In a “landmark” agreement, the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have agreed to a framework agreement to buy F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the next 10 years.
Under the multi-year production and sustainment agreement, Lockheed Martin will produce 1,560 F-35 Lightning II aircraft for the US and its international customers at a rate of 156 fighters per year.
The US will buy at least 850 of these stealth fighter jets.
The agreement also covers associated initial spares, 10 years of modification kits, and a sustainment package for the global F-35 fleet.
It creates a stable, long-term procurement signal to modernize and expand America’s 5th-generation tactical aircraft.
However, the agreement’s execution remains subject to Congressional authorization and appropriations.
The US Congress is already considering granting the Pentagon authority to enter into multi-year procurement agreements with defense companies, specifically Lockheed Martin for the F-35 fighter and Boeing for the F-15EX Eagle.
The Pentagon also wants to buy at least 268 F-15EX fighters over the next decade.
The multi-year procurement and sustainment framework was first envisioned in the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization bill, released in May.
“We have fundamentally changed how we stabilize the American defense industrial base to produce at speed and scale,” said Under Secretary of War Michael P. Duffey in a statement.
“This agreement with Lockheed Martin proves it. By aligning financial incentives with actual performance, we are ensuring our warfighters are equipped with the lethal capabilities they need to fight and win.”
The Pentagon believes that multi-year procurement agreements, totaling hundreds or even thousands of aircraft and valued at billions of dollars, will encourage defense companies to make upfront investments in expanding production facilities.
Earlier this week, while commenting on the US Air Force’s updated fighter force structure report, under which the force envisions a 1,509 combat-coded fighter fleet by 2035, Lt. Gen. David Tabor, deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, has underlined that pushing multi-year procurement packages will provide financial stability to defense contractors and encourage them to invest in production facilities.
Notably, the US fighter force structure report is also pending before Congress, and it envisions a 60% stealth fleet by 2035.
The 60% stealth force will include 40% F-35s and 20% F-22 Raptors and F-47s.
If the report is approved, by 2035, two out of every five combat-coded fighters in the USAF will be F-35As.
Besides, the US Navy and the US Marine Corps will also fly additional F-35B and F-35C variants of the fighter.
The ten-year procurement framework with Lockheed for 1,560 F-35s over the next decade, including 850 exclusively for the US, will help the company invest in expanding and streamlining its production facilities to meet extraordinary global demand for the F-35.
To meet the demand, Lockheed will have to produce 156 F-35s annually.
Under the framework agreement with the Pentagon, Lockheed Martin has agreed to invest at least US$7 billion of its own money into projects to support the F-35 program.
“This multiyear framework strengthens the way we can plan and invest in the F-35 enterprise,” said Lockheed Martin Chairman, President and CEO Jim Taiclet.
“With the greater certainty that comes from the U.S. government’s transformative approach to F-35 production and sustainment, we can make the upfront investments needed to expand capacity, improve efficiency, and build a more resilient supply chain. That’s good for the taxpayer, good for our suppliers, and, most importantly, good for the United States and its allies.”
Lockheed Martin said in a statement that if the U.S. Congress grants multiyear authority and associated appropriations in the coming months, the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) and Lockheed Martin will finalize contract terms, pricing, and schedules through a formal contract award.
The statement added that the framework agreement will offer several advantages, including predictable, multi-year procurement planning, high-volume procurement efficiencies, and transparent, data-driven decision-making.
Notably, the F-35 Lightning II program relies on more than 1,400 domestic and global suppliers and contractors.
According to Lockheed Martin, the company manufactures nearly 30 to 42 percent of the jet outside the US across three continents before final assembly in Texas.
While Lockheed Martin is the primary contractor, the UK’s BAE Systems is a principal partner. BAE supplies much of the software code, the F-35’s rear fuselage, tails, the AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda electronic warfare system, the antenna, various avionics, and more.
Another British contractor, Martin Baker, is providing the ejection seats. The LiftSystem found in the F-35B variant is made by the UK’s Rolls-Royce (the only company building that type of STOVL lift fan).
Northrop Grumman is also a principal contractor, and it designs and produces critical F-35 components, including the center fuselage, AN/APG-81 AESA radar, communications subsystems such as the AN/ASQ-242 Integrated Communications, Navigation, and Identification (CNI) system, and the EO/IR Distributed Aperture System.
Leonardo and Cameri in Italy, GKN Fokker in the Netherlands, ASDAM Group in Australia, and nearly 30 companies in Canada also supply crucial parts for the F-35 fighters.
Over 1,500 firm orders for the F-35 over the next 10 years will allow Lockheed Martin to enter into long-term contracts with these suppliers to buy raw materials and critical parts in bulk, thereby stabilizing supply chains and increasing F-35s mission-capability rates.
It said the integrated procurement model, which pairs aircraft production with purchases of spare and modification parts, will deliver high-volume procurement discounts, drive down unit prices, and give the U.S. government the cost predictability it requires.
Meanwhile, during the October 22 earnings call, Lockheed reported third-quarter 2026 sales of US$20.7 billion, up from $18.6 billion in the third quarter of 2025.
It also reported a record backlog of US$292.0 billion, including US$52.5 billion tied to the multi-year award to produce PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors.
Notably, Lockheed Martin’s market capitalization is approximately US$127 billion, so its current backlog of US$292 billion is 2.3 times its market value.
Together, the multi-year agreements for PAC-3 MSE interceptors and F-35 fighter jets will provide Lockheed with a stable source of income for years to come.
If Congress approves the F-35 multi-year procurement framework, Lockheed Martin’s backlog order book could easily cross US$350 billion.
“In the third quarter each of our four segments posted growth year-over-year, sales topped $20.7 billion and net earnings exceeded $1.8 billion, increases of 11% and 14%, respectively. We delivered $3 billion of free cash flow in the quarter, and increased our backlog to a record $292 billion, allowing us to raise our dividend for the 24th year in a row,” said Lockheed Martin Chairman, President and CEO Jim Taiclet.
Taiclet also reiterated the company’s desire to integrate sixth-generation fighter-jet technologies into the F-35, upgrading it into what he called a “Ferrari” F-35.
Taiclet first voiced this desire in April last year after Lockheed lost to Boeing for the USAF’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter, the F-47. He claimed that the company can integrate 80% of sixth-generation NGAD technology into its fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II, which is already in production, at half the cost.
If the multi-year F-35 agreement is approved and it provides Lockheed with 1,560 firm orders and stable cash flow over the next decade, then the company can invest in integrating some of these sixth-generation technologies into the F-35.
Notably, the F-35 is already the world’s most popular stealth aircraft.
Lockheed Martin has already delivered nearly 1,300 F-35s to the US and its international customers, more than all other stealth fighters combined, including the US F-22 Raptor, China’s J-20 and J-35A, and Russia’s Su-57.
A firm order for 1,560 more F-35s would bring the total close to 3,000 fighters by 2035.
The final decision, however, rests with the US Congress.
The post The $7 Billion Bet Inside Lockheed’s F-35 Framework: Why Pentagon Wants to Lock Production for a Decade appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
An incident that took place in Italy deserves careful consideration, because it demonstrates the close relationship between Israel and the political institutions of European countries.
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
The unexpected
An incident that took place in Italy deserves careful consideration, because it demonstrates the close relationship between Israel and the political institutions of European countries—in a Europe that is becoming a destination for many Israeli citizens seeking to recreate their communities in small territorial enclaves on the Old Continent. Why is it worth discussing this? Because this is an example of a pattern that is beginning to repeat itself in various parts of Europe, and this will have significant geopolitical consequences sooner than we expect.
Here’s what happened. On October 5, 2026, Fanpage.it published an investigative report by Michelangelo Mecchia that had a rare impact in Italian journalism: in less than a week, it reached the Chamber of Deputies, the European Parliament, and the Veneto Regional Council. At the center of the story is an association based in Albignasego, in the Padua area, called Christians for Israel Italy. It is the Italian branch of Christians for Israel International (C4I), a network founded in the Netherlands in 1979 and now present in over forty countries. According to the investigative report, for more than twenty years this network has been raising money for Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.
So far, this would be a story of transnational religious and political activism—the kind that exists in every democracy. The point is another. Between 2023 and 2024, the Veneto Region allocated 16,000 euros in public funds to the association. And the same association, according to the documentation, has over the years built up privileged access to the leadership of the parties currently governing the country and the region. The question that arises does not concern anyone’s beliefs. It concerns the way in which an Italian public institution chooses its partners, and whether it does so knowing—or wanting to know—who it is funding.
The method used was undercover investigation. Journalists approached the Italian chapter posing as potential donors and asked whether it was possible to support projects in the occupied territories. The answer was yes: all they had to do was indicate “Judea and Samaria” in the transfer description. The term is not neutral. It is the biblical designation that Israeli authorities use for the West Bank and that the settler movement employs precisely to deny that it is occupied territory. According to the investigation, the Italian office also clarified that it works in direct contact with Israeli political authorities.
The main operational channel is Christian Friends of Israeli Communities (CFOIC), a partner organization based in the settlements themselves. According to Fanpage, it is through CFOIC that most of the money destined for the settlements passes, used to purchase drones, cameras, surveillance systems, and jeeps for patrolling the territory. This is therefore not generic humanitarian aid, but equipment for controlling the area around the outposts: the very same security infrastructure that, in the day-to-day reality of the West Bank, serves to demarcate land, monitor Palestinian villages, and facilitate the expansion of the settlements.
Two factors add weight to this picture. The first is the scale. After October 7, 2023, the international network launched an extraordinary campaign that, according to its own 2023 financial report, raised 3.6 million. The second concerns an incident that came to light in the Netherlands, where the investigative journalism platform Investico investigated the Dutch branch of the network: in an interview with reporters, a settler, Nati Rom, proposed using donations to buy guns for settlement residents. The Dutch section subsequently suspended that collaboration. Investico also traced the funding for prefabricated housing units for new settlement residents. It should be noted precisely that the proposal regarding weapons has not been attributed to CFOIC or the Italian section. But it speaks volumes about the environment from which that money comes—and about the fact that the network itself felt it had to distance itself from it.
Then there is the public discourse. Marco Alexander, a tour guide, has spoken several times in the movement’s webinars, suggesting that the best solution would be to relocate the population of Gaza elsewhere, followed by a process of “de-Palestinization.” In a video, the association’s president, Edda Fogarollo, a history professor, attacked Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, for wearing a keffiyeh, calling for the Pope to intervene. The attack came after Israeli police had prevented the patriarch from reaching the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. That an association calling itself Christian would choose to take aim at the shepherd of the Christians of the Holy Land—rather than at those who barred him from entering Christianity’s holiest site—is a political fact even before it is a theological one.
International law as a matter of opinion
The press release in which the Green and Left Alliance brought the case before the Regional Council refers to a “ruling” from 2024. The technical term is different, and the distinction deserves clarification because those who defend the settlements often exploit precisely these inaccuracies. On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion, at the request of the United Nations General Assembly, on the legal consequences of Israeli policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. An advisory opinion is not a judgment between parties, but it represents the most authoritative interpretation of current international law that exists. And its conclusions are clear: Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Territory is illegal; Israel must immediately cease all new settlement activity and evacuate the settlers; and all States have an obligation not to recognize the situation as legal and not to render aid or assistance in its maintenance.
This last point is decisive for the Veneto case. The obligation not to provide assistance does not apply only to governments in their diplomatic relations: it extends to the entire state apparatus, including local authorities, to the extent that they use public resources. On September 18, 2024, the General Assembly adopted the opinion through Resolution ES-10/24, approved by 124 votes in favor, 14 against, and 43 abstentions, and called on Israel to end the occupation within twelve months. Italy abstained. That abstention was a political choice by the government, not a suspension of the legal obligations identified in the advisory opinion. The twelve-month deadline expired over a year ago. Meanwhile, the settlements have expanded.
Regarding the term “genocide,” used in the regional communiqué, legal prudence requires a distinction to be made. The case brought by South Africa against Israel before the International Court of Justice is still pending on the merits, and Israel rejects the accusation. In January 2024, however, the Court deemed some of the claims invoked by South Africa to be plausible and ordered provisional measures; in September 2025, the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded that acts of genocide were committed in Gaza. The final judgment rests with the Court. But a ruling class that uses public funds to finance those who publicly advocate for the forced transfer of the population of Gaza cannot claim to be unaware of the legal and moral climate in which it operates.
Public funds for israeli interests
We must be precise here as well, because the issue is serious and does not need to be exaggerated. The 16,000 euros were allocated via two decrees, in 2023 and 2024, under the call for proposals established by Regional Law No. 5 of February 3, 2020, which supports initiatives for Holocaust Remembrance Day, education about the Holocaust, the fight against antisemitism, and the promotion of Jewish culture. The funds went to two events: 9,500 euros for an “Exhibition of Degenerate Art” and 6,500 euros for an initiative dedicated to Eugenio Gentili Tedeschi.
This, however, does not settle the matter; it merely shifts it. Money is fungible: every public euro that covers an association’s cultural expenses frees up a private euro for other purposes, including campaigns for “Judea and Samaria.” But there is a plan even more significant than the flow of funds, and that is the plan of legitimization. A regional grant—especially one based on a law dedicated to the memory of the Holocaust—conferrs upon its recipient a badge of institutional respectability. It is symbolic capital that can then be spent anywhere: in the halls of the Senate, in relations with schools, and in fundraising. And during the Venice exhibition financed with that money, former Member of the European Parliament Magdi Cristiano Allam denied the very existence of a Palestinian national identity. Public sponsorship, in other words, provided a platform for a thesis that denies a people under occupation the right to exist as a political entity.
Finally, there is an aspect concerning the memory of the Holocaust itself. Using a law designed to educate young people about the extermination of Europe’s Jews as a funding channel for entities committed to supporting a military occupation that has been declared illegal amounts to co-opting that memory for a contingent political purpose. This also harms the Jewish communities of Veneto—the primary beneficiaries of the law—who bear no responsibility for the choices made by a Christian-Zionist association and yet find themselves sharing the same budget line with it.
The situation in Veneto is not an isolated administrative incident. Between 2011 and 2025, the Italian branch of C4I organized conferences with Israeli diplomats and members of the ruling party, several of which took place in the Senate chambers. On October 13, 2021, for example, the association hosted a “Jerusalem Prayer Breakfast” at the Senate, with the then-Israeli ambassador Dror Eydar, Giorgia Meloni (who was in the opposition at the time), Matteo Salvini, Lucio Malan, Paolo Formentini, and Simone Pillon announced as attendees. On that occasion, Salvini described the transfer of the capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as a moral, civic, religious, and political commitment.
President Fogarollo ran in the 2015 Veneto regional elections with Fratelli d’Italia and in the 2022 Padua municipal elections on a center-right ticket; in September 2026, she was on the Pontida lawn with an Israeli flag alongside League deputy Formentini. On January 30, 2024, League Senator Massimiliano Romeo introduced a bill against antisemitism that incorporates the IHRA definition, which was later approved by the Senate; in September 2026, Maurizio Gasparri defended it in a public debate with Fogarollo herself. There is nothing illegal about lobbying, and an association has every right to support a bill. But the IHRA definition is contested by a large part of the legal and academic community precisely because, in its examples of application, it risks equating political criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism. When it is promoted most zealously by circles that deny Palestinian identity, the suspicion that the aim is to silence dissent regarding the occupation becomes legitimate.
Viewed through a geopolitical lens, the case illustrates a broader dynamic. Christian Zionism, which originated in the Anglo-Saxon evangelical world, has for decades been one of the most effective vehicles for Western support of the West Bank colonization project: it provides money, volunteers, informal diplomatic networks, and above all, a theological framework that removes the issue from the realm of international law and places it in the realm of prophecy. In Italy, where Catholicism has a very different tradition and where the Holy See has recognized the State of Palestine since 2015, this influence has found a foothold not in the Churches but in a segment of the political right, which uses it as a marker of allegiance to the Atlantic camp. The result is paradoxical: an association that calls itself Christian attacks the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, while Palestinian Christian communities in the West Bank—from Taybeh to Bethlehem—have been denouncing settler violence for years.
What the Venetians expect from their institutions
On October 12, regional councilors Carlo Cunegato and Elena Ostanel of the Green and Left Alliance submitted a question requiring an immediate response to the Regional Executive Committee led by Alberto Stefani. Democratic Party councilors Monica Sambo, Alessandro Del Bianco, Chiara Luisetto, and Gianpaolo Trevisi asked Culture Councilor Valeria Mantovan to report to the committee on procedures and oversight. At the national level, Stefania Ascari, a member of the Chamber of Deputies from the Five Star Movement, questioned the Prime Minister and the ministers of Foreign Affairs, the Economy, and the Interior; in Strasbourg, Members of the European Parliament Brando Benifei and Cecilia Strada addressed the European Commission. To date, as far as is known, neither the Region nor the association has provided a public response on the matter.
There are four requests to be made to the Regional Executive, and none of them is radical. The first is full transparency: publish the decrees, financial reports, and expense receipts for the two grants, so that every euro is traceable. The second concerns the present. The 2026 call for proposals under Law 5/2020, approved on August 19 by Resolution No. 886, makes available 55,000 euros, and the rankings have not yet been published. Before awarding the funds, the Regional Executive must verify that no beneficiary supports, either directly or through networks of which they are a part, activities in the settlements. The third is structural: to introduce an explicit clause in regional calls for proposals that excludes from grants and funding any entity that finances activities in territories that international law considers illegally occupied, in accordance with the Court’s opinion. The fourth is political: a clarification as to why an association with these characteristics was able to access funds intended for Holocaust remembrance.
Throughout its history, Veneto has experienced life as a land of emigration and a border region; it knows what it means to have its territory determined by others, and it has also experienced what it means to be invaded, plundered, and culturally and politically violated. It needs no lessons to understand why a people would refuse to have its name erased.
The resources paid for by Venetian citizens through their taxes must be used for public health care, for nursing homes with fees that are becoming increasingly unaffordable, for schools, and for true culture. They must not—not even indirectly, nor through the veneer of respectability that public funding provides—contribute to legitimizing those who support the colonization of another people’s land. International law has already made clear which side to take. It is up to the Region to demonstrate that it understands this.
The protesters cannot be dismissed as members of some particular social segment, being instead a cross-party movement from all sectors of society.
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Albania has returned to the news in recent days, with protests that eventually culminated in the destruction of the Ministry of Education, but the process that led to this chaos began some months ago because of the negotiations surrounding the construction of a gigantic luxury resort in the country, in a megaproject led by Affinity Partners, owned by Jared Kushner, the Zionist agent who is Donald Trump’s son-in-law and who occasionally acts as his ad hoc diplomat. Alongside Kushner in this project, there was also capital from three Arab petro-monarchies and local investors.
The first point of dissent, the spark, so to speak, of this fire, was the fact that the project would be built in an environmental protection area, in the marshy wetland zone of Albania, which is considered a natural paradise where flamingos, pelicans and other animals nest, some of them endangered. Nevertheless, Kushner obtained authorization from Edi Rama’s government to go ahead with the project, as well as the classification of strategic investor, which allows him to bypass local regulations.
The project itself is expected to reach the sum of 4.7 billion dollars and would be implemented on the island of Sazan (once a military base), on the island of Vjosa-Narta and on the island of Zvernec, which also have defensive characteristics. Kushner supposedly had the “idea” and “discovered” Sazan while traveling on the yacht of his friend Nathan Rothschild, a context in which he also met the Albanian prime minister.
Kushner’s other partners at Affinity Partners are Luis Videgaray, former Minister of Finance of Mexico, and Elad Gil, an Israeli investor, and the project involves the construction of hotels, marinas and private villas, in an effort that seems to point toward a “Dubai-ization” of Albania.
Since June, therefore, when these shady deals were revealed, Albanian citizens began going to the streets to protest, with slogans (“Albania is not for sale”) against Washington and Tel Aviv and calling for Kushner to be made persona non grata. The protests had already been following protests organized in February and March over corruption accusations against Edi Rama, as well as the fact that the Albanian prime minister had begun a campaign to encourage Israelis to move to Albania.
What has been most worrying for the Albanian government is the fact that these protesters cannot be dismissed as members of some particular social segment, being instead a cross-party movement from all sectors of society. And the protests continued, intermittently, until now in October, which points to a permanent dissatisfaction that is difficult to stifle.
The most recent protests are more focused on youth and on new corruption scandals, problems in education and the government’s attempts to “force” entry into the European Union, but the issue of Jared Kushner’s luxury resort remains on the agenda.
It is possible to analyze the case from the conspiracy-minded angle of “Epstein Island,” especially considering the Rothschild family’s ties to Epstein and to Kushner, but perhaps a more interesting angle points to the geopolitics of the Mediterranean and the power project of the State of Israel.
Israel has been expanding its activities in this area and expanding its presence. Israeli investors, for example, have been mass-acquiring properties in Cyprus and in the Greek port city of Kalamata. When we add up these ventures targeting properties in Cyprus, Greece and now Albania, we clearly perceive that there is an eastern Mediterranean focus in Israeli parastatal business activities. It is striking that these always involve islands and ports, which points specifically to the construction of a thalassocratic strategy on the part of the State of Israel.
Also striking is a specific theme of Albanian political-social reality, which is the fact that it has become common practice for Albanian investors, after being legitimized as strategic investors to secure approval for development projects, to resell their shareholdings for negligible amounts to other, more obscure actors. In many cases, we are talking here about “straw man” schemes used by the Albanian mafia. That would not naturally be the case for Kushner or the Arab petro-monarchies, but the suspicion raised affects the Albanian partners in this investment.
Perhaps that is why the violent repression of the protests has drawn less attention than elsewhere. It appears to be the authentic eruption of popular dissatisfaction in a country that for decades has been victimized by corrupt leaders, highly dangerous mafias and brutal terrorists.
The Indian Navy is conducting trials of the French Dassault Rafale-M, the naval aircraft that edged out the American F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in a tight contest.
Interestingly, the Indian Navy already operates a substantial number of American platforms. Against that backdrop, Boeing had expected to secure yet another major Indian contract.
Why did the French Rafale-M ultimately edge out the Super Hornets?
In April 2025, India ordered 26 Rafale Marines to replace the Russian-origin MiG-29K, which currently operates from Indian aircraft carriers– INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant.
More than a year after signing the contract, the Indian Navy is running Rafale-M trials at the Shore-Based Test Facility (SBTF) at INS Hansa in Goa and is reportedly considering some minor modifications to its aircraft carriers to accommodate the French aircraft.
According to the reports, the service is considering these small modifications because the Rafale-M fighters were originally designed to operate from CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) carriers—such as the French carrier Charles de Gaulle—whereas Indian carriers use a Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery (STOBAR) system.
Additionally, the Rafale-M has a wingspan of almost 10.9 meters, and unlike the MiG-29K, it is not designed to fold its wings to take up less space on the deck. This creates a larger deck or hangar footprint. So, the Navy is purportedly examining minor procedural workarounds, such as temporarily detaching the wingtip missile launch rails to reduce the effective span to roughly 9.6 meters, along with handling and stowage adjustments.
Rafale-M deliveries are expected to begin in 2028 and likely conclude by 2030, marking the first time in a decade that the Indian Navy will operate a non-Russian or Western fighter. Its last Western carrier fighter was the British Sea Harrier aircraft, which it retired in 2016 after more than three decades of service.
Notably, the Indian Navy has operated French equipment before, though never on this scale.
Earlier, it acquired 12 Breguet Alizé carrier-based anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft that participated in the 1961 Goa operations and the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War and served the Navy until 1991. The service has also operated the HAL Chetak, a French-designed light utility helicopter produced in India for decades, though it is now being phased out in favor of more advanced indigenous aircraft.
By contrast, the Indian Navy operates a range of US-origin equipment, from helicopters to spy aircraft, making the choice of a French carrier-based jet particularly interesting.
Despite the push for indigenization, the Indian Navy has steadily acquired American platforms and weapons over the past few decades.
One of the most important items on this list is the P-8I Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft. India first ordered eight P-8I aircraft in January 2009, becoming the type’s first international customer.
It signed a follow-on order for four additional aircraft in 2016, significantly enhancing its maritime surveillance, anti-submarine warfare, and ISR capabilities and positioning it as a critical asset in the Indian Ocean Region. In February 2026, the Defense Acquisition Council (DAC) officially cleared an additional P-8I purchase.
In addition to the Poseidon, the Indian Navy ordered 24 MH-60R Seahawk Multi-mission naval helicopters in February 2020. It has since received 21, and the rest are expected to arrive in 2027. These helicopters can conduct anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, shipborne multi-role operations, and networked operations, arming the Navy with the capability to detect and neutralize underwater and surface threats in the Indian Ocean.
The Navy has also leased two MQ-9B Sea Guardian drones from US-based General Atomics since 2020. It is supplementing these by leasing two more as per a contract signed in August 2026. These drones have supported maritime surveillance and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions in the Indian Ocean Region, complementing the Navy’s P-8I and helping maintain vigilance.
India also signed a $3.3 billion deal with the US in October 2024 to acquire 31 MQ-9B High-Altitude Long-Endurance UAVs. Of the 31 Sea Guardians the MoD purchased, the Indian Navy will receive 15 drones, while the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force will each receive 8 to strengthen surveillance along the northern and western borders.
The Indian Navy operates one US-acquired INS Jalashwa (the former USS Trenton), an Austin-class amphibious transport dock with a sealift capability for over 3,500 troops and a squadron of armored vehicles.
Furthermore, the service has also acquired several lethal US munitions over the years, including the AGM-84 Harpoon Block II anti-ship missile, Mk 54 lightweight torpedoes, and the AGM-114 Hellfire, to name just a few.
Despite these rather high-value acquisitions, the Indian Navy has never purchased or operated an American fighter jet. When it finally got the chance to buy a US aircraft, i.e., the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the service chose the Rafale-M instead.
When India opened the contest for a carrier-based fighter to replace the MiG-29K jets, Boeing offered its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block III.
In 2022, Boeing India marketed the F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III as a carrier-based fighter designed for high-load, high-stress operations, and stressed that the multi-role naval fighter would be fully compatible with Indian Navy carriers.
Boeing pitched the Super Hornet as a jet that required minimal support equipment and had a remarkably low cost per flight hour while maintaining high mission readiness. It tried to woo the Indian Navy by emphasizing that the aircraft would become a force multiplier because it could interface with the P-8I and other US-origin systems the service operates.
To sweeten the deal, Boeing also announced a roadmap to significantly increase its investments in line with the “Make in India” initiative and pledged to transfer cutting-edge technologies to Indian industry if the Super Hornet was selected.
However, the Super Hornet had to dogfight with the French Rafale, a cutting-edge fighter for India’s carrier-borne aircraft tender.
In a tightly fought contest, both jets underwent extensive testing at a shore-based facility, including take-off trials from both ski-jump and catapult launchers. Both aircraft reportedly met the Indian Navy’s requirements, but the Rafale-M ultimately won.
Speaking to the EurAsian Times earlier, an ex-Indian Navy pilot who had flown both the Super Hornet and Rafale said both aircraft were extremely capable and on a level playing field. “The only issue I can think of is that the F-18 is a heavier aircraft, and the Rafale M is lighter. So, when it comes to arrested landing on the aircraft carrier, Rafale has more flexibility,” the naval aviator said at the time, requesting anonymity.
The Rafale-M shared a very high degree of commonality with the 36 Rafale jets operated by the Indian Air Force (IAF). This meant several parts, tools, and test equipment could be interchanged, and India could share ground-support systems, simulators, and diagnostic software.
Additionally, India had already established maintenance infrastructure, trained technicians, and supply chains for the IAF Rafales, which could support the Rafale-Ms.
The Navy would have assessed that Rafale-Ms would reduce costs by creating an inventory of maintenance facilities, spare parts, logistics, and potential future overhauls. Meanwhile, introducing the Super Hornet would require building an entirely separate support ecosystem.
In this scenario, the air force can familiarize itself with the Marine aircraft, while naval pilots can transition to the IAF’s twin-seat Rafales.
The IAF is now poised to acquire 114 Rafale multi-role fighters, most of which will be manufactured locally. Therefore, one could argue that the decision to choose French jets for the Indian Navy may have been driven by the need for uniformity and interoperability, which are crucial in fast-paced conflict zones.
A secondary factor could have been the Infrared Search and Track (IRST) system, which provides a stealthy advantage in detecting and engaging threats, including potential low-observable aircraft. The Rafale-M came with an integrated IRST, whereas the Super Hornet Block III lacked one, although Boeing offered a podded solution.
Moreover, the Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile on the Rafale also offered superior standoff capability compared to the Super Hornet’s AIM-120 AMRAAM.
More importantly, however, strong defense ties between India and France, smoother government-to-government negotiations even in past deals, the potential for indigenous weapons integration, and the presence of French fighter jets in the IAF played a crucial role in the decision.
India has never acquired US fighter jets for several reasons, including export controls and restrictions on their use.
Despite its best efforts to market the Block III jet to potential customers such as Canada, Finland, Germany, Poland, and Switzerland, Boeing failed to secure any new contracts and kept losing out to rivals such as Saab Gripen, Dassault Rafale, and the Lockheed Martin F-35.
The post Why India Rejected F/A-18 Super Hornets Despite Its Navy Loaded With American Military Platforms? appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
Login