The F-35I Adir took part in Israel’s air campaign during the 12-day conflict with Iran in June 2025. It is the Israeli variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. This article examines its reported strike and sensor roles.
Operation Rising Lion: Stealth in Action
When Israel launched Operation Rising Lion on June 13, 2025, the F-35I Adir played a critical role in the opening strikes. Israeli jets penetrated deep into Iranian airspace to hit more than a dozen targets, including nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and the Arak Nuclear Complex. The strikes required flying over 1,600 km — a mission that demanded stealth, precision, and mid-air refueling.
The F-35I’s low-observable stealth design allowed Israeli pilots to evade Iran’s extensive air defense network, which included Russian-made S-300 systems and domestically produced Bavar-373 batteries. While earlier Israeli strikes in October 2024 had targeted air defenses first to clear a path, the June 2025 campaign saw F-35s operating more boldly, relying on their stealth characteristics to avoid detection.
Sensor Fusion: The F-35’s Secret Weapon
Beyond stealth, the F-35’s most valuable contribution was its sensor fusion capability. The aircraft’s AN/APG-81 radar, Distributed Aperture System (DAS), and Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) provided Israeli commanders with a combined picture of the battlespace.
During the conflict, F-35s served as airborne command nodes, sharing targeting data with other aircraft, naval vessels, and ground-based missile defense systems like Iron Dome and David’s Sling. This network-centric approach was essential during Iran’s retaliatory strikes under “Operation True Promise III,” when hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones were launched toward Israel.
Bunker Busting at Natanz
One of the most significant strikes of the war targeted the Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP), a multi-story underground enrichment facility housing thousands of advanced gas centrifuges producing 60% enriched uranium. Satellite imagery later revealed at least three explosive impacts on the facility.
Public weapons testing supports a narrower conclusion about internal carriage: in October 2012, an F-35A released a 2,000-pound GBU-31 BLU-109 JDAM from its left internal weapons bay. U.S. Air Force test report. The GBU-28 is a different, 5,000-pound laser-guided hard-target weapon; its designation must not be treated as interchangeable with the GBU-31. U.S. Air Force GBU-28 reference. These sources do not establish GBU-28 integration in the F-35’s internal bay or identify the aircraft and munition responsible for particular damage at Natanz.
Iran’s Air Force: Outclassed
The technological gap between the two air forces was stark. Iran’s air fleet, consisting of aging F-14A Tomcats (originally purchased from the U.S. in the 1970s) and F-5E Tiger IIs, stood virtually no chance against fifth-generation opponents. During the conflict, Israel destroyed at least 5 F-14As and 2 F-5Es on the ground, along with 8 AH-1J attack helicopters and a KC-707 tanker aircraft.
Iran’s air defenses managed to put up resistance, but the combination of Israeli stealth aircraft, electronic warfare capabilities, and overwhelming precision firepower proved too much. Over 200 ballistic missile launchers and 120 surface-to-air missile launchers were destroyed during the 12-day campaign.
The American Dimension
The conflict also saw the United States enter the war on June 22 with “Operation Midnight Hammer,” using B-2 Spirit stealth bombers to strike three Iranian nuclear facilities. The synergy between American B-2s and Israeli F-35s demonstrated the power of allied stealth operations, with both platforms sharing intelligence and coordinating strikes in real-time.
What to Assess
Assessing the aircraft’s role requires evidence about four parts of the operation:
- Threat and mission — Evaluate low observability against the defenses and task involved, alongside electronic warfare and other support.
- Sensor integration — Examine which information the aircraft collected and shared, and how it was combined with other sources. Sensor capability alone does not establish its effect on the campaign.
- Aircraft configuration and support — Weapons, upgrades, maintenance, training and supporting forces affect an aircraft’s usefulness. Age or generation labels alone do not determine whether it can perform a task.
- Target identification and effects — Precision-guided weapons still depend on correct target identification. Assessing the results also requires evidence of the damage caused and any civilian harm.
The F-35I combines stealth, sensors and strike capability. Assessing its contribution to the Twelve-Day War requires distinguishing aircraft capabilities from the effects of intelligence, refueling, other aircraft and the wider campaign.