Lockheed, Others Feel Arms-Supply Pinch

"Supply-chain snarls are still hindering efforts by weapons makers to produce more arms for Ukraine and refill stocks for the U.S. and its allies.

Lockheed Martin Corp. said Tuesday that sales of its long-range missiles known as the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, or GMLRS, fell in the latest quarter from a year ago. The U.S. has shipped hundreds to Ukraine, where they have been widely used against Russian forces.

Big U.S. arms makers are taking longer than expected to boost production despite billions of dollars in support from the Pentagon. Defense companies plan to fulfill contracts by buying machinery from overseas to make more in-demand artillery shells.

Lockheed is the first of the big defense companies to report earnings for the latest quarter. Sales rose from a year earlier, though Lockheed said it still expects revenue to shrink this year, and profit in the first quarter fell from a year ago. The company said shortages of key components such as rocket motors for GMLRS and other missiles continue to dog efforts to boost output.

When President Biden toured Lockheed's facility in Troy, Ala., last May, he and company Chief Executive Jim Taiclet committed to doubling production of Javelin missiles by 2024. That target has now been pushed out to 2026, according to the company and the Army, as have those to boost output of GMLRS and Himars rocket launchers.

"We thought we could get there earlier," said Lockheed Chief Financial Officer Jay Malave in an interview.

Defense-company executives said rocket motors continue to be a problem for missile makers including Lockheed and Raytheon Technologies Corp. Northrop Grumman Corp. has been hired to produce more rocket motors and supplement one-time sole supplier Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc.

The Pentagon last week said it had awarded Aerojet a $216 million deal to modernize its production lines. The company said output was recovering after a fire at a facility last fall.

Some defense executives have said that the Pentagon is being slow to award new deals and incentives to boost production, a charge rejected by Defense Department leaders.

Pentagon acquisition chief Bill LaPlante said last month it would be a five- or six-year effort to rebuild and expand munitions stocks to prepare for any potential conflict with China over Taiwan.

The Pentagon has awarded a handful of new contracts -- worth around $1.2 billion -- this year related to supplying Ukraine or backfilling stocks, according to a review of Defense Department announcements. Around $11 billion in contracts has been awarded since start of the conflict, though these are set to pay out over several years.

Investors piled into defense company stocks following events in Ukraine last year. That interest cooled after the combination of supply-chain, funding and contractual issues pushed back the flow of deals into late 2023 and beyond.

Lockheed's Mr. Malave said the company still expects to generate $1.5 billion in sales linked to Ukraine this year, in line with 2022's level, and $6 billion by 2027. The company forecasts full-year revenue of up to $66 billion in 2023.

Defense companies benefited from a big bump in funding during the U.S. government's fiscal 2023. The Pentagon budget request for $842 billion for fiscal 2024 is a 3.2% increase on what Congress enacted last year, below the top end of analysts' expectations. With inflation in the sector running around at 5%, the proposal represents a cut in real terms.

The Pentagon's aims for fiscal 2025 and beyond call for a further flattening of growth, highlighting the budget choices facing military chiefs and Congress.

Building resilience to deter China includes retiring older planes and ships to make way for modern platforms such as uncrewed aircraft and a big bump in the space budget, said the Pentagon's Dr. LaPlante.

Congress has given the Pentagon the go-ahead in principle to look at buying munitions such as shells and missiles in multiyear packages, much as it purchases big-ticket items such as ships and aircraft.

Lockheed's GMLRS and the PAC-3 missiles used in Patriot air defense systems are among those earmarked for block buys. Congress has yet to be convinced, and no multiyear munitions deals have so far been approved and awarded.

Mike McCord, the Pentagon's comptroller, said more homework is required on potential cost savings from multiyear buys, which he said he expects to be more of a feature of the fiscal 2025 budget request rather than this year's." [1]

 

Now it is clear why, according to US intelligence data that has become public, Zelensky, who is shooting recklessly, is running out of missiles. Oh, what will happen now...

 

1. Lockheed, Others Feel Arms-Supply Pinch
Cameron, Doug.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 19 Apr 2023: B.1.

 

Bidenas ir masinės informacijos priemonės yra smulkūs elektromobilių apgavikai

„Kai prieš kelis mėnesius pykdžiau aukšto rango Bideno klimato pareigūną dėl prieštaringo argumento, kad žalia dalomoji medžiaga nesumažins iškastinio kuro suvartojimo, jis mane nustebino, užbaigęs mano sakinį.

 

     Vienintelis tikras sprendimas – vyriausybėms „nustatyti anglies dioksido kainą“, o spėliojantys demokratai ir respublikonai gali pralaužti ledus su anglies dioksidu susijusiu importo mokesčiu.

 

     Esmė ta, kad ekonominis protingumas egzistuoja visur, išskyrus Bideno administracijos politiką ir žiniasklaidą.

 

     Neseniai paskelbtame žurnalo podcast'e Harvardo ekonomistas Kenas Rogoffas spontaniškai pasiūlė panašų dabartinės politikos „beprotiškumo“ vertinimą, priešingai, nei vienintelis „protingas dalykas, kuris veiks“. Tyleris Cowenas, autorius ir ekonomistas, išsakė tą pačią kritiką podcast'e su žaliuoju investuotoju Jeremy'iu Granthamu: „Mes darome žaliąją energiją daug pigesnę, bet nešvari energija tampa pigesnė“ ir „pasaulis tiesiog sunaudoja daug daugiau energijos“.

 

     Arba paimkite Prinstono analizę, kurią mėgsta cituoti Bideno Baltieji rūmai. Smulkaus šrifto analizėje pripažįstama, kad neįtraukiamas sumažėjusių iškastinės energijos kainų poveikis išmetamiesiems teršalams.

 

     Subsidijuoti kažkam naudotis elektromobiliu yra subsidija energijos suvartojimui, taškas - daugiau vairuoti, gyventi didesniame name, pakelti oro kondicionieriaus naudojimą. Elektra automobiliui įkrauti turi būti iš kažkur. Akumuliatoriaus mineralai nekyla iš žemės. Jei vyriausybė moka jums, kad naudotumėte mažiau iškastinio kuro, tai moka kažkam kitam, kad jis naudotų daugiau.

 

     Tačiau juokingiausia yra tai, kad net jei jūs prarandate sugebėjimą suvokti sudėtingą ekonomiką, jūs vis tiek nesuteiksite subsidijų elektromobiliams vartotojams, remdamiesi vien skaičiais.

 

     Transportas gali išmesti 20 % išmetamųjų teršalų, tačiau automobiliai ir furgonai sudaro tik 8 %, o 72 % jų sudaro asmeninės transporto priemonės, o tai reiškia, kad jie didžiąją laiko dalį stovi be darbo. Vertinant JAV ir Europos vidurkius, komercinių transporto priemonių metinė rida yra keturis kartus didesnė. Pasaulinės visuomenės asmeninės transporto priemonės gali sudaryti didžiąją dalį automobilių, tačiau jos išmeta mažumą lengvųjų transporto priemonių išmetamųjų teršalų – apie 39 % arba 3 % visų išmetamųjų teršalų.

 

     Ir, žinoma, Bideno planas turi įtakos tik JAV, kurios sudaro 12% viso pasaulio laivyno – taigi 0,36%. O pakeitus benzininį variklį į akumuliatorių pašalinama tik pusė (geriausiu atveju) viso tarnavimo laiko išmetamų teršalų – taigi 0,18%.

 

     Galėčiau tęsti. Įvertinus visus veiksnius, pvz., mažėjančią JAV išmetamų teršalų dalį, pvz., lėtą JAV automobilių parko apyvartą, ekstravagantiškai brangaus Bideno plano poveikis klimatui nuolat artėja prie nulio, laikui bėgant, kai kiti suvartoja iškastinį kurą, kurį elektromobilių vairuotojai leidžiami įsigyti už mažesnę kainą.

 

     Dabar jūs žinote, kodėl susirūpinusių mokslininkų sąjunga ilgus metus gudravo, teigdama, kad „mūsų asmeniniai automobiliai yra pagrindinė visuotinio atšilimo priežastis“, o paskui pradėjo kalbėti apie bendrą transporto išmetamų teršalų kiekį. Taip pat „New York Times“, kuris juokingai giria Bideno planą „sumažinti automobilių išmetamas šiltnamio efektą sukeliančias dujas, kurios yra pagrindinis klimato kaitos veiksnys“.

 

     Šiose parduotuvėse reikia gauti subsidijų elektromobiliams, nes jų tikslinės demonstracinės versijos mėgsta girdėti apie elektromobilių dalomąją medžiagą, tačiau tai nėra rimta klimato politika. Tai nėra rimtesnis už Obamos degalų taupymo planą iki 2025 m. mums skirti 54,5 mylios už galoną, o vėliau atliktas tyrimas rodo, kad tai yra fiktyvus „antraštės skaičius“, kurį išgalvojo Baltųjų rūmų viešųjų ryšių komanda.

 

     Jei amerikiečiai nori sumažinti išmetamų teršalų kiekį, jie gali įvesti anglies dioksido mokestį, kaip siūlo Bideno patarėjas (pažadėjus būti anonimišku). Šį modelį galėtų pritaikyti kitos šalys, o tik tokiu atveju išmetamųjų teršalų kiekis būtų žymiai mažesnis ir, galbūt, po dešimtmečių būtų galima aptikti tam tikrą klimato poveikį.

 

     Apsispręskite, ar verta siekti tokio išmetamųjų teršalų kiekio mažinimo, tačiau supraskite, kad sudėtingas Bideno planas yra elektromobilių fetišas, maskuojamas kaip politinė mintis.

 

     Galbūt, turite žemą nuomonę apie Joe Bideną. Galite manyti, kad jam trūksta temperamento, kad galėtų ištirti antros ir trečios eilės savo EV mandato poveikį. „Elektriniai automobiliai yra geri“, senajam Džo gali pakakti argumentų. Tačiau Barackas Obama ėmėsi panašios politikos ir didingai plaukė į savo poprezidento postą pasirašyti didelį gamybos susitarimą su „Netflix“ ir mėgautis nuolatiniu pripažinimu.

 

     Tai atveda mus prie liūdno supratimo. Pagrindiniai liberalai, tokie kaip ponai Bidenas ir Obama bei jų kolegos Kongrese, jau kurį laiką nesiūlė nieko, išskyrus gamybinę ekonomiką traktuoti, kaip nesibaigiančios rentos šaltinį, kurį galima išgauti ir perskirstyti, kad parodytų savo gerus ketinimus, nuo ko vėliau priklauso jų šeimų statuso ir turto galimybės.

 

     Jei tai skamba ciniškai, taip pat pasigailėkite žiniasklaidos, kuri nustojo veikti, kaip kritikė, o propaguoja politikos idėjas, kad ir kokios teoriškai brangios, vien, kaip dorybės signalus. Jei tikėjotės klimato politikos, kuri iš tikrųjų gali turėti įtakos klimatui, spauda, galbūt, yra geriausia vieta parodyti pirštu." [1]

 

Taip, Bideno subsidijos nepadarys pasaulio ekologiškesniu. Bideno subsidijos perkels ateities pramonę iš Europos Sąjungos ir Kinijos į Jungtines Valstijas, todėl Amerika vėl taps energetine ir karine supervalstybe. Tai pakankamai didelis dalykas.

 
1. Biden and Media Are EV Grifters
Jenkins, Holman W; Jr.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 19 Apr 2023: A.15.

 

Biden and Media Are EV Grifters

"When I pestered a senior Biden climate official a few months ago about the counterintuitive argument that green handouts won't reduce fossil-fuel consumption, he surprised me by finishing my sentence. 

The only real solution is for governments "to put a price on carbon," he said, and speculated Democrats and Republicans might break the ice with a carbon-related import tax.

The point being, economic sanity exists everywhere except in the policies of the Biden administration and media coverage of them.

Unbidden in a recent Journal podcast, the Harvard economist Ken Rogoff spontaneously offered a similar assessment of the "craziness" of current policy in contrast with the only "sane thing that's going to work." Tyler Cowen, the author and economist, voiced the same critique in a podcast with green investor Jeremy Grantham: "We make green energy much cheaper, but dirty energy becomes cheaper" and "the world just uses much more energy."

Or take a Princeton analysis the Biden White House loves to cite. In its fine print, the analysis admits leaving out the emissions effect of lowered fossil-energy prices.

Subsidizing somebody to use an electric car is a subsidy to consume energy, period -- to drive more, to live in a bigger house, to crank the air conditioning higher. The electricity to charge the car has to come from somewhere. The minerals for the battery don't spring from the ground. If government pays you to use less fossil fuel, it's paying someone else to use more.

But the funny thing is, even if sophisticated economics are lost on you, you still wouldn't subsidize electric cars for consumers based simply on the numbers.

Transportation may be 20% of emissions, but cars and vans represent only 8%, and 72% of these are personal vehicles -- which means they sit idle most of the time. Going by U.S. and European averages, commercial vehicles rack up four times the annual mileage. Global society's personal vehicles may be a majority of cars, but they account for a minority of light-vehicle emissions -- about 39%, or 3% of total emissions.

And, of course, the Biden plan affects only the U.S., with 12% of the global fleet -- so 0.36%. And swapping out a gasoline engine for a battery eliminates only half (at best) of lifetime emissions -- so 0.18%.

I could go on. When all factors are considered, such as the shrinking U.S. share of global emissions, such as the slow turnover of the U.S. auto fleet, the climate effect of the extravagantly expensive Biden plan will steadily approach zero as time goes on even without counting the signal to others to consume the fossil fuels that EV drivers allow to be available at a lower price.

Now you know why the Union of Concerned Scientists for years has practiced a sleight of hand, claiming "our personal vehicles are a major cause of global warming" and then segueing to talk about transportation emissions overall. Ditto the New York Times, which laughably oversells the Biden plan "to slash the greenhouse gases generated by cars, a major driver of climate change."

These outlets plump for EV subsidies because their target demos like to hear about EV handouts but it's not serious climate policy. It's no more serious than the Obama fuel-economy plan to give us 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, shown in a subsequent investigation to be a sham "headline number" cooked up by the White House PR team.

If Americans want to cut emissions, they can enact a carbon tax, as the Biden adviser suggests (after being promised anonymity). This model other countries might adopt, in which case only then would emissions be placed on a noticeably lower path and possibly allow some climate effect to be detectable decades from now.

Make up your own mind whether such emissions reductions are worth pursuing but understand that the convoluted Biden plan is an EV fetish masquerading as a policy thought.

You may have a low opinion of Joe Biden. You may think he lacks the temperament to examine the second- and third-order effects of his own EV mandate. "EVs are good" might be reasoning enough for old Joe. But Barack Obama pushed similar policies and sailed majestically on, in his presidential afterlife, to sign a big production deal with Netflix and bask in permanent acclaim.

Which brings us to a sad realization. Mainstream liberals like Messrs. Biden and Obama and their colleagues in Congress, for quite a while now, have offered nothing except to treat the productive economy as a source of endless rents that can be extracted and redeployed to give evidence of their own good intentions, which then are parlayed into status and wealth opportunities for their families.

If this sounds cynical, also spare a thought for a news media that has ceased to function as a critic and instead champions policy ideas, no matter how theoretically expensive, purely as virtue signals. If you hoped for climate policy that might actually affect climate, the press perhaps is the ultimate place to point the finger." [1]

Yes, Biden's subsidies will not make the world much greener. Biden's subsidies will move future industry from European Union and China into the United States, making America energy and military superpower again. That is big enough thing.

1. Biden and Media Are EV Grifters
Jenkins, Holman W; Jr.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 19 Apr 2023: A.15.