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan.
The F-35C remains essentially American. Its use is closely linked to the architecture of catapult-equipped aircraft carriers, which are rare outside the United States.
These choices reflect different doctrines. Buying an F-35 is not just about acquiring an aircraft, it is about adopting a way of waging air warfare.
Software evolution as a determining factor
The F-35 variants evolve less through airframe modifications than through software updates. This approach makes it possible to introduce new weapons, improve electronic warfare, and refine data fusion without making major changes to the aircraft.
This dependence on software is a double-edged sword. It offers rapid scalability, but it also creates a strong dependence on the manufacturer and the associated supply chain.
What the F-35 variants reveal
The three variants of the F-35 illustrate an often-ignored reality. There is no such thing as a universal fighter jet without compromises. Each version responds to a specific operational logic, with assumed costs and limitations.
The program’s success is not due to the perfection of any one variant, but to the ability of the whole to cover an extremely wide spectrum of missions. This approach explains why, despite criticism, the F-35 has become the de facto standard within Western forces.
As software blocks are released and fleets mature, the question is no longer whether the F-35 was a good bet, but how each nation will actually exploit the variant it has chosen.
Sources
U.S. Department of Defense, Selected Acquisition Reports F-35
Lockheed Martin, official F-35A, B, and C technical data sheets
Government Accountability Office, annual reports on the F-35 program
Congressional Research Service, budget analyses of the Joint Strike Fighter
IISS, Military Balance, combat aviation sections
Live a unique fighter jet experience