Posted on Dec 9, 2016
Defense Lobby's Answer to Trump? Don't Tweet Back
1.09K
13
5
6
6
0
When President-elect Donald Trump took to Twitter this week to attack the projected costs of a new Air Force One — an aircraft still years away from production — it left defense and industry officials puzzled, to say the least.
Many took issue with Trump’s use of the $4 billion figure to describe the overall cost of the program. While the figure wasn’t that far off, it’s worth noting the amount includes two airplanes designed to withstand electromagnetic attacks and other doomsday scenarios.
More importantly, Trump’s latest Tweetstorm triggered a conversation among industry officials over how to address spur-of-the-moment commentary from the next POTUS.
“This is a relatively new phenomenon,” said David Melcher, chief executive officer of Aerospace Industries Association. “I know the right answer is not going to be: ‘Tweet back,'” Melcher joked as he addressed press and officials after AIA’s annual media luncheon on Tuesday outside Washington, D.C.
Melcher applauded Boeing Co.’s official statement to the tweet, which he said addressed current, hard facts.
“We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the president of the United States,” Todd Blecher, a spokesman for Boeing, said in a statement in response.
AIA as a whole, Melcher said, needs to “speak as the collective voice of all of our companies on issues we think are important across the industry, and not to try to respond or react to today’s tweet, or tomorrow’s tweet or anything else.”
“I think our response would be in line with Boeing’s which is, let’s just look at the facts of this … What’s tweeted today is not necessarily going to be the policy of tomorrow,” he said.
But Melcher did point out if a Defense Department program is too restrictive causing costs to bubble, then it is something that “should be reexamined” — something the industry has taken heat for.
For example, the F-35 program, already the most expensive U.S. weapons program at nearly $400 billion, may still need another $500 million to finish development, according to reports from Bloomberg last month. The request would go into the 2018 defense budget proposal.
Aviation programs aren’t the only ones under the microscope.
Lawmakers on Tuesday said they’re mulling over a hearing to address the latest reports from The Washington Post that the Pentagon reportedly buried a study exposing $125 billion — $25 billion a year over five years — in administrative waste.
Addressing the report, Melcher said, “I think any organization in this nation being the government or industry or corporate has the potential to cut three, four percent out of defense spending,” within its overhead.
“I could tell you defense contracting companies are a pretty lean lot these days. I think our corporations are pretty lean, and I think the governments are not as lean,” he said.
Like anything else, it’s for the department to decide, “what do we want to do with this and what changes do they want to make.”
Company outsourcing will most likely take a hit, given that Trump has, on Twitter no less, addressed the practice as “wrong.”
How this affects defense is yet to be seen.
Melcher said capabilities that relate to national security and defense, “most of them are jobs in the United States, manufacturing operations in the United States.”
“Some of the bigger companies have manufacturing operations” in various nations, he added. “I think they were principally bought because they couldn’t repatriate capital … and so they tried to use it in an effective or efficient way, bought an overseas company in order to [get into] different markets, but we’re principally a U.S.-based industry.”
The AIA head said he doesn’t foresee a lot of change otherwise to how the U.S. business model works on the defense side, though some companies may address their commercial operations.
@ SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas Capt Christopher MuellerCOL Mikel J. BurroughsSgt Joe LaBrancheSSgt (Join to see)Capt Seid WaddellSrA Christopher Wright LTC Stephen F.PO2 Ed C. PO2 Mark Saffell MSG Tom EarleyPVT James Strait Alan K. PO1 William "Chip" NagelSGT John " Mac " McConnellSSG Leo Bell SFC William Farrell LTC (Join to see) SPC Britanny *Winnie* Balthaser
Many took issue with Trump’s use of the $4 billion figure to describe the overall cost of the program. While the figure wasn’t that far off, it’s worth noting the amount includes two airplanes designed to withstand electromagnetic attacks and other doomsday scenarios.
More importantly, Trump’s latest Tweetstorm triggered a conversation among industry officials over how to address spur-of-the-moment commentary from the next POTUS.
“This is a relatively new phenomenon,” said David Melcher, chief executive officer of Aerospace Industries Association. “I know the right answer is not going to be: ‘Tweet back,'” Melcher joked as he addressed press and officials after AIA’s annual media luncheon on Tuesday outside Washington, D.C.
Melcher applauded Boeing Co.’s official statement to the tweet, which he said addressed current, hard facts.
“We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the president of the United States,” Todd Blecher, a spokesman for Boeing, said in a statement in response.
AIA as a whole, Melcher said, needs to “speak as the collective voice of all of our companies on issues we think are important across the industry, and not to try to respond or react to today’s tweet, or tomorrow’s tweet or anything else.”
“I think our response would be in line with Boeing’s which is, let’s just look at the facts of this … What’s tweeted today is not necessarily going to be the policy of tomorrow,” he said.
But Melcher did point out if a Defense Department program is too restrictive causing costs to bubble, then it is something that “should be reexamined” — something the industry has taken heat for.
For example, the F-35 program, already the most expensive U.S. weapons program at nearly $400 billion, may still need another $500 million to finish development, according to reports from Bloomberg last month. The request would go into the 2018 defense budget proposal.
Aviation programs aren’t the only ones under the microscope.
Lawmakers on Tuesday said they’re mulling over a hearing to address the latest reports from The Washington Post that the Pentagon reportedly buried a study exposing $125 billion — $25 billion a year over five years — in administrative waste.
Addressing the report, Melcher said, “I think any organization in this nation being the government or industry or corporate has the potential to cut three, four percent out of defense spending,” within its overhead.
“I could tell you defense contracting companies are a pretty lean lot these days. I think our corporations are pretty lean, and I think the governments are not as lean,” he said.
Like anything else, it’s for the department to decide, “what do we want to do with this and what changes do they want to make.”
Company outsourcing will most likely take a hit, given that Trump has, on Twitter no less, addressed the practice as “wrong.”
How this affects defense is yet to be seen.
Melcher said capabilities that relate to national security and defense, “most of them are jobs in the United States, manufacturing operations in the United States.”
“Some of the bigger companies have manufacturing operations” in various nations, he added. “I think they were principally bought because they couldn’t repatriate capital … and so they tried to use it in an effective or efficient way, bought an overseas company in order to [get into] different markets, but we’re principally a U.S.-based industry.”
The AIA head said he doesn’t foresee a lot of change otherwise to how the U.S. business model works on the defense side, though some companies may address their commercial operations.
@ SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas Capt Christopher MuellerCOL Mikel J. BurroughsSgt Joe LaBrancheSSgt (Join to see)Capt Seid WaddellSrA Christopher Wright LTC Stephen F.PO2 Ed C. PO2 Mark Saffell MSG Tom EarleyPVT James Strait Alan K. PO1 William "Chip" NagelSGT John " Mac " McConnellSSG Leo Bell SFC William Farrell LTC (Join to see) SPC Britanny *Winnie* Balthaser
Defense Lobby's Answer to Trump? Don't Tweet Back
Posted from dodbuzz.com
Equipment
Office of the President (POTUS)
Technology
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
I thought it was very appropriate for the incoming President of the USA Donald Trump to make a decision to cut costs for the airplane fleet that carries him on official journeys SP5 Mark Kuzinski. Just because a new President comes along does not mean that the previous POTUS aircraft fleet needs to be replaced. Upgrades, refurbishment of existing aircraft makes much more sense that replacing the fleet.
While there is a potential for lost government-contract jobs. If the prime and sub-contract firms take care of their folks they will work on other contracts, if not they will move on.
On the other had, the retrofitting and upgrading of the existing fleet probably result in other skilled-workers being hired.
Kudos to President-elect Donald Trump for this decision and many others for that matter :-)
It seems that the defense industry lobby is walking a tightrope: (1) trying to realign their approach in preparation for the incoming POTUS Donald Trump administration and (2) preparing for the Congressional heat generated in response to the "study exposing $125 billion — $25 billion a year over five years — in administrative waste" which almost certainly will mean increased scrutiny from Congress.
I was interested to learn that David Melcher, chief executive officer of Aerospace Industries Association "applauded Boeing Co.’s official statement to the tweet, which he said addressed current, hard facts. “We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the president of the United States,” Todd Blecher, a spokesman for Boeing, said in a statement in response.
AIA as a whole, Melcher said, needs to “speak as the collective voice of all of our companies on issues we think are important across the industry, and not to try to respond or react to today’s tweet, or tomorrow’s tweet or anything else.”
“I think our response would be in line with Boeing’s which is, let’s just look at the facts of this … What’s tweeted today is not necessarily going to be the policy of tomorrow,” he said.
But Melcher did point out if a Defense Department program is too restrictive causing costs to bubble, then it is something that “should be reexamined” — something the industry has taken heat for.
For example, the F-35 program, already the most expensive U.S. weapons program at nearly $400 billion, may still need another $500 million to finish development, according to reports from Bloomberg last month. The request would go into the 2018 defense budget proposal.
Aviation programs aren’t the only ones under the microscope.
Lawmakers on Tuesday said they’re mulling over a hearing to address the latest reports from The Washington Post that the Pentagon reportedly buried a study exposing $125 billion — $25 billion a year over five years — in administrative waste."
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL LTC Stephen C. CW5 (Join to see) SFC William Farrell SSgt (Join to see) SGT (Join to see) SGT Forrest Stewart SPC (Join to see) SrA Christopher Wright Maj William W. "Bill" Price Capt Tom Brown SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4"SSgt Robert Marx TSgt Joe C. SGT Robert George PO2 Ed C.
While there is a potential for lost government-contract jobs. If the prime and sub-contract firms take care of their folks they will work on other contracts, if not they will move on.
On the other had, the retrofitting and upgrading of the existing fleet probably result in other skilled-workers being hired.
Kudos to President-elect Donald Trump for this decision and many others for that matter :-)
It seems that the defense industry lobby is walking a tightrope: (1) trying to realign their approach in preparation for the incoming POTUS Donald Trump administration and (2) preparing for the Congressional heat generated in response to the "study exposing $125 billion — $25 billion a year over five years — in administrative waste" which almost certainly will mean increased scrutiny from Congress.
I was interested to learn that David Melcher, chief executive officer of Aerospace Industries Association "applauded Boeing Co.’s official statement to the tweet, which he said addressed current, hard facts. “We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the president of the United States,” Todd Blecher, a spokesman for Boeing, said in a statement in response.
AIA as a whole, Melcher said, needs to “speak as the collective voice of all of our companies on issues we think are important across the industry, and not to try to respond or react to today’s tweet, or tomorrow’s tweet or anything else.”
“I think our response would be in line with Boeing’s which is, let’s just look at the facts of this … What’s tweeted today is not necessarily going to be the policy of tomorrow,” he said.
But Melcher did point out if a Defense Department program is too restrictive causing costs to bubble, then it is something that “should be reexamined” — something the industry has taken heat for.
For example, the F-35 program, already the most expensive U.S. weapons program at nearly $400 billion, may still need another $500 million to finish development, according to reports from Bloomberg last month. The request would go into the 2018 defense budget proposal.
Aviation programs aren’t the only ones under the microscope.
Lawmakers on Tuesday said they’re mulling over a hearing to address the latest reports from The Washington Post that the Pentagon reportedly buried a study exposing $125 billion — $25 billion a year over five years — in administrative waste."
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL LTC Stephen C. CW5 (Join to see) SFC William Farrell SSgt (Join to see) SGT (Join to see) SGT Forrest Stewart SPC (Join to see) SrA Christopher Wright Maj William W. "Bill" Price Capt Tom Brown SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4"SSgt Robert Marx TSgt Joe C. SGT Robert George PO2 Ed C.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
SGT (Join to see) What concerns me most in this outside of being slightly unprofessional is this statement:
We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the president of the United States,” Todd Blecher, a spokesman for Boeing, said in a statement in response.
So... you are going to soak us for that much dough just to do some research for an aircraft you are going to sell back to us. Yeah- that bothers me a tad.... Just a small interject- if I was screwing the American people for my services- I might get a bit mad if I was called out too.
We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the president of the United States,” Todd Blecher, a spokesman for Boeing, said in a statement in response.
So... you are going to soak us for that much dough just to do some research for an aircraft you are going to sell back to us. Yeah- that bothers me a tad.... Just a small interject- if I was screwing the American people for my services- I might get a bit mad if I was called out too.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google