The $1.7 Trillion F-35 Fighter Jet Program Is About To Get More Expensive
GAO: Congress has been buying planes that lack crucial parts and haven't undergone full testing, so costly upgrades will eventually be needed.

Construction of America's newest fighter jets is running over budget and behind schedule—and despite the delays, the finished jets are likely to need costly upgrades because some parts won't be finished until 2029.
A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, released Monday, is the latest black mark for the Pentagon's F-35 fighter jet program, which is already pegged to cost taxpayers more than $1.7 trillion over the planned life of the aircraft. But the military's most expensive toys might be getting even costlier because the Pentagon is pressing ahead with purchasing the planes before operational testing of all components is complete, primarily due to holdups in developing a flight simulator.
"The more aircraft produced before testing is complete, the more it might cost to retrofit those aircraft if issues are discovered," GAO auditors warn. If the Pentagon "moves forward as planned, it will have bought a third of all F-35s before determining that the aircraft is ready to move into the full-rate production phase."
Other "crucial hardware and testing upgrades" for the new jets are now expected to be in development until 2029, according to the audit. That means any jets already completed or being built will likely require expensive upgrades later on.
Overall, the GAO says it has identified 826 "open deficiencies" in the F-35 fighter program, including four problems that are categorized as potentially jeopardizing the safe operation of the aircraft. Those include "issues with the night vision camera and cabin overpressurization." At the rate F-35s are currently being completed and delivered, more than 1,100 jets could be delivered before operational testing is complete, meaning they could require future upgrades before being cleared for military use. And jets that have already been deployed for use "are not performing as well as expected."
The GAO notes that it would be more cost-efficient to hold off on buying F-35s until they are operationally tested than it would be to pay for the aircraft now and upgrade them later.
But, of course, when did cost efficiency and the military go hand-in-hand? There's a reason Lockheed Martin brags about building parts of the F-35 in 48 different states, and that's not because it saves money. The F-35 has been as much an expensive make-work program for military contractors as it has been a vital part of America's national defense—and in that regard the cost overruns and eventual upgrades might be seen as a feature rather than a bug.
Production of the F-35 fighter was originally supposed to cost about $200 billion, but the price tag has already ballooned to about twice as much. Recently, Lockheed Martin warned that supply chain issues and inflation could cause further delays and cost overruns. Monday's GAO report confirmed that construction is running behind schedule, with about 28 percent of the 553 completed jets having been delivered late.
President Joe Biden's fiscal year 2023 budget calls for the purchase of another 61 F-35s to be used by the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. That's down from last year's total of 85 F-35 jets, according to Defense One, a military contractor trade publication. And it is about one-third fewer than the 94 F-35s that were planned to be purchased this year, according to last year's federal budget.
Trimming the purchases seems like a wise move in light of Monday's audit. Dan Grazier, a senior defense policy fellow at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), a fiscally conservative nonprofit, points out that buying any F-35s before operational testing is complete puts taxpayers and troops at risk.
Based on the most recent Pentagon estimates, Grazier writes that Biden's decision to cut 33 jets from next year's order could save $84 million "because of upgrades that will not be needed."
Of course, some members of Congress are already pushing to buy even more of the incomplete fighter jets. Politico reported last month that the effort is being led by Reps. John Larson (D–Conn.), Mike Turner (R–Ohio), Marc Veasey (D–Texas) and Chris Stewart (R–Utah). All four, Grazier points out, represent districts where Lockheed Martin is manufacturing F-35s or where fighter jet maintenance facilities are located.
Sure, taxpayers will end up on the hook for avoidable and expensive future upgrades to the F-35 fleet. But, hey, those defense contractor jobs aren't going to create themselves.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It’s not real money anyway.
Not anymore.
If you don't like it, buy our own air force:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32464/australia-to-sell-retired-f-a-18-hornet-fighters-to-private-aggressor-firm-air-usa
Air USA, a private contractor that offers "red air" adversary support, is buying up to 46 soon-to-be-retired F/A-18A/B Hornets from the Royal Australian Air Force. Last year, the U.S. Air Force hired the company, along with six others, under a massive multi-billion dollar training support contract... Air USA's acquisition of even some of the RAAF's F/A-18A/B Hornets would definitely make it one of the most capable private air forces in the world.
Who owns Air USA, and how are they related to which Biden?
With Russia trying to provoke a full scale war in Europe, this is awkward timing to run a piece about the military prioritizing speed over cost.
That was my thought. We need those 1,100 planes built in a real fucking hurry. Because when we defend Taiwan (we will), we are going to lose a bunch of them.
The only defense we'll offer Taiwan is a complementary scuttling of TSMC's fabs.
The original decision to take the plane to higher-rate production while the ground and flight testing programs were still ongoing was claimed to have been made for the purpose of reducing costs. Since the manner in which funding and procurement batches are done for the program makes it difficult to realize the benefit of economies of scale that were supposed to make it more "affordable" to build a large number of aircraft, it's unlikely that any of the alleged savings were ever actually realized anyway.
What's actually happening now is that the GAO is explaining to the rest of the government what 90% of the engineers working on the F-35 program knew 10 years ago and would have told anyone interested if there weren't multiple policies in place prohibiting it (not to mention that despite every company in the industry having "anti-retaliation" policies as required by law, "whistleblowers" tend to have an extremely hard time continuing to work after exposing certain things).
I know there is a lot of hate for the F 35.
It has been quite an over budget boondoggle.
However, it has gotten over its teething problems and the Israelis have been using it with excellent results in Syria.
Against modern Russian air defenses.
Reminds me a lot of the tilt rotor Osprey program.
Way over budget, lots of problems, finally resolved, now working well..
Part of the perception problem that F35 had from the beginning is that it was sold to Congress (and indirectly to the public) as a program that's making one aircraft. The actual scope of the project has involved designing three distinct aircraft which have a handful of parts in common.
The reality of the entire concept is that no single airframe could ever do all of the things that the F-35 fleet is intended to be capable of, and if one could somehow be created, it wouldn't be very good at doing any of those things.
A lot of the press coverage casting the program as a "failure" has been based on false pretenses, such as the notion that finding technical shortcomings and design flaws during the ground/flight testing program means the project is "failing"; those test programs are performed for the purpose of finding such issues because with the complexity of designing a fighter aircraft it's impossible for the engineers involved to forsee every potential issue (and attempting to do so would only further increase costs). If a completely new kind of fighter aircraft made it through the test program without any issues being discovered, either the testing was insufficient or the design team got extremely lucky.
The original cost/schedule projections weren't met, but delays and over-runs are inevitable on any project that's gone through the process of US Federal government procurement (and that's without the inevitable mission creep where someone will come along at a late stage in the design and want to re-write the specifications). The way the system has been constructed by Congress and enacted by the agencies of the executive branch, no "honest" bid would survive the initial down-select round of the competition, so literally every bid submitted is in some way a "lowball" designed to appear convincing (in some cases with assistance from portions of the purchasing agency since high-ranking officers/officials can have their careers tied to the success of a particular program). My understanding is that the Pentagon actually has a department tasked with estimating the "real" cost of many large projects in order for DoD to have some estimation of what amount of overrun to expect in a best-case scenario.
Inflation is even hitting the military.
There's a war in Europe, so it's really a great time to cut our defense budget.
How would the US need a "defense" budget if the war was in Europe?
Your doublespeak is showing.
We're questioning this at a time when we're on the edge of WWIII with Russia?
Like the wise people in the comments are saying, it's better to have multibillion dollar planes that don't work than no planes at all. Because it's not like we've already got a huge military. We'll be defenseless without those things.
sarcasmic....F-35's are in active use around the world today. The planes work. General Boehm knowledge of the military doesn't even add up to a hill of beans.
Besides, Boehm voted for Brandon. This disqualifies him for all time. 🙂
Except that those 800+ deficiencies really exist. For example the plane can't do supersonic flight except for short bursts or stuff will start falling off. Nothing major.
Yeah, it's not like the F-22 got cut in favor of this despite the F-22 having far fewer problems and the fact that the F-22 costs were about to decrease, in favor of the "cheaper" F-35 which now costs more than the F-22 would have.
I know a guy who works on the engines for those planes. I bet you know someone who works at a company making something for them as well. Like the article said, it's a jobs program not a defense program.
The F-35 is a fucking joke. They can't even crossload spare engines from supply tenders because the ducting unit makes them too heavy. Obviously mostly an issue for the Navy.
VERTREP it is then.
sarcasmic....except, the F-35 is currently operational and in active use in several countries around the world. The only shit falling off the plane is bombs. General Boehm parrots what he reads from Vox, or Axios. Don't be General Boehm.
The F-35 technology and avionics are where it is at....and nothing else in the world (Russian, Chinese) really comes that close to the F-35.
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/
We have 186 F22's.
*sigh*
Let me see if I can break it down for you.
Yes, the F35 program is shit and badly.mismanaged. basically off of military procurement from late1990s on screwed the pooch.
So, no, right now we *don't* have a massive air force because the F15 and F16's are old and tires and 1-2 generations out of date.
The F35 sucks. We should have dumped it long ago and built the F16X or, better, more F22 (the F35 was supposed to be the cheap 'low' to the F22's 'high' in the high/low mix but the F35 now costs more anyway) but we didn't.
We need more aircraft, we're not getting F16X and we can't make more F22 so . . . F35 it is.
It's the least worst option.
And the USAF is in a better position than the USN which squandered 30 year to end up with the LCS which can barely get underway and the Zumwalt which can't do anything if it did.
By the way - it's been 2000 days TWO THOUSAND since the first of that classes commissioning and not a single one of them has deployed yet.
WW2 took less than 1,400.
And the USAF is in a better position than the USN which squandered 30 year to end up with the LCS which can barely get underway and the Zumwalt which can't do anything if it did.
My father was involved with both of those projects as a naval achitect for both the Navy directly, and then various contractors after he retired from the service. I've heard so much ranting about the various idiocies involved in those projects...
We did have fun one afternoon figuring out just how many Mk44 launchers could be shoehorned into the hull if they took the Big Stupid Gun With No Ammo out and replaced all those bits with just... missiles. Lots and lots and lots of missiles.
I don't recall the precise number, but I remember thinking that it would look an awful lot like a Japanese space cartoon if they all launched simultaneously.
I remember when they first announced what would become the F-35. One plane with several minor variants to handle land ops, carrier ops, and VTOL. All for a low low price. Wondered why no one brought up the F-111 dual-service plane, well, not really.
It has measured down to all my expectations.
Wondered why no one brought up the F-111 dual-service plane, well, not really.
Variable sweep wing is so 1970s/80s. This is a new millenium, tilt-engine and directed-thrust VTOL is where it's at.
Like the Harriers of the 70s and 80s?
They worked well in the Falklands.
...and in "True Lies".
Comparing a harrier to the F-35 is like comparing a Ford model A to a new Corvette. They both have 4 wheels and more or less do the same things...
All 4 do total themselves when they collide with a solid object of similar mass top speed.
More like Harrier:Osprey::F-111:F-35, but yeah.
The millennium was 20+ years ago - isn't it about time we start working on a nextgen fighter plane?
Hah! They're just barely getting the current one to work properly.
Only the Marine version has that.
And, sadly, the requirement to be able to mount that on the airframe lead to performance compromises in the AF and USN versions.
The F35 mostly exists because the Marines needed a Harrier replacement and supposedly this would allow them to dump their F18s.
The Navy has said they're dumping the F35 for more Super Hornets, the USAF hates the F35 but has to pretend to love it because saving face and the only service satisfied is the USMC.
Check out Sean Penn over here.
It always happens when they try to replace multiple platforms with multiple different roles with a single platform. The USAF is one of the worse for this, followed closely by the Navy (see the failure of the Zumwalt Destroyers and the Littoral Combat Ships). Mostly these decisions are made by politicians and generals who are politicians in all but name.
What pisses me off the most is the F-22 was cut in favor of the "cheaper" F-35, just as production costs were set to decrease for the F-22. Instead we've had to extend the life of the F-15 to fulfill the role the F-22 was designed to fill.
If you really want to see government waste focus on the grift involved in R & D for the military and acquisition. It is almost 100% driven by Congressional members who use this as a slush fund and backdoor pork. It has a long history of Congress funding projects that the military may not even be interested in and adding continuous requirements to extend the research and development phase. Then, canceling the project just when it's ready to be fielded, because of the cost overrun. Most projects take decades to develop now, and most never get purchased because by the time Congress signs off on the project it's vastly overpriced and often outdated. Projects that should take a couple years now take a decade, mainly because Congress keeps adding new requirements to the project. It frustrates many in the military, even at the highest level.
The Army recently just announced the first new small arms acquisition project in 65 years, the new XM-5 and XM-250. It is supposed to be fielded starting in fiscal year 2023. Soldiers are stoked and the Army is excited but there is fear Congress may kill it like they've killed multiple programs to replace the M-16 over the years. There is hope though as this project has proceeded further than other similar programs. It also has moved through exceedingly fast and under costs.
Mostly these decisions are made by politicians and generals who are politicians in all but name.
You'll also find that many of these military contractors have retired military decision makers in executive positions. It's almost like they're promised jobs worth millions of dollars if they steer contracts in certain directions.
Yes, and a lot of those Generals are the political types I referred to.
The LCS was a particularly special brand of retardation, though. The Navy fucked the bid process by leaking one contractor's bid to the other one, and after the lawsuits, the courts insisted on Solomon's Baby, and they built half as many of both designs. With redesigns to try and make them work together that made neither of them work pretty much at all.
Fun fact - The Navy F-111 was killed off by Sen Tom Connelly, thus the nickname Tomcat for the F-14 which replaced it.
The F-4 Phantom was a dual service plane, and a beast in its day.
Yes, and began as a carrier plane. A lot easier to accept a carrier plane for land service than take a structurally weak land plane and expect the transition to carriers be pain-free.
Little-known fact: The F-86 lineage goes back to a navy carrier straight-wing plane.
Which one? The F9F or something else?
The F-4 had a number of teething problems and some were never fixed.
It really was a much better bomber than fighter, especially early models which relied wholely on missiles.
Tell that to Robin Olds, an F4 ace so manly I'd let him sleep with my wife.
Olds was the shit, no doubt about it. He could drive an F-4 like no one else.
True story about Robin Olds... that mustache he sported that was the toast of seven continents? Not regulation. But no one in the Air Force would dare tell him to shave it, because of his almost cartoon-like reputation for bad-assery.
When Robin Olds walks into the room, his dick has already been there for five minutes.
Which was a result of decisions by the Brass Hats (or should I say Ass Hats) who believed modern planes didn't need guns.
The main problem with multiple use platforms are they almost always are driven by politicians, most of who never served and don't understand the differences in missions. It seems efficient to have one platform that does multiple roles, but the problem is that they are always compromises and don't do any role very well as a result.
All that for a fighter that can't match the F-16 in a dogfight.
That's another bit of misrepresentation. It's based on a years old example where the F-35 was limited by software and rules of engagement that was never repeated once the artificial limitations were removed from the F-35.
F-35 isn't meant to dogfight. In fact they're supposed to avoid dogfights at all costs. It's an air-superiority fighter meant to destroy targets before they know it's there.
Yeah, except no. Hence why the F22 can dogfight. It's still a thing.
I didn't say that the plane can't dogfight or that it never happens. I said it's not meant to dogfight and that it's something to be avoided with distance weapons and stealth.
" . . . primarily due to holdups in developing a flight simulator."
Back before you needed programmers to fly, we had these things called "real men" who would fly the damn things and tell the engineers where they fucked up.
I would assume the simulator is for pilot training, not system development.
It is, training the number of pilots needed for the us and partner forces in real jets would send cost soaring even higher. Not to mention the significant differences to how the F-35 operates and the absurdity of sending an unqualified pilot up on an aircraft of this nature.
So, "Back before you needed programmers to fly"...
...meanwhile the Air Force keeps trying to kill off the A-19; probably on of the purpose designed planes ever.
I presume you mean the A-10, which I have a fondness for but which really probably should have been retired by now.
Depends on your conception on the primacy of warfare. If the Independence Day movies taught us anything, you don't send your top tier technology off to get pwned by cave dwellers who will turn it around and use it against you. Better to leave the MD-530s and A-29s (and, presumably eventually, A-10s) in Kabul than the good stuff.
Or at least turned over to the Army.
They should have been turned over the the army decades ago. Now their primary asset is one of nostalgia and familiarity.
The A-10 adds CAS and especially loiter CAS capabilities not filled by any other program. It isn't nostalgia, they did yeoman's work in Afghanistan and can hang around much better than the AH-64 can. It isn't outdated, the Air Force just hates the CAS role and has always tried to get out of it.
Also it should be noted the USAF has raised a fit whenever the Army has tried to acquire armed fixed wing aircraft. They threw a fit when the Army developed the AH-1.
I really need an edit button. I did in fact mean A-10. It fills a role that none of the other planes mentioned here are capable of.
I bet the Ukrainians would have given their eye teeth for a plane like that against that 40 mile line of Russian tanks etc.
That would have been amazing. The Iraq tank column massacre would be a footnote.
What?
The US government mismanaging our tax dollars?
That' can't be right.
It has to be a typo.
The next thing you're going to tell me this has been going on for decades.
Not mismanaged at all- those dollars went to exactly where the lobbyists, and therefore the congress critters, wanted them to go.
I’m sure that made sense to you.
I'm glad we argue about peanuts while the military industrial complex has been gorging for years.
We could halve the budget and our country would be far better off.
I would not be completely shocked if it turned out that there was a solid 50% efficiency loss that could be tuned out of the entire M-I complex without losing any actual capability.
The problem is, like advertising, we don't know which 50 percent is wasted;)
And the way things work we'd spend more figuring out where to cut the budget than we'd save.
Cost? who cares. The giverment will order up another round of multi trillion dollars worth of funny money and the Fed will obey. Just keep telling yourselves ,"it's only money."
Now what was it that pres. Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex?
Actually I wish that more countries like israel would hurry up and buy as many F-35 as possible. That way they'll be wasting all their time (and our money) trying to keep up with all the repairs and "upgrades".
I flew B-52 bombers in the late 1980s and early 1990s. At that time, the Air Force was hyping the virtues of the new F-35 Joint Strike fighter.
30 years later, the thing still doesn't work.
Maybe, there's a problem with the way the Pentagon buys stuff.
I remember one time we ran out of cleaner for the barracks and the Sergeant Major was going to do an inspection that week, so we were scheduled to have a GI party. Our floor sergeant collected money to run to the PX and get cleaners for the barracks, and we all get in trouble for not going through the correct procurement procedures. Actually turned out that we spent less money going through the PX than the Army spends buying via the procurement department, which is mainly civilian contractors who never actually warehouse or produce the products but instead act as a middle man (and by law so many of them have to be female or minority owned businesses). There is almost always a middle man in the procurement procedures that drastically raises the costs.
In another example, our mess sergeant at my reserve unit had a deal with Safeway (which was right across the road) that saved our unit a lot of money on mess goods. Someone found out about it and made a fuss with the RSC and we ended up having to rotate vendors, which ended up costing us a lot more. He wasn't getting kickbacks or anything, the Safeway manager just gave us a discount because he was a patriot. Instead of getting rewarded for saving money the Mess Sergeant instead got a bad NCOER and was blocked from promotion so he separated out at his next ETS (which was to bad because he was an awesome cook and we ended up not having a cook and had to contract out with buffet restaurants, which cost the Army a lot more).
Another story, I asked our armorer one day why we always fired every cartridge at the end of a range day (most units check out almost double what they need because people fail to qualify or zero and have to keep trying, so you often end up with thousands of rounds unfired at the end of the day and you just cook them off). He stated the paper work was so fucking troublesome to turn in live rounds (had to account for every single round checked out, fired or unfired by counting cartridges and the M-16 kicks empties pretty far and it's impossible to find every case) whereas they just weighed emptied cartridges and if you were close they sign off on it, that the process basically forced you to fire every cartridge. I know one time I added it up and I put a thousand rounds through my M-16 in one single night fire exercise and only 40 of them were for qualification.
Boeing's PR department at work. The Air Force announced that they were cutting back on the number of F-15EX's that they were going to buy, so they have to rag on the F-35 to try to get Congress to make the Air Force buy more F-15's.