How Non-F-35 NATO Countries Could Host and Repair Lightning II Jets Locally

How Non-F-35 NATO Countries Could Host and Repair Lightning II Jets Locally

Published:

July 21, 2025

/

Updated:

July 21, 2025

Defense Infrastructure & Manufacturing

Peter Johansson

U.S. Air National Guard photo by Airman 1st Class Josh Kaeser

Royal International Air Tattoo, Fairford – Michael Williamson, who heads Lockheed Martin International, says that several NATO members not flying the F-35 have come to the company with questions about what it would take to set up repair options for the jet at their own bases. This logic is straightforward: when an F-35 has to divert because of weather or combat damage, the crew shouldn’t have to wait for a transport plane or move the jet over a border just for repairs. Instead, the aircraft could roll into a secure shelter, swap out a damaged part, reload the right data files, and get back to the mission.

Williamson made these comments just after one of the busiest air show days in recent years at RIAT. Sources in the defense community report that teams from at least three different NATO countries met with Lockheed to discuss what local maintenance would require, from hangar space to secure storage for sensitive equipment and the rules around what’s considered airworthy. None of these countries have bought the F-35, but all operate modern fourth-generation fighter fleets and already host visiting U.S. aircraft for joint drills.

When it comes to investing in maintenance for an aircraft they don’t operate, military logistics experts say there are a few main reasons. The first is that each new maintenance site cuts down on the alliance’s dependence on a small number of official F-35 depots in places like Italy, the Netherlands, and Norway. Another reason is that spreading out repair options can get damaged jets back in the air faster, especially after losing key systems in combat. Finally, the host countries can build up local technical skills—everything from advanced software to composite repairs—without having to buy their own fleet of stealth fighters. As one NATO logistics planner put it, “Resiliency is now a currency.” He pointed out that large-scale missile attacks on Ukraine have forced the alliance to start thinking about logistics in a more networked, flexible way.

Executives at Lockheed stress that a base able to handle F-35 maintenance is not a simple upgrade. The F-35 needs climate-controlled bays to handle its stealth coating. Its onboard health monitoring and diagnostics require secure fiber lines linked to the ODIN logistics network, and anyone working on the jet needs special clearance for dealing with classified U.S. technology. Even basic repairs like changing a tire or topping up hydraulic fluid mean filling out classified paperwork. As one industry contact put it, you can’t just add an F-35 bay to an old Cold War hangar and call it done.

How much would this cost a country? It depends on how far they want to go. A bare-bones setup would have a weatherproof shelter, a small mobile facility to fix the stealth surface, some spare parts, and a local connection to the ODIN system. A mid-tier site could handle engine repairs and more advanced computer upgrades, while the top end would support full electronics troubleshooting, special paint booths, and enough parts to keep several planes going at once. Alliance supply officers estimate the most basic option might cost under €30 million. If a country wants the full package with all the security and cybersecurity measures, it could go over €250 million.

Some of the main benefits for NATO include:

Faster turnarounds for jets that have to land away from home base

Less pressure on air refueling assets during emergencies

Training for non-F-35 nations in high-tech maintenance

Extra capacity in a conflict if multiple countries need repairs at once
This new interest comes just as there’s a change at the top of the F-35 program office. On July 18, Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Masiello took over as program head, replacing the Air Force’s leadership after many years. He faces congressional demands to improve how often the jets are ready to fly, and has already made clear that local and regional partnerships for maintenance will be important. At RIAT, some industry officials took his comments to mean the F-35 program is open to ideas that don’t always fit the traditional “user country” model.

Within NATO, some countries already have experience maintaining advanced U.S. aircraft. Greece, for example, looks after F-15E jets at Souda Bay, and Bulgaria’s Graf Ignatievo base helps with USAF F-16s during special deployment drills. What’s new is the willingness of governments to pay for F-35 repair capability as a way to prepare for future purchases—or at least to support the alliance. Some diplomats close to recent working group meetings say it’s a strategic move: even if a country can’t afford to buy the fighter now, having the right infrastructure means they could jump in later. Belgium took the opposite approach, waiting five years before announcing it would buy eleven more F-35s.

This trend also matches NATO’s push for more flexible basing. Earlier this year, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe set a goal for every fighter wing to have access to four locations, with enough supplies to last three weeks and the ability to fix any jet in less than five days. If non-operator countries can provide repair hubs, planners would have more options to keep jets away from areas under missile threat, without losing operational tempo. The F-35 is already designed for this kind of modular support; it uses hundreds of easily swapped parts, so a jet can fly out once a repair is done, while the faulty part is sent back to the supply chain.

There’s also a business case for setting up these hubs. Williamson told reporters that Lockheed expects around forty percent of its growth in the next few years to come from countries not currently flying the F-35. Maintenance and support are seen as the easiest way in. Some defense officials in Central Europe are already running the numbers, looking at how many jobs could be created in fields like electronics, composite materials, and cybersecurity. With fewer workers trained for these jobs and commercial aviation facing periodic slowdowns, steady F-35 work could help stabilize the job market.

Still, not everyone is sure this is the right move. Some engineers involved in the program warn that spreading maintenance too thin could introduce new problems. The F-35’s logistics software has had a troubled history, and the newest updates are behind schedule. There are still jets in service with temporary fixes while waiting for permanent upgrades. One engineer with the Joint Program Office argues that adding more locations only makes sense after older issues are fixed: “More ramps won’t help if the jet sits on them waiting for code certification.” However, supporters point out that more maintenance hubs also mean there’s less risk from losing a single site, whether to a technical fault or an attack.

On the legal side, Lockheed needs to follow strict U.S. export laws. Technicians working in new host nations would have access to sensitive repair processes, materials, and classified threat information. The U.S. government would need to approve technical agreements for each country, and every new site would be required to meet the same cybersecurity standards as the main depots. Still, according to senior officials, Pentagon planners support the general idea, seeing it as a key lesson from the war in Ukraine: logistics redundancy is now seen as just as vital as buying new equipment.

Budget officers tracking the F-35 program note that spare parts are a major cost driver, making up almost sixty percent of what it takes to operate the jet over its life. If repair sites can be closer to where the jet lands, and if logistics delays are reduced, some believe the alliance might finally get closer to the $33,000-per-hour cost target set by U.S. lawmakers last year. One NATO financial official was blunt: “Every C-17 sortie you avoid is three maintenance shifts you can pay at home.” But some in the industry warn that too many small maintenance pools could drive costs up and make it harder to keep track of reliability data.

Politically, being able to host F-35 maintenance is also a way for smaller countries to show they’re contributing to NATO, even if they’re not buying the fighter themselves. It means daily contact with allied aircrews and keeps their technical workforce close to the latest military standards. As one Baltic deputy defense minister put it, “Our voters see a stealth fighter every time they look up, so let’s at least fix it in-country instead of waving goodbye.”

Our analysis shows that data sharing is likely to be the real test for these projects. If a new maintenance site can’t connect securely to the ODIN network or get quick access to encrypted mission data, the jet can’t fly its missions, no matter how fast repairs are. Right now, European cybersecurity authorities are still ironing out the details of new standards, and that’s expected to be the main sticking point for any country looking to set up an F-35 hub.

What’s next? Lockheed plans to send out a detailed Site Activation Checklist to all interested governments by mid-August. This will list everything from environmental and hazardous materials requirements to how much physical space is needed to separate sensitive areas from the rest of a base. Each country will then have to decide whether to fund a formal design study for the 2026 budget. If all goes to plan, the first “divert-and-repair” shelter could open somewhere in Europe by the fall of 2027.

NATO officials conclude that this matches up with the alliance’s overall plan to spread out maintenance across Europe by the end of the decade. Whether it’s a quick fuel stop in Belgium, a software update in the Baltics, or an engine swap in Southern Europe, military planners agree that air power has to stay flexible. As Williamson said at the airshow, “It’s about giving the pilot a place to land, fix, and go. The flag on the tail shouldn’t decide that.”

REFERENCE SOURCES

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/07/non-operators-of-f-35-interested-in-hosting-local-maintenance-for-jet-lockheed-exec/

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/07/masiello-takes-over-as-new-f-35-program-lead/

https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/defence/belgium-commits-to-additional-f-35as

The post How Non-F-35 NATO Countries Could Host and Repair Lightning II Jets Locally appeared first on defense-aerospace.

Go to Source