DTN News - LOCKHEED MARTIN DEFENSE NEWS: F-35 Costs ~ Chorus Of Dismay Over $1,000Bn Tag

DTN News - LOCKHEED MARTIN DEFENSE NEWS: F-35 Costs ~ Chorus Of Dismay Over $1,000Bn Tag

Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Jeremy Lemer - FT.com

(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - June 20, 2011: For years the F-35 programme, managed by Lockheed Martin, has been an easy target for criticism. Development and production costs for the combat jet have spiralled and delivery schedules set in stone one moment have been ripped up the next.

Since the start of 2011, though, Lockheed had adopted a more positive tone, arguing that efforts to reshape what is the Pentagon’s largest procurement project were finally paying off in better test results and improved performance.

But in recent weeks the company has come under pressure over a new issue. A fresh estimate of the total life cycle costs – the money required to operate and sustain the aircraft – has triggered a wave of angst among politicians and Pentagon officials.

According to the latest report on the F-35 programme prepared by the Pentagon, maintaining the fleet of jets through their entire working lives will cost more than $1,000bn, a number that several influential congressmen have described as “jaw-dropping” and “unsustainable”.

“If we live the estimates, we cannot afford to pay that much,” Ashton Carter, the Pentagon’s top procurement official, told a senate hearing in May, adding that “our objective is to make sure that those estimates do not come true”.

Vice-Admiral David Venlet, who manages the F-35 for the Department of Defence, has said that his unit will prioritise refining and reducing estimated sustainment costs in 2011 – in the same way it focused on fixing the development and manufacturing plans for the jet in 2010.

All of that could spell trouble for an aircraft that was pitched as a cost effective way to upgrade the US fleet. Lower maintenance and support costs were key to that goal as they regularly add up to 70 per cent of the total bill for owning a weapons system.

For years Lockheed insisted that the running costs of the aircraft would be less than equivalents such as the F-16. But those numbers have fallen by the wayside. The Pentagon now expects the F-35 to cost about 33 per cent more than the F-16s it aims to replace.

Lockheed has pushed back against those numbers, describing them as “sensationalised”. Executives point out that the $1,000bn figure is based on operating 2,443 aircraft over 52 years, from more than 50 bases and include adjustments for inflation and fuel costs.

“It is a big model that has come up with a big number,” Bob Stevens, chief executive of Lockheed, said in May. “But when you come up with a big number like that … there are sufficiently large opportunities to reduce that number by making streamlining decisions along the way.

“How much do the spares cost? How many aircraft are you buying? How many spares are you buying? How many bases are going to operate it? What is the staffing at the bases? Is the staffing … government – or contractor – supported? And really, on and on.”

For Lockheed Martin, the stakes are high. The F-35 is its single largest programme and will be the key driver of its revenues and profits over the next 30 years.

Still, Lockheed says that it will not be able to produce its own counter-estimates until about 2015, when it has collected about 200,000 flight hours worth of data, which will feed into “more realistic” assumptions.

In the meantime patience is wearing thin. Buying the F-35 was supposed to cost $233bn, or an average of $69m each, with delivery to the services starting in 2008. But cost estimates have soared to about $385bn, or $133m each, and the service entry date remains unclear.

Earlier in the year the Pentagon announced a new plan for the combat jet, adding extra funding and test aircraft to the development phase, slowing the speed at which production ramps up and placing one variant on “probation”.

Bill Sweetman, editor in chief for Defense Technology International, who has followed the F-35 for years, argues that whatever the eventual total, if sustainment costs do not come down it could spell trouble for the programme.

“These sorts of figures make the service chiefs go weak at the knees because they will have to reduce numbers to stay within budget, as there is no more money,” says Mr Sweetman. But if numbers are cut then costs per aircraft will inevitably spiral.

“People are waking up. This isn’t just another defence acquisition,” he says. “The $1,000bn dollar figure is an indicator that you have a spent a fortune and there are a lot of sunk costs but that is not that much compared to what you will pay.”

Senator John McCain concurs. “In my view, the program is now at a watershed moment,” he said in May. “With austere defence budgets for as far as the eye can see, the [F-35] programme must show now it can deliver [F-35] aircraft as needed on time and on budget.”

Both Congress and the Pentagon have limited options. “There are not good alternatives to the [F-35] for either our services or our international partners,” Mr Carter said bluntly last month. “We looked … We want the aeroplane.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Jeremy Lemer - FT.com

*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News

*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News

Contact:

dtnnews@ymail.com

©

COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News: Our View On War On Terror ~ House Probes CIA Program, But Where's The Scandal?

DTN News: Our View On War On Terror ~ House Probes CIA Program, But Where's The Scandal? *Inquiry into defunct hit-squad plan puts politics over security.

*Source: DTN News / USA Today (NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON, USA - July 23, 2009: Heard about the latest intelligence "scandal" in Washington? You know, the one about whether an administration that's no longer in office failed to tell Congress about a CIA program that no longer exists, the purpose of which was to kill top terrorists? If that doesn't sound like much of a scandal to you, you're right. But some key House Democrats seem to think otherwise. Last week, they went ballistic and began an investigation into the defunct program. Based on what's known, it's hard to see what the CIA did wrong here; it appears to have carefully assessed the program and shelved it when it was deemed unworkable. And it's hard to think of a better way for Congress to dash hopes of improved relations with the intelligence agencies. For those who've been tuned out, here's a quick recap: Last month, new CIA Director Leon Panetta learned about a Bush-era program, launched after 9/11 but apparently never put into operation, to assassinate al-Qaeda operatives. Panetta pulled the plug and — fearing a backlash from lawmakers who had been kept in the dark, apparently at the behest of then-Vice President Cheney — quickly and confidentially briefed the House and Senate Intelligence committees. Was this welcomed as a shot of candor by the new CIA director? Hardly. It turns out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's allies were still smoldering over a bitter dispute this spring in which she accused the CIA of misleading Congress about harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects during the Bush years. Panetta shot back with a May 15 letter saying it is not the CIA's "policy or practice to mislead Congress." On June 26, after the aborted hit-squad program was disclosed, about a half dozen Democrats on the intelligence panel wrote to Panetta demanding that he, in essence, take back his May 15 comments. That smacks more of a childish tantrum than strict oversight. Last week, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, announced an investigation into whether federal laws were violated by the defunct covert assassination program or failure to notify Congress. What's to investigate? Perhaps Cheney was wrong to cloak the whole thing in secrecy (though the law is unclear about what level of planning triggers the congressional notification requirement). But the program itself was a far cry from the CIA abuses — attempts to assassinate foreign heads of state and spying on U.S. citizens — exposed in the Church Committee investigations of the mid-1970s. Hunting down Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaeda leaders is, after all, public policy of the United States, carried out every day by unmanned Predator drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. Democratic leaders seem oblivious to the danger of public feuding and reliving Bush-era controversies. Pelosi told us Tuesday that Panetta "created his own problems" by insisting the CIA doesn't lie, and she sees the panel's investigation as a "modest approach." We see a bungled opportunity to improve relations between Congress and the intelligence community. Pelosi rightly describes the oversight system as flawed, in which CIA briefers provide snippets of information to different lawmakers at different times, so none really gains an understanding of the full picture. The remedy is changing the system, as Democrats say they're trying to do with new legislation. That beats political peevishness and probes of programs that were never implemented. (CIA headquarters: Reported assassination program pulled. Photo by Saul Loeb, AFP/Getty Images)

DTN News: U.S. Senate Votes Against Funding For New F-22s

DTN News: U.S. Senate Votes Against Funding For New F-22s

*Source: DTN News / Int'l Media

(NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON - July 22, 2009: President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have won a standoff over funding the creation of new F-22 fighters. The Senate voted 58-40 Tuesday to take out $1.75 billion from the 2010 defense appropriations bill that would have gone toward building seven new F-22s.

Mr. Obama immediately hailed the decision, saying it will "better protect our troops." "I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defense projects to keep this nation secure," he said. "…And that's why I'm grateful that the Senate just voted against an additional $1.75 billion to buy F-22 fighter jets that military experts and members of both parties say we do not need."

"At a time when we're fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, this would have been an inexcusable waste of money," the president added.

"Every dollar of waste in our defense budget is a dollar we can't spend to support our troops or prepare for future threats or protect the American people." The president and defense secretary have strongly opposed the creation of new F-22s, $140 million fighter jets which have not performed a single mission in the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The military already has 187 F-22s at its disposal. Before the vote, the president said he would veto the $680 billion defense bill if the final version included the F-22 funding, stating flatly, "we do not need these planes."

Gates has pushed for the military to spend money on tools better suited to fight the unconventional wars in which the U.S. is now engaged. He calls the F-22 "a niche, silver-bullet solution required for a limited number of scenarios."

But members of Congress, led by Republicans Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, have been pushing to keep the $1.75 billion for the planes in the bill. They have argued that more F-22s are needed and that many jobs depend on them being built.

Lockheed Martin, the maker of the F-22, has warned that 95,000 jobs in a variety of states are directly or indirectly tied to the manufacture of the plane. Sens.John McCain, a Republican, and Carl Levin, a Democrat, have fought to remove funding for new F-22s, characterizing a potential outlay as wasteful.

But Chris Dodd, a Democrat who backed the funding, suggested last week that Congress should be able to spend $1.75 billion to help the aerospace industry when the government is spending far more to bolster automakers.

DTN News: U.S. Senate OKs $106Billion For Wars, Equipment, Other Programs

DTN News: U.S. Senate OKs $106Billion For Wars, Equipment, Other Programs *Sources: DTN News / Defense Media (NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON - June 20, 2009: The U.S. Senate approved a $106 billion emergency spending bill to continue paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to fund an assortment of odds and ends, from paying consumers to ditch gas-guzzling autos to preparing for pandemic flu. US Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn, US Marine Corps General James Cartwright and vice chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff and Army Lt. General Patrick O'Reilly testify before a full committee hearing on ballistic missile defense programs in review of the Defense Authorization Request for FY2010 and the Future Years Defense Program at the Dirksen Senate Office on the Captiol Hill in Washington, DC, on June 16, 2009. The biggest chunk of spending - $80 billion - goes to the Pentagon. Of that, $51 billion is for fighting the wars for the rest of this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. President Barack Obama has said this will be the last "emergency" funding bill for the wars. In the future, war funding is to be included in the regular annual defense budget, where it will receive more scrutiny. So House and Senate members took a final opportunity to cram a war-funding bill with almost $7 billion worth of equipment that the military did not request. The biggest item: $2.2 billion for eight C-17 cargo planes that Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he does not want. Gates wants to end C-17 production. The Air Force has 205 of the giant planes. Lawmakers added $1.9 billion to the $2.6 billion the military requested for mine resistant vehicles to be used in Afghanistan, $500 million for seven C-130J cargo planes and another $500 million for National Guard equipment. There is also $600 million to buy four F-22 stealth fighters that Gates did request, and $332 million to buy UAVs and for other intelligence and reconnaissance initiatives. Another $1.1 billion is to be spent on efforts to counter roadside bombs. Lawmakers added $431 million to the Pentagon's request for $2.3 billion in military construction funding. Much of it is intended to support combat operations in Afghanistan. The bill includes $2.4 billion in aid for Pakistan, $1.4 billion for Afghanistan and $958 million for Iraq. The bill also includes $7.7 billion to develop and purchase flu vaccine and take other steps to prepare for a pandemic. And there's $1 billion for a "Cash for Clunkers" program that would provide consumers with up to $4,500 if they trade in old vehicles for more fuel-efficient ones. The bill adds $10.4 billion in aid for Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries. When sent to Congress in April, the war-funding bill was $83.4 billion. When it emerged two months later, it was $22.6 billion larger. The Senate passed the spending measure June 18 and sent it to the White House to be signed into law. The House passed it June 16.