Israel’s F-35I “Adir” has quietly become the most combat-proven variant of the stealth jet, and its performance has raised a pointed question for Washington: why does a small air force appear to squeeze more out of the same basic aircraft than the country that helped design it. The answer lies less in hardware than in how Israel has been allowed to shape, integrate, and fight its F-35s as a tailored system rather than a one-size-fits-all platform.
By combining unique software access, local weapons, and relentless operational use, Israel has turned the F-35 into a flexible strike and intelligence hub that fits its threat environment almost perfectly. I see that contrast most clearly when I compare how the Israeli Air Force treats the jet as a constantly evolving tool, while the U.S. Air Force still wrestles with bureaucracy, upgrade cycles, and a more rigid global program.
Israel’s custom F-35I and the limits on U.S. jets
The core structural difference starts with the fact that Israel operates a distinct variant, the F-35I, which gives its air force unusual freedom to modify the aircraft’s software and plug in domestic systems. Instead of accepting the standard configuration, Israeli planners pushed for an open architecture that lets them integrate national datalinks, electronic warfare suites, and indigenous weapons in ways that are not available to other customers. Analysts who have compared the two fleets argue that this flexibility is a key reason Israel’s F-35s are often described as operating at a higher practical capability level than the baseline American jets, even though they share the same airframe and engine.
That special status did not happen by accident. Reporting on the program notes that Israel secured the right to install its own mission systems and code, creating what one detailed assessment describes as a uniquely adaptable stealth fighter that can be tuned rapidly for new missions. Discussions among defense specialists highlight how unusual this is inside the broader F-35 program, with one widely cited WarCollege thread pointing out that even so‑called “tier 1” partners did not receive the same depth of customization rights that Israel negotiated. By contrast, the U.S. Air Force must keep its jets aligned with a global baseline, which can slow down or complicate the kind of rapid, nationally driven modifications that have become routine in Israeli service.
Combat experience and a culture of constant use
Israel’s geographic reality means its F-35s have been in combat far more often, and far earlier, than their American counterparts. Surrounded by hostile or unstable fronts at relatively short ranges, the Israeli Air Force has used the Adir for repeated long‑range strikes, intelligence collection, and deterrent shows of force, often in heavily defended airspace. That tempo has turned the jet into a live laboratory, where every mission feeds back into tactics, software tweaks, and integration changes in a way that peacetime training simply cannot match.
Analysts who have compared operational patterns argue that this high‑intensity use is a major reason Israel’s fleet is seen as outperforming the U.S. Air Force’s F-35s in real‑world effectiveness. One detailed comparison of the two air forces describes how Israeli squadrons treat the Adir as a central node in a networked kill chain, constantly refining how it cooperates with legacy fighters, drones, and ground assets to maximize its impact as a force multiplier. Video analysis of recent operations, including a widely shared breakdown of F-35I missions in contested airspace, underscores how the jet has been used repeatedly in live combat, giving Israeli crews a depth of experience that American pilots, who have flown the F-35 mostly in lower‑threat environments, have not yet matched, as seen in footage such as recent mission debriefs.
Mission systems, local weapons, and electronic warfare
Where the U.S. Air Force tends to rely on a standardized suite of weapons and mission systems, Israel has aggressively wired its F-35I into its own defense ecosystem. The Adir is designed to carry Israeli‑made precision munitions, communicate over national encrypted networks, and feed data into domestic command‑and‑control systems that were built around the country’s specific threat picture. That integration lets Israeli planners tailor each sortie with a mix of sensors and weapons that reflect the exact air defenses, distances, and political constraints they expect to face.
Specialists who have examined the F-35I’s configuration emphasize that this local integration is not cosmetic, but central to how Israel fights. One in‑depth profile of the jet describes how the Adir’s mission systems have been adapted to plug into Israeli intelligence and air defense networks, turning the aircraft into a roaming sensor and strike platform that amplifies the effectiveness of other assets as a unique force multiplier. Another analysis of Israel’s customized F-35s notes that the ability to load national electronic warfare tools and weapons has made the Adir “like no other stealth fighter on earth,” a phrase used to capture how its one‑of‑a‑kind configuration departs from the standard American loadout. In practice, that means Israeli crews can respond faster to new missile threats or adversary radars by updating their own tools, rather than waiting for a global software block upgrade.
Doctrine, training, and how each air force sees the jet
Hardware alone does not explain the gap; doctrine and training shape how each side uses the F-35. Israel’s air force has long favored small, highly trained crews who are expected to improvise and adapt in real time, and the Adir has been slotted into that culture as a multi‑role platform that must handle strike, intelligence, and command functions in a single mission. Pilots are trained to think of the jet as a flying fusion center that can re‑task itself mid‑sortie, passing targeting data to other aircraft or ground units as easily as dropping bombs.
Comparative reporting on the two fleets notes that the U.S. Air Force, by contrast, has sometimes struggled to define the F-35’s role inside a much larger and more bureaucratic force. One detailed study of the “two air forces” describes how American squadrons have been slower to reorganize tactics and command structures around the jet’s strengths, treating it more as a high‑end replacement for legacy fighters than as the central node that Israeli doctrine envisions, a point underscored in the same comparative assessment. Video segments that walk through Israeli training pipelines, including a recent operational overview of Adir squadrons, show how early and intensively pilots are exposed to complex, multi‑domain scenarios, reinforcing a mindset that the jet’s value lies as much in information dominance as in stealth or kinematics.
Regional politics and why Washington tolerates Israeli advantages
The fact that Israel’s F-35I is more customized than the American version raises an obvious political question: why has Washington been willing to grant that edge. The answer is rooted in the long‑standing U.S. commitment to preserve Israel’s “qualitative military edge” in the Middle East, a policy that treats Israeli superiority in key systems as a strategic asset for the United States itself. By allowing Israel deeper access to F-35 technology and integration, U.S. officials effectively turned the Adir into a testbed that can generate lessons for American forces while also reinforcing a trusted ally’s deterrent posture.
That calculus is visible in current debates over whether to sell F-35s to other regional players, particularly Saudi Arabia. Reporting on the emerging Saudi deal notes that Israeli leaders have weighed the risks of another neighbor operating the jet against the benefits of tighter security cooperation, with one detailed analysis explaining why a potential Saudi F-35 package is being framed as part of a broader regional alignment. Another assessment of the proposed sale argues that any Saudi acquisition would be structured to preserve Israel’s edge, with limits on customization and capabilities that keep the Adir ahead, a point made explicitly in a recent examination of why the Saudi F-35 deal matters for Israel, the United States, and the wider Middle East. In that context, Israel’s superior version of the jet is not a bug in U.S. policy, but a feature.
Operational secrecy, deterrence, and the message to adversaries
Israel’s approach to the F-35I also relies on a careful balance between secrecy and signaling. On one hand, the air force has been tight‑lipped about the full extent of its modifications, rarely confirming specific weapons or electronic warfare tools that the Adir carries. On the other, Israeli officials have been willing to hint at long‑range operations and deep penetration missions, using selective disclosures to remind adversaries that the jet can reach sensitive targets while remaining hard to track or intercept. That mix of ambiguity and demonstration is part of how Israel uses the F-35I not just as a weapon, but as a psychological tool.
Regional coverage of recent operations has highlighted how the Adir’s presence shapes the calculations of actors from Tehran to Damascus. One detailed report on Israeli air activity in the Middle East describes how the F-35I’s ability to operate in heavily defended areas has forced adversaries to rethink the survivability of their air defenses, with references to missions that reportedly struck targets far from Israel’s borders, as outlined in recent regional reporting. At the same time, broader analyses of Israel’s role in U.S. strategy argue that the F-35I’s deterrent effect extends beyond immediate neighbors, reinforcing Washington’s own posture by showcasing how a close partner can project power and gather intelligence in contested zones, a theme developed in assessments of Israel as a force multiplier for America.
What the U.S. can and cannot copy from Israel’s F-35 playbook
For all the admiration of Israel’s F-35 performance, not every aspect of the Adir model can be transplanted into U.S. service. The American fleet is vastly larger, spread across multiple theaters, and bound by a global sustainment and upgrade system that must keep dozens of partners aligned. That scale makes it harder to grant the kind of deep software access and rapid, nationally driven modifications that Israel enjoys, without fragmenting the program into incompatible variants. It also means U.S. commanders must balance the F-35’s needs against a much wider array of platforms and missions.
Still, there are lessons Washington can draw from how Israel has used its head start. Analysts who have chronicled the Adir’s evolution argue that the U.S. Air Force could move closer to the Israeli model by giving squadrons more authority to experiment with tactics, integrating the jet more tightly into joint networks, and treating software agility as a core capability rather than an afterthought, themes that recur in detailed profiles of Israel’s approach to the F-35. Video explainers that walk through the jet’s unique features, including one widely viewed breakdown of its custom systems and weapons, underline how much of Israel’s edge comes from organizational choices rather than exotic hardware, a point that comes through clearly in recent technical overviews. In that sense, the real gap between Israel’s F-35 and America’s version is less about what the jet can do, and more about how far each air force is willing and able to push it.
More from MorningOverview