Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the unit flyaway cost and total program cost per F-35 variant (A/B/C) under current U.S. Department of Defense figures?
Executive summary
The Department of Defense’s publicly cited “unit” flyaway numbers for recent F‑35 production lots place the A at about $82.5 million, the B at about $109 million, and the C at about $102.1 million — figures that typically exclude the engine and certain long‑lead or support costs [1] [2]. The program’s comprehensive, lifetime “total program” estimate reported by DOD and watchdogs is about $2.1 trillion (then‑year dollars) covering procurement, engines, sustainment and operations through the 94‑year program life [3] [4].
1. What the DOD/Program Office and defense press report as “unit flyaway”
Recent official and program‑office‑quoted flyaway averages for Lots ~15–19 put the F‑35A’s unit recurring flyaway near $82.5 million, the short‑takeoff/vertical‑landing F‑35B around $109 million, and the carrier‑variant F‑35C about $102.1 million; those averages reflect the airframe portion that the Joint Program Office and Lockheed have cited for modern production lots and were reported by outlets citing JPO spokespeople [1] [2]. Multiple reporting notes that engine pricing is often handled separately; for example, Pratt & Whitney engine deals announced in 2025 put an additional engine price around tens of millions per jet and have pushed “per‑jet” totals toward ~$100 million in some coverage [1] [5].
2. Why “flyaway” is not the whole story
Flyaway or Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) describes the airframe (and sometimes engine) production cost and deliberately excludes many other line items such as development, weapons, training systems, depot infrastructure, spare parts, and long‑term sustainment. DOD’s Modernized Selected Acquisition Report and program clarifications explain the $2.1 trillion figure uses then‑year dollars and aggregates procurement, development, engine costs, operations, sustainment and personnel over a multi‑decade life cycle — which is why the headline “$2T” number is far larger than a simple per‑plane sticker price [3] [4].
3. The lifetime or “total program” tab: what’s included
The $2.1 trillion (often rounded to $2T or cited as $2.063T in reporting) estimate covers acquiring roughly 2,456 production aircraft plus engines, plus the projected cost to operate and sustain the fleet through the 2080s — including fuel, depot maintenance, personnel, modifications and modernization efforts — with about half the total driven by inflation and long‑term operating costs according to the program office clarification [4] [3].
4. Recent contracts and how they change unit math
Lot 18/19 and later contract actions have shifted how journalists compute per‑jet totals: combined aircraft and engine deals or finalized multi‑lot settlements change the effective per‑aircraft price. For instance, reporting on a Pratt & Whitney engine deal and larger Lot 18/19 agreements in 2025 contributed to articles that placed a “per‑jet” figure near or over $100 million once engines and Lot‑specific upgrades were counted [5] [6]. A finalized Lot 18–19 settlement covering nearly 300 jets at about $24.3 billion also prompted officials to say per‑aircraft price varies by variant mix and quantity though a single‑variant breakdown was not always provided in announcements [6] [7].
5. Watchdog perspectives and sustainment cost growth
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and other watchdog reporting emphasize that sustainment estimates have risen substantially — projected sustainment costs moved from about $1.1 trillion in 2018 to roughly $1.58 trillion in later DOD estimates — and that program modernization (Block 4/TR‑3) has added schedule risk and cost growth, all of which feed into the program’s lifetime total [8] [9] [10]. These reports underscore that unit flyaway alone understates long‑term fiscal exposure [9].
6. Competing framings and how to read the headlines
Media pieces and advocacy groups frame costs differently: some highlight the comparatively lower “airframe” flyaway as evidence of cost control (e.g., $82.5M F‑35A averages for certain lots) while watchdogs and analyses stress the enormous lifecycle totals and sustainment escalation that produce the $2.1T headline [2] [4] [3]. The program office has pushed back asking readers to consider that the $2.1T is a then‑year, lifecycle aggregate that includes many non‑airframe expenses [3].
7. Bottom line for somebody asking “what does each variant cost?”
If you want a current production “flyaway” baseline, cite roughly: F‑35A ~$82.5M; F‑35B ~$109M; F‑35C ~$102.1M (airframe averages for recent lots), and add roughly $20M+ if you count the F135 engine priced in separate contracting notices — but recognize DOD’s total program accounting yields a $2.1 trillion lifecycle estimate that is not comparable to a single‑aircraft sticker price [1] [5] [3].
Limitations and caveats: available sources show different presentations (airframe vs. airframe+engine vs. life‑cycle); exact per‑variant totals in multi‑lot contracts are often not publicly broken out and the sources above reflect the program office, contract announcements and watchdog analyses rather than a single DOD line‑item table [2] [7] [9].