A Tyranny Gage - Leadership And Developing Personal Trust

What do we put in the place of bureaucracies gone afoul to manage things as important and expensive as our national defense, international affairs, and the environment, while shepherding our economic system?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

I had an interesting discussion with a fellow veteran recently about the word "Tyranny", using it to describe what is happening in the world today. That train of thought may be reasonably accurate from a historical perspective, considering how tyranny evolves, grows and employs its methodologies.

We can think of many historical and recent examples of tyranny. What has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Gaza are war applications of tyranny on so many clan, state and international fronts that it makes the general public dizzy and confused, to say nothing about the maze many world governments find themselves in trying to deal with related events as they unfold.

The world is so tightly wired and moving at such warp speed in communications, technology and dangerous weapons that it is extremely difficult to know when tyranny is sprouting because we get overwhelmed with the details and ignore the trends.

Tyranny sprouts within organizations that imbed themselves in economies and assume a life of their own. These organizations become entrenched and difficult to change because they are wired to so much of economic and public life (a defense company in every state, a pork project tacked onto a defense appropriation). 

 We target our elected officials as figureheads for our frustration, when in fact the real culprit is a big, faceless machine grinding onward, never changing, because we (the citizenry and the politician) will not bite the bullet and dismantle it. It risks finally collapsing of its own weight.

Some who analyze tyranny believe the best way to avoid it is to avoid violations of the constitution. That is a bit simplistic in our era. The conundrum is detecting complex circumstances with the potential to become violations of the constitution before they become horror stories and do something about them IN ADVANCE.

As students of history we know much of what we are experiencing today in war and politics is tied to human nature. The big issue: "What do we put in the place of bureaucracies gone afoul to manage things as important and expensive as our national defense, international affairs, and the environment, while shepherding the our economic system ?"   

The US political system classically appoints a blue ribbon panel to study such problems spread the blame and write a detailed report. We must do better then that in the future. The impending trauma will not permit it.  

Mass marketing and communications have created expectations beyond reality in venues from romance web sites to building wealth and dealing with warfare.   We must come down to earth and become more sophisticated in the manner with which we view all this input and sift it in a meaningful way to have true trust. If we do not we run a high risk of tyranny and that fact is inescapable.

To a very large degree trust is a personal responsibility. We must become involved, make prudent judgments regarding our leadership and think for ourselves. 

Above all, must learn from each other to evolve true trust and choose leadership capable of developing it. 

What We Can Learn From People Who Are Different From Us

Time To Retire The Phrase ‘Military Industrial Complex’

 

“RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT” By Dan Grazier

“President Dwight Eisenhower coined this immortal phrase during his January 17, 1961 farewell address to warn Americans. “Sorry Ike: it’s a bit too dated and no longer the right moniker to describe what we’re up against.

The Pentagon, Congress, the defense industry, think tanks, lobbyists, and industry-sponsored media outlets are all very real.  When combined, they make up what is better termed the “National Security Establishment,” which Americans see in action all the time.”

____________________________________________________________________________________

“It is time to retire the phrase “military-industrial complex.”

President Dwight Eisenhower coined this immortal phrase during his January 17, 1961 farewell address to warn Americans against the “acquisition of unwarranted influence” by the conjunction of “an immense military establishment and a large arms industry.”

As a five-star general, Ike knew, perhaps better than anyone, the self-serving and mutually beneficial relationship between the defense industry and the military. But he neglected to mention Congress’s role in the arrangement, nor could he necessarily have foreseen the ways in which corporate interests would intertwine themselves with the various bureaucracies that keep the Pentagon’s coffers flowing.

While the phrase “military-industrial-congressional-information complex” would be more accurate, it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. And like Eisenhower’s snappier appellation, it still suggests an element of conspiracy. But, of course, none of this is theoretical.

The Pentagon, Congress, the defense industry, think tanks, lobbyists, and industry-sponsored media outlets are all very real. When combined, they make up what is better termed the “National Security Establishment,” which Americans see in action all the time.

We see it when a retired general goes on television to explain exactly how the Ukrainian army can defeat the Russians — but only if Congress passes the latest billion-dollar aid package. No mention is made of the rather relevant fact that the general’s think tank is funded by defense contractors who stand to benefit from the aid package he is calling for.

We see it when another general retires from his post as the head of his service branch and turns up six months later on the board of a major defense contractor. Coincidentally, it’s the same defense contractor that celebrated a year earlier when that general announced the company had won the $21.4 billion contract to build a fleet of bombers.

We see it when a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee proposes the U.S. spend 5% of the gross domestic product every year on the military — a $55 billion increase to the current Pentagon budget. Predictably, he fails to mention that the majority of this money would go to defense contracts awarded to the same organizations that have given him more than $530,000 in campaign money since 2019. He fails to acknowledge how flush Pentagon budgets over the past 25 years created the sorry state of the military today.

We even see it when we least expect to, as when the country’s largest defense contractor runs advertisements during the Oscars and posts an interactive map on the company’s website touting the economic benefits of a weapon program. The company wants everyone to know how many jobs could be lost if Congress votes to disrupt the program in any way.

The American people also see the impact of these actions by the National Security Establishment.

We see tens of billions spent on a fighter jet that can only be reliably ready for combat a third of the time. We also see more than $60 billion spent designing and building warships that were so flawed Navy officials apparently can’t get rid of them fast enough. The Navy decommissioned one of these ships less than 5 years after its commissioning ceremony, roughly two decades ahead of the ship’s planned lifespan.

Starting in 2003, the Army spent at least $8 billion, and some sources say the better part of $20 billion, developing the Future Combat System, a family of armored vehicles to replace Cold War-era tanks, personnel carriers, and artillery vehicles. The Pentagon then canceled the program in 2009 with little to show for the effort and expense.

There are plenty of other examples of failed acquisition efforts from the past 25 years which partially explain why annual defense spending is now a whopping 48% higher than it was in 2000. Compounding these efforts is the Pentagon’s reliance on contractors to perform many roles once performed by uniformed service members at a much lower financial rate. The Department of Defense itself analyzed one case where hiring a group of contractors cost 316% more than the government employees tasked with similar work.

In a city where partisanship and political rancor impacts nearly every debate, wasteful and ineffective defense policies are a conspicuous exception. That is because the National Security Establishment is party-agnostic. Military contractors donate money to candidates and lobbyists on both sides of the aisle, those candidates vote for Pentagon budget increases and fund weapons programs long after their failures are widely known, and lobbyists and corporate-sponsored media groups generate public support for those programs.

Without massive structural changes, this pattern is all but certain to continue into future generations. Today’s National Security Establishment has launched several major weapons programs in recent years that, if allowed to continue on their current trajectories, will drive the annual Pentagon budget to truly unprecedented levels.

As programs like the B-21, Constellation-class frigate, Next Generation Air Dominance fighter jet, Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, several ground vehicle programs, the Sentinel nuclear missile, and myriad space and cyber systems mature and enter full-rate production in the coming decades, the Pentagon budget will expand to cover the costs.

But this doesn’t have to be the case, if Congress actually does its oversight job. Several of these programs are already behind schedule and over budget. Costs for the Sentinel missile program have increased 81% to $140.9 billion from the original $77.7 billion estimate and it will still be several years before the first missile is installed in its silo. Yet, given the massive financial influence, even these egregious failures are all but glossed over, a simple footnote for most, and then prepared for a rubber stamp.

The services and their bureaucracies, the defense industry, members of Congress, and the paid mouthpieces promoting their interests in the media and during lobbying visits all comprise the all-too-real National Security Establishment. Identifying this network is the first step to avoid saddling future generations with the crushing debt associated with unsustainable U.S. military policies today.

While it is long-past time to update the name, Eisenhower’s warning is still more real than ever. Americans must remain vigilant and guard against the self-serving nature of this apparatus that is more intent on lining its own pockets than it is actually keeping Americans and our allies safe.”

Time To Retire The Phrase ‘Military Industrial Complex’

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dan Grazier is a senior fellow and program director at the Stimson Center. He is a former Marine Corps captain who served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. His assignments in uniform included tours with 2nd Tank Battalion in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and 1st Tank Battalion in Twentynine Palms, California.

Your Rights and Obligations Under a Government Contract Stop Work Order

 

During government shutdowns or other circumstances where the government reserves the right to order a cease work, actions must be taken recognizing receipt of the stop work order and the relationship of the order to resumption of effort, funding constraints, contract terminations and associated business risk.

PURPOSE

The purpose of a stop work order is to immediately bring to a halt the effort on a contract and any further performance and related cost against that contract. 

It is usually necessary when unforeseen circumstances necessitate the action, such as the government shutdown or similar exigencies. An example of a clause that appears regularly in most government contracts, reserving the government's rights to stop work, is as follows:

"Stop-Work Order (Aug 1989)

(a) The Contracting Officer may, at any time, by written order to the Contractor, require the Contractor to stop all, or any part, of the work called for by this contract for a period of 90 days after the order is delivered to the Contractor, and for any further period to which the parties may agree. The order shall be specifically identified as a stop-work order issued under this clause. Upon receipt of the order, the Contractor shall immediately comply with its terms and take all reasonable steps to minimize the incurrence of costs allocable to the work covered by the order during the period of work stoppage. Within a period of 90 days after a stop-work is delivered to the Contractor, or within any extension of that period to which the parties shall have agreed, the Contracting Officer shall either—

(1) Cancel the stop-work order; or

(2) Terminate the work covered by the order as provided in the Default, or the Termination for Convenience of the Government, clause of this contract.

(b) If a stop-work order issued under this clause is canceled or the period of the order or any extension thereof expires, the Contractor shall resume work. The Contracting Officer shall make an equitable adjustment in the delivery schedule or contract price, or both, and the contract shall be modified, in writing, accordingly, if—

(1) The stop-work order results in an increase in the time required for, or in the Contractor’s cost properly allocable to, the performance of any part of this contract; and

(2) The Contractor asserts its right to the adjustment within 30 days after the end of the period of work stoppage; provided, that, if the Contracting Officer decides the facts justify the action, the Contracting Officer may receive and act upon the claim submitted at any time before final payment under this contract.

(c) If a stop-work order is not canceled and the work covered by the order is terminated for the convenience of the Government, the Contracting Officer shall allow reasonable costs resulting from the stop-work order in arriving at the termination settlement.

(d) If a stop-work order is not canceled and the work covered by the order is terminated for default, the Contracting Officer shall allow, by equitable adjustment or otherwise, reasonable costs resulting from the stop-work order.

(End of clause) "

ACTIONS

A stop work order is to be taken literally.  Under a stop work order the government makes no guarantees it will take any further deliveries whatsoever, regardless of the contract type. A stop work order means just that.  Stop work and stop incurring cost. 

Upon receipt of a stop work order you have no guarantee of payment for any transaction date-stamped in your accounting system after the date of the stop work order (or the commencement date of a stop work order specified in a Contracting Officer's Letter).

 I suggest clients receiving these orders close the charge numbers applicable until the stop work order is lifted with an order to resume effort and immediately notify any effected suppliers and subcontractors to do the same.

To the degree the government has made progress payments or has any other form of payment invested in the product to date it has ownership rights in the product. If that is the case treat the physical material work-in-process as government owned, store it as such without performing any more effort on it and await further disposition.

To the degree the government has not paid anything on the contract or delivery order they have no ownership rights to the product and you are free to complete it and sell it to another customer (commercial or government) that has not stopped work. If the government recommences the order, quote a new price and delivery from ground zero.

At the bottom line a stop work is blunt and to the point.  Treat it as if you will never hear from this customer again to manage the risk.  

To the degree you do hear from the CO again and he or she has the funding to recommence work, be prepared to submit a proposal for what it will take to start the effort and a realistic delivery schedule to complete it, but do not build any retroactive costs incurred during the stop work period into your pricing and expect to bill them; that may not come to payment fruition. 

CONTRACT TERMINATIONS AND FUNDING CONSTRAINTS

Note that in the above cited clause the government discusses resumption of work and contract terminations as options.

Hypothetically at some future date the government could terminate the  contract without taking delivery and the contractor will then submit a termination proposal for recovery of costs and disruption. 

Contract Terminations

When a stop work order is lifted  the contract or the delivery order is open to negotiation on both price and delivery under the equitable adjustment and changes clauses in the FAR provisions of the contract.

At that time, you should inform the government that you are pleased to resume work, but under revised price and delivery conditions as specified in a proposal for equitable adjustment

You should not resume work until a contract or work order amendment is received granting the price and delivery relief to contract requirements commensurate with negotiation results under your proposal for equitable adjustment.

In short, time is money.

If your contract was adequately funded and remains so when work commences and assuming you negotiate acceptable terms and conditions you can proceed with low risk.  If the funding on the contract is low at the time of recommencement, it is recommended you request additional funding and handle that matter in accordance with the article linked below.

 

Limitation of Funds and Funding Exposure

SUMMARY

Stop work orders are serious matters and require special handling to comply with government direction and to manage risk.  This article has discussed the principal options and equitable adjustment terms and conditions available to you if you undergo a stop work on a government contract.

Continuing effort on a contract after receipt of a stop work is high risk.

Astutely managing your options is a far better approach. 

Former Secretary of Defense: "Defense Industry Consolidation Has Turned Out Badly"

EDITORS NOTE: As our government faces crucial decisions during the current budgeting cycle, the below article a decade ago by Former Secretary of Defense, William J. Perry comes to mind regarding a key government contractor strategic policy error during his administration that has led to the huge financial impact of today's Military Industrial Complex.

"NATIONAL DEFENSE MAGAZINE" By Sandra I. Erwin

"The architect of the post-Cold War consolidation of the defense industry believes that, in hindsight, the Pentagon paid a huge price for allowing top weapons manufacturers to merge into a handful of huge companies."

_________________________________________________________________________________

"Dozens of prime contractors merged or were absorbed into mega-corporations.
The trend toward fewer and larger prime contractors has the potential to affect innovation, limit the supply base, pose entry barriers to small, medium and large businesses, and ultimately reduce competition — resulting in higher prices to be paid by the American taxpayer.

 William J. Perry - Image:  Wikipedia 

William J. Perry, secretary of defense during the Clinton administration, gained legendary status in the defense industry for having hosted the so-called “last supper” in the fall of 1993 — when he was deputy defense secretary. That evening, Perry assembled top industry CEOs and alerted them that military spending was about to plummet and the Pentagon would no longer be able to support such a large industry.

Perry’s warning set off an unprecedented wave of mergers and acquisitions in the defense industry.

The end result was an “unnecessary, undesirable consolidation of the defense industry,” Perry said Dec. 3 during a breakfast meeting with reporters in Washington, D.C.

Perry is in town promoting his book, “My Journey at the Nuclear Brink,” which tells the story of his coming of age in the nuclear era and how his thinking has changed about the threats.

In his retrospection about the last supper, Perry recalled that the intent clearly was to help the Pentagon reduce the cost of weapons by compelling the industry to become leaner. But the opposite effect ensued, he said, as the industry became less competitive and continued to charge high overhead rates.

“The response we were seeking was a reduction in overhead,” Perry said. “What we got was the consolidation of the defense industry — few large companies, and less effective competition. … We got some of the things we asked for but also some things we didn’t ask for,” he added. “We would have been better off with more, smaller firms than with a few large ones.”

Perry pointed out that the phrase “last supper” to describe his meeting with with executives was coined by then CEO of Martin Marietta Norm Augustine, who stood next to him at the gathering. “Augustine turned to the man on his right, and the one on his left and said, ‘One of us is not going to be here next year.’” Sure enough, within a year, Martin Marietta had merged with Lockheed to create the world’s largest defense contractor Lockheed Martin.

The Pentagon should be careful about allowing further consolidation, Perry said. “We are still going to face declining defense budgets for acquisition, but the way to respond, I think, is not by allowing defense companies to charge more overhead.” Perry suggests the Pentagon should put more pressure on companies to operate more efficiently. “We would hope we are not going to encourage more industry consolidation, because that would be moving in the wrong direction. We should learn that lesson from the 1990s.”

The Pentagon should be “more explicit in the kind of guidance we give to companies,” he said. Contractors should shrink overhead but that should not come at the expense of competition, Perry said.

Perry’s observations come at a time of growing angst at the Defense Department about industry mergers. Most recently, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall criticized Lockheed Martin's acquisition of helicopter manufacturer Sikorsky Aircraft. Kendall lamented the lack of legal means available to the Pentagon to prevent such deals. “The Department of Defense is concerned about the continuing march toward greater consolidation in the defense industry," he said."

Former SecDef Perry: Defense Industry Consolidation Has Turned Out Badly

Gaining Trust By Listening Then Learning From Each Other

We have grown acclimated to viewing the world through media sound bites and opinionated, biased news, financed by those that spend enormous amounts of money to influence our opinions.

To a very large degree trust is a personal responsibility. We must become involved, make prudent judgments and think for ourselves. Above all, we must listen and learn from each other to evolve true trust.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Has independent thinking by researching a personal perspective become a lost art in our day in age?

Are we just too busy to develop a credible opinion of our own due to the fast pace our social values demand? Or are we misinformed?

Trust is hard to establish in the modern era. We see very little true statesmanship in the good people we send to govern, who promptly become ground up in a media machine in order to survive.

Communications and expectations are two vital elements in measuring trust. To an extraordinary extent, the age in which we live is requiring us to redefine trust and the degree to which communication and expectations contribute to it.

Consider trust in simpler times. Trust was necessary in many venues as a means of survival on a day-to-day basis. We relied on others extensively for our well being from our local store to our banker, from the policeman to the politician. And we knew them all better, we could reach out and touch them. We were not viewing them in sound bites and web sites, nor were we being bombarded with multiple forms of input to digest about them.

Mass marketing and communications have created expectations beyond reality in venues from romance web sites to building wealth and dealing with warfare.   We must come down to earth and become more sophisticated in the manner with which we view all this input and sift it in a meaningful way to have true trust. If we do not we run a high risk of tyranny and that fact is inescapable.

To a very large degree trust is a personal responsibility. We must become involved, make prudent judgments and think for ourselves. Above all, must learn from each other to evolve true trust.

What We Can Learn From People Who Are Different From Us

Why Employment Is Only Half The Battle For America’s Veterans

"THE HILL" By Rachel Scully  

"There is no “one size fits all” regarding career transitions for veterans. While changing career paths is difficult in any case, veterans face unique challenges."

________________________________________________________________________________

"The veteran unemployment rate is below that of non-veterans, but obtaining a job is only half the battle. After years spent training for battle or deployed into combat zones, most former service members still struggle to find satisfaction in a civilian work environment. 

“When you join the military, you’re going to for a very specific reason. And when you’re there, whether it’s four years or for 34 years, you’ve got your mission, team, camaraderie — you have a very clear purpose in what you’re doing,” Waco Hoover, a Marine Corps veteran and chair of the “Be the One” program at the American Legion, told The Hill.  

“When you transition out, all those things are not readily available, and it’s not there.” 

The U.S. is seeing some of the lowest ever unemployment rates for veterans, with the Department of Labor reporting a veteran unemployment rate of only 3 percent as of February, compared to 3.6 percent for non-veterans.  

Yet job satisfaction among veterans is far lower than the general population. A 2021 poll from Hill and Ponton, a veterans’ disability law firm, found that veterans were more than five times more likely to report having no satisfaction at their current job than non-veterans. 

One of the symptoms of this trend is high turnover rates among veteran hires, “and the reason for that is purpose,” Hoover said.  

A CareerBuilder survey conducted last year found that 22 percent of veterans report feeling “underemployed.”  

“The one thing that I think is sometimes frustrating first for military members who are transitioning is you can be a very junior person in the military — first, second, third year — and you have tremendous responsibilities,” said Jeffrey Wenger, Senior Economist at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research institution. 

“And you get out of the military and someone wants you to stock shelves. And so you, you’re like, ‘I know I can do better than this.’”

Another driver of veterans’ dissatisfaction appears to be career progression. More than 1 in 4 veterans believed it was not at all likely for them to advance at their current jobs, according to the survey from Hill and Ponton.

“In the civilian sector, it takes many years to work your way up through the ranks,” Wenger said.  

But both the government and nonprofits are focusing more of their work on not only helping veterans get jobs, but helping connect them find fulfilling careers.  

Wenger pointed to the sustained efforts to raise public awareness of their skills, experiences and the programs provided to veterans after they separated — at the federal and state level. 

“I think we’ve done a better job of helping them transition into the civilian labor market,” Wenger said. “We now provide programs at the end of their service period that give them training on how to talk about the skills that they developed.”

The Labor Department provides programs aimed at helping veterans transition to, train for and advance in a civilian career, such as the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). Different programs are set up to provide extra training to veterans before separation, creating more marketable candidates.

However, whether those programs are working remains an open question.

“I would say that one of the things that’s been pretty apparent across the board with transition is just the sheer lack of actual valuable experiences that’s coming out of the transition, TAP programs,” said Nicole Tardif, public relations manager at the American Legion.

“It’s considered kind of a box check, as is the way that the program is set up, where you’re not really learning or being prepared for the civilian world, you’re really just checking the box to make sure you took the classes you were supposed to right before you get out,” Tardif added.  

“There’s not a lot of forethought once you actually move into the civilian world.” 

The Labor Department told The Hill it is addressing those concerns. The Employment Navigator and Partnership Program is a new effort to provide “one-on-one career assistance to interested transitioning service members, and their spouses, at select military installations worldwide,” according to the Labor Department.  

Hoover says there is no “one size fits all” regarding career transitions for veterans. While changing career paths is difficult in any case, veterans face unique challenges.

“You are with a group of human beings that are your team and your family in so many respects. And depending on how long you spend there, what your job was, the connections can be incredibly deep,” Hoover said of life in the military.

“You get out, and that same dynamic doesn’t exist,” he added.

Hoover noted the challenges and opportunities facing a service member departing in their 20s will differ significantly from those in their 30s or 40s.  

“We’ve got to make sure that those programs are oriented for those individuals,” he said. 

And service members should start preparing for their post-military careers while they are still active.

“Beginning with the end in mind, whether that’s four years, 20 years, whatever it is, being cognizant of that along the way … will help them process and have much more perspective for what they want to do,” he said.

“It’s not just giving them information, it’s giving them the tools to be introspective and understand, ‘What do I want to do post-service?’” 

Wenger encouraged veterans to manage expectations and explore their career preferences, taking advantage of the tight labor market to find a good fit.

“[As a veteran], I’m not having to take the first job offer that comes my way. I can be a little bit more selective about the kinds of things I’d like to do,” Wenger said. “And we can, you know, force employers to give you more responsibilities or at least match better to your preferences.”

Why Employment Is Only Half The Battle For America’s Veterans 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Rachel Scully - I am a Senior Audience Engagement Producer at The Hill, specializing in visual storytelling. In addition to writing, I create various graphic and video aids for a wide range of stories to provide a seamless reading experience for our audience.Originally hailing from Erie, Pennsylvania, my journey into journalism began with a passion for uncovering facts. In 2021, I earned my Bachelor’s in Political Science and Communication, with a minor in Spanish and Hispanic Studies, from John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio. I began writing at my s newspaper – The Carroll News— igniting a passion that led me to pursue opportunities in journalism.Before joining The Hill full-time in July 2021, I interned as a reporter here and gained experience as an editorial intern at Cleveland Magazine. 

Every Single F-35 Delivered To The US Military Last Year Was Late

 

                                                                              CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

“TASK AND PURPOSE” By Matt White

“On average, new F-35s were delivered 238 days late in 2024. A government watchdog found that the Lockheed Martin continues to collect “hundreds of millions” in fees despite sagging delivery times. Current acquisition costs are $89.5 Billion more than 2012 Baseline Estimate.”

________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Every F-35 delivered to the U.S. military last year by Lockheed Martin was behind schedule by an average of seven months, a government watchdog found, but contractors kept millions in “incentive fees” designed to speed up the delivery.

To catch up, the aerospace giant now says it will “reduce the scope” of capabilities in new planes. 

The latest round of jets will now “cost $6 billion more and completion is at least 5 years later than original estimates,” a report by the Government Accountability Office found. “In 2024, Lockheed delivered 110 aircraft. All were late by an average of 238 days, up from 61 days in 2023.”

In a statement to Task & Purpose on the GAO report, a Lockheed Martin spokesperson said, “The F-35 is combat-proven, offers the most advanced capability and technology, and is the most affordable option to ensure America and its allies remain ahead of emerging threats.”

The F-35 has been slated to be the U.S. military’s primary modern strike and air superiority fighter since it was originally funded in 2001, and is — uniquely among strike aircraft — flown by all three fixed-wing air components. The Air Force took delivery in April of its 500th F-35, the Marines own about 250, and the Navy has over 100. Those totals are about one-third of the roughly 2,470 fighters the Pentagon plans to buy and fly for 77 years, according to the GAO.

But the program has been beset by cost overruns and delayed deliveries since its inception. The total cost of the full F-35 fleet was expected to be $233 billion when originally funded in 2001. By December 2023, that number had more than doubled to $485 billion.

The latest round of F-35s delivered in the last seven years and currently on order are known as Block 4 of the program. Block 4 jets, the GAO said, were meant to come equipped with “new weapons, radar enhancements, and technology to avoid aircraft collisions” and with new features that “address new threats that have emerged since DOD established the aircraft’s original requirements in 2000.”

But those enhancements, the GAO said, will now be scaled back.

“The program plans to reduce the scope of Block 4 to deliver capabilities to the warfighter at a more predictable pace than in the past,” the GAO said.

The specific list of Block 4 enhancements that will be scaled back will be finalized this fall, the GAO said. F-35 officials told the GAO that they will delay “some capabilities—including those that require an upgraded engine to function—to future modernization efforts. Program officials stated that they will also remove others that no longer meet warfighter needs.”

In its statement to Task & Purpose, Lockheed Martin said it “will deliver 170-190 F-35s this year and continue fielding Block 4 capabilities to ensure the F-35 maintains its unmatched dominance in the skies.” 

A screenshot from the GAO report showing delays in 2024 compared to previous years. Screenshot via Government Accountability Office.

Dan Grazier, a senior fellow and program director at the Stimson Center, has tracked the F-35 program for over a decade at government watchdogs. The admission that some Block 4 technology will be reduced “seems kind of innocuous, but is absolutely mind-blogging,” he said.

“[They] don’t go into what capabilities they’re shaving off the top, but I promise you, the capabilities that they aren’t going to deliver for the F-35 were the capabilities for which they sold the program in the very first place,” Grazier said. “The really high-end capabilities [are] what we’re really paying for when we’re paying this massive premium.”

Millions in fees for late deliveries

The GAO report also said Lockheed has collected “hundreds of millions of dollars” intended to reward quicker production for planes delivered late.

“The F-35 program’s use of incentive fees has largely been ineffective at holding the contractors accountable to delivering engines and aircraft on time,” the report found. “The F-35 program office compensated Lockheed Martin with hundreds of millions of dollars of performance incentive fees while the percentage of aircraft delivered late and the average days late grew.”

Through 2022, most F-35s were delivered by Lockheed Martin on time or with delays that averaged less than a month. But in 2023, 89 of 98 planes were late and in 2024, all 110 were late by an average delay of 238 days.

But as deliveries fell behind, the GAO found, F-35 officials adjusted the terms of the fees.

“Where the program originally tied incentives to on-time delivery, the program gave the contractor a second chance to earn fees by redirecting those incentives to other aspects of the program when it was clear that Lockheed Martin would not deliver any aircraft on time,” the GAO found.

Engine maker Pratt & Whitney also collected “tens of millions” in incentive fees despite late deliveries of the engines.

“This incentive structure and late delivery penalty was not effective at improving on-time deliveries,” the GAO said. “Unless the F-35 program reevaluates its use of incentive fees and better aligns them to achieving desired production schedule outcomes, it will be at greater risk of continuing to reward contractors for delivering engines and aircraft late.”

Every single F-35 delivered to the US military last year was late

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Matt Whit is a senior editor at Task & Purpose. He was a pararescueman in the Air Force and the Alaska Air National Guard for eight years and has more than a decade of experience in daily and magazine journalism. He also teaches news writing at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill’s Hussman School of Journalism and Media where he is frequently referred to as a “very tough grader” on Rate My Professor. You can reach Matt at matthew.white@taskandpurpose.com