Follow us on social

The F-35 fighter will now cost more than $2 trillion

The F-35 fighter will now cost more than $2 trillion

The eye-popping price tag has not fixed the maintenance issues plaguing the program, a government watchdog says

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex

The F-35 fighter jet program will cost taxpayers more than $2 trillion over its lifetime, cementing its place as one of the most expensive weapons programs in U.S. history, according to new estimates from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent government watchdog.

The new price tag represents a dramatic jump from a 2018 estimate that set the program’s total cost at $1.7 trillion. Most of the bump comes from projected sustainment costs, which increased by 44 percent to a cool $1.58 trillion over the lifetime of the program. The Pentagon also extended the projected life of the plane to 2088 rather than the previous goal of 2077.

The news comes as Congress considers President Joe Biden’s budget proposal for next year, which asks for a record $895 billion in military funding. The spending package is separate from the White House’s request for $106 billion to fund weapons transfers to and security cooperation with Israel, Taiwan and Ukraine, which is still languishing in the House after passing the Senate earlier this year.

Of course, it’s not all bad news on the financial front. The Pentagon has brought down the estimated lifetime cost per F-35 by simply buying more jets and reducing the number of flight hours they will be expected to perform each year, according to the GAO.

But this is less than ideal on the war-fighting side of the equation. All three versions of the F-35 continue to fall far short of their target “mission capable rates,” a term of art referring to the percentage of time that any given aircraft is actually ready for battle. In 2023, the average F-35A was only in flying shape about 52% of the time — far short of the 90% target set by the Air Force, the GAO reports.

The jets have often been stuck on the ground due to engine design flaws that cause the aircraft to overheat, damaging parts and boosting maintenance costs. This inability to stay in the air has made it more difficult to get pilots sufficient training in real-life scenarios, which increases the likelihood of crashes and other costly accidents, according to Dan Grazier of the Project on Government Oversight.

The effort to fix these engine issues helps show why the F-35’s costs keep rising. In the early 2010s, the Pentagon asked military contractors to propose a new engine prototype while simultaneously pushing RTX subsidiary Pratt and Whitney to upgrade its original F-35 engine. Last year, the Defense Department told Congress that it no longer needs the $588 million per year prototype program, but lawmakers refused to kill it, choosing instead to fund the prototype and the upgrades simultaneously in a move one expert derided as “just throwing money at everything.”

Members of Congress defended the decision to keep the prototype by arguing that it will help advance technology for the next generation of fighter jets. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) — a lead proponent of keeping the General Electric-led engine program — also happens to have a brand new GE Aerospace plant in his district.

Besides parochial concerns, the Pentagon also tends to underestimate the cost of programs in early stages of development. Just last week, the Congressional Budget Office revealed that the Navy drastically underestimated the cost of a new medium landing ship to carry small Marine Corps units. Early estimates put the program’s cost at $2.6 billion, but CBO says the Pentagon will most likely have to shell out between $6.2 billion and $7.8 billion for the ships — an overrun of more than 100%.


A Marine Corps F-35B refuels during a training exercise over the Pacific Ocean near Japan. (Staff Sgt. Daryn Murphy/ U.S. Air Force)

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.