F-35 jet's complications rouse House skeptics

The U.S. military's most expensive weapons program seemed to be under threat from all sides at a recent hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, as skeptical lawmakers called out supply chain problems that have meant only a third of the Pentagon's F-35 fighter jets are capable of carrying out all the missions for which they were built.

Ellen Lord, a former defense executive who is now the Pentagon's top weapons-buyer, admitted that the complicated information technology system supporting the fleet's maintenance infrastructure still falls far short of expectations. Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon's Joint Program Office are still embroiled in a long-running dispute over who owns the F-35's complicated algorithms, a debate that could chart the future of the program.

And some lawmakers criticized the terms of Lockheed's arrangement with the government, saying overly generous intellectual property agreements threaten to lock Lockheed into a wasteful long-term profit machine with limited accountability.

Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., threatened to hold up a multibillion-dollar contract if fundamental questions aren't resolved, suggesting there should be a broader change in how military agencies work with weapons builders.

"Heretofore, the contractors have had the 'long end' of the lever, and the government has been on the 'short end' of the lever. ... That is going to change," Garamendi told Lockheed Martin executives assembled at the hearing. "The power is shifting ... with the fulcrum moving closer to the government's side."

Greg Kuntz, a Defense Department spokesman, said the department's Joint Program Office "remains committed to aggressively reducing sustainment costs and improving mission capability rates," adding: "We will continue to partner with Congress and Congressman Garamendi moving forward."

Carolyn Nelson, a Lockheed Martin spokeswoman, said the government is working on a new technical data package that was not a part of the initial F-35 contract, as well as a separate "performance-based" contract for logistics support. The logistics contract "shifts risks to industry and opens longer term investments," Nelson wrote in an email.

The hearing was the latest skirmish in a long-running fight over who should own the U.S. military's advanced weaponry. Defense spending watchdogs are concerned that manufacturers such as Lockheed have too much ownership over those systems, something that could give them leverage to drive up costs. Government agencies generally prefer the flexibility that comes with owning the systems themselves.

There is a lot of money at stake. The Air Force estimates that most of a given aircraft's long-term cost actually comes from keeping it flightworthy.

A Section on 11/18/2019

Upcoming Events