Lawmakers hit Pentagon weapons chief for not buying enough F-22s

Senior House lawmakers slammed the Pentagon’s decision to purchase parts for only four additional F-22 fighter jets despite what they said was a clear congressional directive to provide money to buy components for more aircraft.

“The Congress rules; the Pentagon can propose,” Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), the chairman of the Armed Services Air and Land Forces subcommittee, told acquisitions chief John Young during a sometimes-testy exchange.

{mosads}“The defense bill is not negotiable and you will obey what the defense bill says. Period,” Abercrombie said.

The Pentagon last week announced it would provide Lockheed Martin up to $50 million to purchase parts for four additional F-22 fighters. Congress had authorized $140 million to be spent by the Pentagon on “long-lead items” — so-called because they take a long time to produce — in the 2009 defense bill.

Young disputed the contention that the Pentagon was bucking a congressional directive. He said that the defense authorization bill only specifies that the Pentagon can spend up to $140 million for certain parts, such as radar and electronic warfare components. But Young said the act does not require that the full $140 million be allocated. 

“Your interpretation is at odds” with that of the majority of lawmakers, Abercrombie shot back.

He said that Congress clearly wanted the Pentagon to begin purchasing parts for 20 additional fighters. Lawmakers didn’t specify an exact price, only a cap, because the parts may end up costing less than estimated, he said.
Several other members also criticized the Pentagon for its decision, saying it could end up costing the government more money.

“Under what authority are you acting?” an incensed Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) asked Young. Gingrey’s district is home to Lockheed Martin’s production facility.

Gingrey warned that the cost to procure the F-22 aircraft would increase because of disruptions or gaps in the supplier production lines if the full $140 million were not allocated.

But Young defended the decision, saying that the $50 million to purchase parts for the four aircraft is enough to keep the production line open until the next administration makes a decision on whether to purchase even more F-22s.

“This approach provides an adequate bridge until at least January 2009, without imposing significant additional costs on the taxpayer for any future course of action,” Young told House lawmakers on Wednesday.

“First, it is inappropriate to spend an additional $90 million of advance procurement for 16 aircraft that the nation may not purchase, particularly when that decision can be deferred at limited cost and risk.”

But Young also acknowledged, however, that the decision could not be deferred for too long. In fact, the Obama administration will have to decide immediately after the inauguration on Jan. 20 whether to allocate the remaining money to purchase long-lead items for the F-22, Young said.

If the new administration waits beyond Jan. 21 to make a decision, Young said, the costs for the fighters could increase because of production line delays.

Overall, Congress appropriated $523 million in the 2009 defense spending bill to purchase parts for an additional 20 F-22s. But lawmakers also fenced off $383 million of that money until the new administration certifies that it wants to continue buying the F-22. If not, the money would be used to shut off Lockheed’s production line in Marietta, Ga.

{mospagebreak}In announcing the decision to allocate only $50 million, Pentagon officials said they would request additional money to buy the four fighters in the war-supplemental request. It isn’t clear how much the Pentagon will request to buy the fighters in the war supplemental, but each plane costs $142 million.

In its 2009 budget request, the Pentagon included money neither to keep producing the F-22 nor to shut down the production line at Lockheed’s plant. But Air Force and industry officials have lobbied Congress and the Pentagon heavily to extend production of the Raptor.

That production is slated to end after 2011, when Lockheed Martin is scheduled to deliver the last of 183 aircraft. The Air Force has said that it needs 381 F-22s to maintain air superiority.

{mosads}Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is rumored to be under consideration to keep his post during the first months of the Obama administration, opposes buying more F-22s and favors buying the multinational, multiservice Joint Strike Fighter, an aircraft in development that is expected to be cheaper than the F-22.

An extensive network of subcontractors and suppliers has lobbied along with Lockheed in the fight to save the F-22. More than 1,000 companies that employ about 25,000 people in more than 44 states are involved in the fighter’s production.

Stopping production would affect three major aircraft-assembly plants in Texas, Washington state and Georgia.
The issue of whether to buy more F-22s has been a sore point between Pentagon leadership and the Air Force.

The Air Force’s principal deputy assistant secretary, David Van Buren, said in testimony that the Pentagon’s latest strategy “meets the goal of setting the table until the new administration makes a decision concerning the future of the F-22A program.”

But congressional staff also said the costs of purchasing and operating F-22s could be even higher than what is currently projected when maintenance costs are factored in. The Air Force continues to struggle with maintenance issues and has discovered more corrosion problems on the existing fleet of fighters, raising concerns among staff aides that the problem may be more pervasive than anticipated. Techniques that give the plane its stealth to avoid radar detection have been reported to have partly contributed to the corrosion problem.

Lockheed maintains that the issue is under control and that the company has found the solution to fix the problem.

“The corrosion was identified nearly two years ago; corrective action is in place during routine depot work with no impact to fleet life,” said Sam Grizzle, a Lockheed Martin spokesman.