Entitlements Reform Must Encompass Pentagon

Washington insiders frequently talk about reforming entitlements, as that's the only way to balance the federal budget. Indeed, almost two-thirds of the federal budget is spent on massive entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

However, there is a different sort of entitlement that is also a problem in the nation's capital. Within the defense budget (which is almost half of all discretionary spending) there is also too much "entitlement." That is, weapon-makers that feel entitled to federal contracts, even if they are not delivering good enough products.

The problem is consolidation. Two decades of mergers and acquisitions have left just six major contractors to glut themselves on the majority of Pentagon spending on military equipment. In the 1990s, there were 50 such firms competing for big contracts.

A perfect example is the giant defense contractor Lockheed Martin.

It has built great systems for the government for decades. It's delivered planes, ships, missiles, and plenty of other high-tech hardware. The sharpness of America's military might is technological innovation, and Lockheed's engineers have long been the tip of that particular spear.

But instead of focusing on quality products, Lockheed seems caught in an entitlement mentality these days.

As an example, the company is currently trying to bully the U.S. Air Force into wasting billions of dollars on a new and unnecessary aerial refueling tanker that is based on an existing commercial airframe.

The military wants an all-new design. Lockheed is, instead, offering an outdated design.

Meanwhile, Lockheed has struggled, and failed, to deliver its most important weapon, the F-35.

Lockheed has never been able to make the F-35 work.

Lockheed lost out on a tanker contract more than a decade ago, and it has been trying to insert itself into the process ever since. We talked about this here in May, but in a nutshell, it now wants to import a European Airbus design, modify it, and build it in the U.S. One problem is that the military does not need this plane.

Air Force leaders, up to and including the secretary of the Air Force, say that they are satisfied with their current capability, the KC-46 Pegasus tanker. "We are ready to use this aircraft globally in any fight, without hesitation," Gen. Mike Minihan declared last year.

But that raises the second, and bigger, problem: The Pentagon wants to focus on next-generation advanced capability. "The air threat is becoming much more severe, with increasing range," Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall says. "A particular concern is the survivability of our tankers, which will have to be farther forward to refuel fighters that operate within a few hundred miles of the threat."

The military wants an all-new design. Lockheed is, instead, offering an outdated design.

There is no reason to try to develop a large aerial refueling tanker like this one. That would be the equivalent of building yesterday's technology when the Air Force wants to be thinking about tomorrow's. Still, Lockheed is lobbying members of Congress on behalf of its tanker.

Meanwhile, Lockheed has struggled, and failed, to deliver its most important weapon, the F-35.

Launched during the Clinton Administration, the F-35 was supposed to be a plane that could do it all and replace several other designs. But it is very difficult to make a jet that can perform both long-range bombing and close-air support. That can be based on land or on a ship. That can take off vertically and land on a runway. Lockheed has never been able to make the F-35 work.

Plus, it is simply too expensive. The Pentagon guesses it will cost $1.7 trillion over the life of the program to keep the F-35 in the air. Too often that has meant throwing good money after bad. Still, as the program has matured, the problems have only gotten worse.

"U.S. Defense Department leaders have gone from citing technical problems as their biggest concern for the F-35 program to bemoaning the expense of buying and sustaining the aircraft," Defense News reported in 2019.

Perhaps that is because, by 2021, Defense News could report that "the number of critical technical deficiencies is slowly dwindling, dropping from 11 critical deficiencies in January to seven in July." Wow. Just seven "critical" deficiencies? Should taxpayers cheer, or jeer as Lockheed asks for ever more money?

Lockheed must focus on fixing the F-35. It should also allow the Air Force make its own decisions about the next generation of tankers. No company is entitled to defense contracts. Instead, Lockheed should start working to earn back our nation's trust.

Jared Whitley is a longtime politico who has worked in the U.S. Congress, White House and defense industry. He is an award-winning writer, having won best blogger in the state from the Utah Society of Professional Journalists (2018) and best columnist from Best of the West (2016). He earned his MBA from Hult International Business School in Dubai. Read Jared Whitley's reports — More Here.