Why Is Lockheed Martin Still a Government Contractor?
Why is our government still giving billions of dollars to Lockheed Martin? Lately I've noticed a trend here when reading about defense project screw-ups. It seems they are more than likely to be run by Lockheed Martin.
Three recent stories come to mind. All of them use words like "technical problems, mismanagement, over budget, behind schedule." All of them seem to tie back to Lockheed Martin.
F-35
First, and foremost, is the F-35 project. Already in it's 12th year the GAO recently said “Overall, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is now moving in the right direction after a long, expensive and arduous learning process.” Sure, give me 12 years and billions of dollars and I'll finally get something right too. By the way, the GAO said we're really only one-third of the way through flight testing so any number of new issues that arise in the latter two-thirds could be costly and bump the cost of the project even worse than it is now. Which is just about at $400 billion now.
From Stripes: "The Defense Department began the F-35 program in 2001, but made revisions in 2003, 2007, 2010 and 2012 after performance problems, delays and cost overruns. The original 2001 estimates of 2,852 planes at a cost of $233 million have turned into about 400 fewer planes for 70 percent more money, and over a longer period of time." What a bargain. We get to pay 70 percent more and get 14% less. Who the hell agreed to that? I won't be taking them car shopping with me anytime soon.
GAO Report: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-309
MEADS
Next comes the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). According to Mother Jones: "Congress is spending $380 million on a missile program that has no funding authorization, doesn't work, and the Department of Defense doesn't plan on buying." This of course, is another Lockheed Martin project. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/meads.html And, "Unfortunately, according to the Office of Secretary of Defense, MEADS has had serious technical, management, schedule, and cost problems since it was introduced in the mid-1990's" and has been unable to 'meet schedule and cost targets.'" There's that recurring theme with Lockheed Martin projects.
Link to Mother Jones article: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/pentagon-paying-380-million-useless-missile-everyone-hates
Littoral Combat Ship
Finally, for this post anyway, is the Littoral Combat Ship. According to Bloomberg: "The U.S. Navy’s troubled Littoral Combat Ship, a vessel intended to be small and speedy for use in shallow waters close to shore, lacks the firepower it needs, a top U.S. navy commander said in a classified memo." Further: "...the Navy may be starting to re-examine the $37 billion program. The ship has been beset by troubles, including cracks and corrosion, its price has doubled since 2005 to $440 million per vessel..."
How's production going on these $400 to $500 million each vessels? Well, again from Bloomberg: "The two versions of the Littoral Combat Ship -- derided by critics inside the Navy as the “Little Crappy Ship”-- are being built simultaneously.
A steel-hulled vessel is being made in Marinette, Wisconsin, by a team led by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) (LMT), and an aluminum trimaran is being built in Mobile, Alabama, by a group led by Austal Ltd. (ASB) Lockheed’s first ship developed a crack in the hull, and Austal’s vessel had corrosion problems."
Link to Bloomberg article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-28/ships-costing-u-s-37-billion-lack-firepower-navy-told.html
When I played softball and baseball in school after three strikes you were out. Seems to me Lockheed Martin has had three strikes but keeps bellying-up to the defense trough without being pushed away. I think it's time for a Senate and House investigation of contracts between the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin. Who, on the inside at the Pentagon, keeps on sending business their way?
= new reply since forum marked as read
