Regardless of the reasons they spout I have 0 belief that the C suite of LM or any company for that manner would make any decision that would make them less money.
Whatever excuses they come up with at the root of it is the idea that they will make more money by doing it this way.
I get your cynicism, but it doesn't really offer any ideas for improvement.
If both parties are happier with the arrangement, and it leads to more agility, what exactly is wrong with it. The military is projected to decrease (as % GDP)[1] over the next decade. If they spend more on software and less on overpriced hardware, that might be a good thing.
They are saying the same thing the military is. The US Military is actively trying out new ways of purchasing, because the old model is not working and not agile enough for today's environment.
I trust that the people leading the military know what they need and that Lockheed cannot force them into this. Everyone is ideating right now, the UA War seems to have woken the West up. No need to derail an idea just because it comes from Lockheed's CEO
It's not a zero-sum game. Risk hurts everyone. If risks can be reduced, then both Lockheed Martin can earn more profit and the costs can be lower for taxpayers.
Whatever excuses they come up with at the root of it is the idea that they will make more money by doing it this way.