Back to news

December 10, 2019 | International, Aerospace

Lockheed Looks To More F-35 Development Work

Michael Bruno

Lockheed Martin is looking to new government interest in follow-on modernization (FOM) upgrades of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to drive future business returns on top of what could be ballooning sustainment revenue, according to the company's chief financial officer (CFO).

CFO Ken Possenriede told a Credit Suisse investor conference this month that FOM and sustainment will drive business growth out of the F-35 for Lockheed and its shareholders as production returns shrink with unit price reductions and maturing production.

“We ended the SDD [system design and development] program, but the customer still is looking at capability that they want,” he told financial analysts and investors. “So you'll see growth there and in sustainment.”

Lockheed Martin expects to deliver 131 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters this year, compared with 91 in 2018, and should deliver 140 in 2020. Over the next few years, Lockheed expects total international demand for the F-35 to drive production to about 175 a year, most of which will be built in Fort Worth, but with some finished in Japan or Italy.

But because the price per aircraft has been reduced 13% over low-rate production lots 11-14, to below $80 million per jet for the A variant, that part of the program–“the lion's share” now–is increasingly becoming minimized as a moneymaker.

“The reduction in price has been faster than the ramp-up in quantity,” Possenriede said. “So it's going to be, at least in the short term, [that] you'll probably see modest growth in production revenue.”

Lockheed won the original $19 billion SDD contract in 2001, but spending on the FOM, also called Block 4 improvements, could reach an additional $16 billion under Pentagon plans discussed last year.

At the same time, the F-35 fleet is expected to more than double from about 400 aircraft to 1,000 in the next couple of years.

“You'll have more sparing, some more repairing,” he said. “But then you'll see a larger influx of the modification work that will get done, and you'll see sustainment over the next couple of years double. So that will be a faster piece of the revenue.”

The company is about one-third complete in standing up repair base facilities now.

Lockheed also continues to promote a performance-based logistics contract for the F-35, the CFO noted.

“We provided a white paper, call it an unsolicited proposal, that basically commits to the 80% availability and it commits to the $25,000 per flight hour, which we think is the right number to get to,” he said Dec. 5.

The F-35 currently costs $35,000 a flight hour.

https://aviationweek.com/defense/lockheed-looks-more-f-35-development-work

On the same subject

  • NDIA’s Wesley Hallman on a liability shield and other defense priorities for the next stimulus

    May 4, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    NDIA’s Wesley Hallman on a liability shield and other defense priorities for the next stimulus

    By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON―As the Pentagon works to defray the coronavirus pandemic's impact on its network of suppliers, it's worked hand-in-glove with defense and aerospace trade associations to find and address problems in the supply chain. The National Defense Industrial Association, whose members stretch into the lower tiers of the defense industrial base, surveyed more than 700 small businesses to find that cash-flow disruptions remained a problem as the Pentagon and major defense firms increase payments to suppliers. Retired Air Force Col. Wesley Hallman is NDIA's senior vice president of policy, charged with monitoring Capitol Hill on matters of concern to defense, including annual budgets, acquisition and procurement reform. This week, he spoke with Defense News about NDIA's priorities as Congress mulls how to follow its third coronavirus response bill, worth $2.2 trillion and intended to speed relief across the American economy. With NDIA's finger on the pulse of the supply chain and recent survey, how do you interpret the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord's numbers, demonstrating more defense firms that have closed now reopening? What are you seeing among your members? As you know, A&S has been holding a call on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and we've been participating in all of those. The Defense Contract Management Agency has really been the clearinghouse for all these companies' challenges, and in fact we've been pushing our member companies that are seeing challenges to go to the website and fill in information about what their challenges are what they're seeing. And DoD has been responsive when something has closed down for whatever reason. Undersecretary Lord herself has picked up the phone to make calls to state governors to explain that we work very hard to ensure that the defense industrial base is considered essential. That was a question when people were starting to call for shelters in place. The very issues these companies have been seeing are things you're expecting: the result of closures, and sometimes those closures aren't state and local but on installations. Many contractors have to go to work on installations, and installation commanders are the mayors of their bases; they're tasked with the safety and security of their installations, and sometimes they've made the call to close facilities that have an effect on those performing contracts. There's also a growing concern on liability. There's uncertainty surrounding contractors' liability during the crisis for heeding calls to keep everything turned on. They also have to make sure that they're keeping their workforce safe and secure, and sometimes that's an issue as you look at reopening everything. Our last NDIA survey was really about what kind of things do you need to reopen to get to a new normal, where we're producing on contracts. Access to personal protective equipment is a concern, safety is a concern and more. DCMA has been following up with those companies to see what those issues are and what would allow them to reopen. We all know the supply chain ― and I'm sure you remember our report on the health of the defense industrial base at the beginning of the year ― but one of the things we highlighted is we have a relatively fragile supply chain already. This is a concern of the associations, the Pentagon and particular House Armed Services Committee members. Cash flow was also identified as an issue in NDIA's survey, and it's been a feature of DoD's press conferences. Ellen Lord said she was relying on the trade associations to help DoD understand how its accelerated progress payments are trickling down the supply chain to smaller firms, from the primes. How detailed is the information the associations are providing, and are the primes doing what's expected of them? What I have is anecdotal. It's proprietary data, and our members don't necessarily share that with us. I did get calls from all of the majors asking about accelerating payments through the supply chain, and one company was very explicit that “we have access to capital to get through this, but our supply chain doesn't.” Lockheed Martin has been very public with their commitment, and I know they're worried, and they're incentivized to keep their supply chain healthy because they've got to produce. The companies know their supply chains better than anyone else, so they're incentivized to push those dollars. It's not the amount of money but the velocity, and they understand that. This is me talking, but what the Pentagon wants to show ― and you've seen multiple groups saying, “not a dime for defense” ― is that the money that's being accelerated to these companies is not going to line anybody's pocket. This is to allow folks to survive. And beyond the national security aspect of this, which we could talk about forever, these are real companies with real people, doing real jobs that are key to our economy. They're as valid as any of the other small businesses that apply for the Paycheck Protection Program. So, ‘not a dime for defense' is I think a very shortsighted bumper sticker, because these are real people developing real capabilities for the defense of our nation. There have been some progressive lawmakers, as well as the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee who have already pushed back on the Pentagon's upcoming request for funding. But more broadly, what would NDIA like to see legislatively in the next stimulus package, including policy―or are your priorities being addressed directly through the Pentagon? So there's only so much the Pentagon can do without appropriations. What we're looking at ― and we are a 501(c)3, non-lobbying organization, though we engage when asked what we think ― is we think, first off, there needs to be a plus-up in appropriations for FY20. We all know that there's a lot of challenges to performing on contracts right now that are going to extend the length of those contracts. There's been a slowdown in the ability to perform on contracts because of this, and in some cases it has made made delivery on contracts more expensive. We believe that should be reflected in appropriations, and that shouldn't steal from the future. You know, we have a National Defense Strategy, we have a future-years defense program, there's already president's budget in. We don't think that the FY21 should be paying the increased cost for FY20. So it would be a defense supplemental to cover the extra expense to produce on contract because of COVID-19. That's first and foremost. The other thing is ― and you may know the Defense Logistics Agency and others, they pay out of a working capital fund. Back in November, DLA stopped following the accelerated payment policy passed by Congress because their working capital fund didn't have the liquidity to make that happen. They backed off to a 30-day instead of a 15-day payout. Well, that was hard enough in November, December, January, February. But you start getting to March with COVID-19, and these folks that have already performed on contract and are waiting to get their money are waiting an extra 15 days because of the lack of liquidity in the working capital funds. That's not acceptable. So another thing we'd like to see is a bump up in the working capital fund so those accelerated payments can start happening the way that Congress intended. You referenced liability issues. There's been a movement afoot to shield companies from lawsuits as they seek to reopen that's been met with partisan pushback. Are liability protections something NDIA favors? You have to be very careful because you don't want companies to do something that is not smart or not safe, but you do have to look at it because there's a potential that this is a ripe avenue for liability suits. We would rather see that stemmed up front so we can focus on producing for the war fighter. On a positive note, are you seeing companies employing any novel solutions to problems stemming from the pandemic? The Defense Department has a Joint Acquisition Task Force where companies can go and say what they can produce. We have worked with a lot of companies who can do harnesses for parachutes or where they can shift production to make you masks or other PPE. So it's been kind of heartening to see. A lot of small businesses are saying, ‘Hey, we can do this.' And we direct them over to the Joint Acquisition Task Force, which can look at their capabilities and explore those. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/05/02/interview-ndias-wesley-hallman-on-a-liability-shield-and-other-defense-priorities-for-the-next-stimulus

  • Choosing the right commercial tech for government

    May 19, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Choosing the right commercial tech for government

    By: Meagan Metzger In today's crisis-stricken world, it is heartening to see leaders recognizing the importance of government support for innovative, private sector solutions to the problems facing the defense industry. For the Department of Defense, reforming policies and refocusing priorities so that commercial tech can be successfully implemented to support the defense industry's mission is essential. The DoD's endorsement not only encourages emerging tech startups to consider government compliance and scale in their business models from the very beginning; it also protects our national security — and service members in uniform — by putting the most innovative technology into play. But creating more opportunities for commercial tech companies to secure government contracts is only the beginning. For government agencies to successfully take advantage of innovative tech from the private sector, a few things need to happen — and the sooner, the better. First, the government needs to look beyond legacy contracts. As has been noted by venture capital leaders, the announced provisions of the coronavirus relief legislation, the CARES Act, “to streamline the Defense Department contracting process” currently apply only to contracts worth $100 million or more. This excludes emerging commercially successful tech companies that could have a significant impact at the government level. Separate, though related, are needed reforms to the Small Business Innovation Research program. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2020 provides additional SBIR flexibility for small businesses that are more than 50 percent owned by venture capital, but the DoD has yet to fully promulgate this new flexibility authority. Until eligibility standards are adjusted, the DoD is missing the chance to work with proven, VC-backed companies. Of course not all commercial tech companies are equipped to support government missions; and to ignore the importance of a rigorous evaluation process is even more harmful than ignoring commercial tech all together. Finding emerging tech is easy. Evaluating and equipping tech companies for success in government is hard, particularly when national security is a critical concern. The COVID-19 crisis has made it even more apparent that government agencies need to be able to implement tech solutions quickly and trust that they will perform as expected. A tech company with proven success in the private sector may draw the government's attention and show that it can deliver, but there are other equally important indicators to consider when determining if a company is capable of performing as expected at the government level. The Pentagon, like any government agency, must rely on data-backed advice and expertise to identify which commercial tech solutions are most likely to succeed in the federal market. Finding technology companies should not be a quantity play, but focus more on fit and quality. Moving fast requires working with private sector partners who have experience vetting tech companies for government contracts, which we've seen leaders do, like Space and Missile Systems Center's Air Force Col. Russell Teehan and the head of Air Force Program Executive Office Digital Steven Wert. Partners that are federally focused — with deep knowledge of government problem sets and missions — can identify which tech companies are viable technically and will be viable in the federal market. Assessing tech's viability requires specific experience evaluating a set of qualitative characteristics unique to this market, in addition to the typical “can they work with government" questions like: “Where is the code compiled?” Government agencies should also look to VCs and accelerators that can specifically guide tech companies through the government market contracting process and equip them to succeed in the long term. For instance, in 2019, the United States Air Force worked with Dcode to scout technology for the service's Multi-Domain Operations Challenge, and seven of the 30 finalists were companies that had completed the Dcode accelerator to prepare for success in the federal market. Supporting these tech companies requires more than just a singular contract award. To get over the “valley of death,” companies have to understand everything from compliance to how to staff, rework operational processes and market effectively, to name a few. There is no question that working with the right emerging tech companies is imperative for the DoD and other government agencies. But at a moment in history when time is particularly of the essence, there is no room for trial and error when it comes to identifying which tech companies can meet the government's specific needs. By working with private sector partners that have extensive government expertise and proven results, the DoD can confidently implement innovative technology that addresses its most critical needs in a time of crises and well into the future. Meagan Metzger is the founder and CEO of Dcode. She also serves on an advisory board for Booz Allen Hamilton, and another advisory board for the Defense Entrepreneurs Forum. She previously worked as chief operating officer of a mobile and cloud company, as well as chief strategy officer at an IT consultancy. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/14/choosing-the-right-commercial-tech-for-government/

  • Cyber Command wants to partner with private sector to stop hacks

    August 1, 2018 | International, C4ISR

    Cyber Command wants to partner with private sector to stop hacks

    By: Justin Lynch The head of the National Security Agency and Cyber Command is advocating for a more expansive partnership between the government and the private sector amid an array of cyberthreats. Gen. Paul Nakasone, speaking July 31 during the Department of Homeland Security National Cybersecurity Summit in New York City, said that partnerships are America's “advantage in cyberspace,” "We have tremendous, exquisite, foreign intelligence reporting,” Nakasone said, but added he wanted to understand what the private sector and firms who make up America's digital infrastructure were looking for “so we can really tailor the information.” Information from Cyber Command and the NSA will be used in a new National Risk Management Center that hopes to share cyberthreats between the government and the private sector, according to a department spokeswoman. ”Resiliency begins with a dialogue,” Nakasone said. The new center's announcement comes after DHS said that Russia was continuing to attackAmerica's electric grid. Last week, Sen. Claire McCaskill D-Mo., said that Russian hackers tried unsuccessfully to infiltrate her office. On the same day that Nakasone spoke, Facebook said that it removed 32 accounts in an apparent influence campaign. Ninety percent of America's critical infrastructure is in private hands, Nakasone said. Therefore, the Department of Defense is kicking off the new risk center with a “90 day sprint” to identify companies that are most essential to the U.S. way of life in an effort to protect them from foreign cyberattacks. “Not all risks are created equal,” Nakasone said of the initial effort. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/cybercom/2018/07/31/cyber-command-wants-to-partner-with-private-sector-to-stop-hacks/

All news