Lockheed Tanks After Trump Tweets He Told Boeing To Price Cheaper F-18 Competitor To F-35

Tyler Durden's picture

Another day, another market-moving tweet from Donald Trump.

Moments ago, the president-elect, following up on his recent spat with Lockheed over the F-35, which one week ago Trump said its "program and cost is out of control”, continued his crusade on over-budget government programs, when he tweeted that "based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!"

The immediate kneejerk response has been to send Boeing stock higher, while LMT has slide over 1% in the after hours, as Trump once again moves stocks with his tweets.


Earlier in the day, following Trump's tweet that "the United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes", the result was a surge in Uranium miners surging, as shown in the following ETF.

Prior to that, when Trump's team announced that Carl Icahn would be named special adviser to help overhaul federal regulations, that in turn sparked a rally in merchant refiners and sent shares lower in industries the activist investor has publicly rebuked.

As Bloomberg notes, "the sharp share fluctuations highlight the market-moving ability of both Trump’s Twitter account and his cabinet appointments. Since his election victory in November, he’s rattled industries from aerospace to health-care, using his social media presence and business-friendly appointments to create and erase billions of dollars of market value at a moment’s notice."

Expect even sharper market reactions as more algos and quant shop train their algos to only focus on Trump's twitter feed in the future.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
TahoeBilly2012's picture

Love it! Now ask how much war with Russia would cost in a Tweet,

duo's picture

Bring back the A-10 while your at it, Donald.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture


The Boeing F-18 Super Hornet is not 'comparable' to a F-35. Not even close. The F-18 is 4th gen and the F-35 is 5th generation.

Then again, the F-18 is known technology and the F-35 still has a boat load of teething problems.

duo's picture

Stealth isn't that important when you're battling cave dwellers living the 7th century lifestyle. The A10 and AC130 with Gatling guns are the weapon of choice.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I agree the A-10 is much more effective when engaging ground forces. No question.

But the armed forces have been accused of fighting the last war instead of the future war. The F-35 is a future war air superiority fighter. It was never designed to engage ground forces in the manner of the A-10

The A-10 is an air tank. The F-35 is an air athlete.

My original point was Trump cannot compare the F-35 to the F-18 Super Hornet. Not the same class of aircraft.

Likstane's picture

Is there any subject you are not an authority on ?

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Many many subjects.

But I have been closely following aircraft and spacecraft development for more than 55 years. I have always been fascinated with flight.

Supafly's picture

Seems like regardless of your level of knowledge, you use your brain to think too.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Hush. Don't tell the snowflakes or they might try it and hurt themselves, then demand I be executed for peddling fiction.

We should just wrap them all up in bubble wrap, then send them out into a world full of pins and sharp objects.

It might be entertaining.

Archibald Buttle's picture

according to the fake/real news, it is as unready for combat as the f35. so, i'm just speckalting about a hypothesis here, but i bet a fancy f18 could be an affordable, and more importantly viable choice? and just to set the record straight: jeezus tom, i know i don't know nothin'.

Vatican_cameo's picture


The F-35 is a Piece of Shit, a very expensive Piece of Shit.  It doesn't do ANYTHING well.  It's very slow, a pig on fuel and can't maneuver out of it's own way.  Over $1 Trillion Dollars has been spent on this Garbage Heap and we have nothing.  This aircraft also requires at Least 40 hours of maintenance time for every flight hour.  By comparison, the Soviets are selling the Sukhoi SU-35 for less than $45 Million a piece.  This aircraft will "Literally" fly circles around the Lockheed Cash Cow.  We should scrap the F-35, send Lockheed packing and stock up on Sukhoi fighters.  This entire Lockheed Scandal has been nothing but that, a Scandal.  A Trillion Dollars spent on the Emperors new clothes.


Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Agreed. You mistake me for someone who is defending the plane.

But you can't compare the 4th gen F-18 to the 5th gen F-35. Which of the three+ versions of the F-35 is Trump comparing? The VTOL version for the Marines? Or the Navy version designed for takeoff and landing on an aircraft carrier? How about the version designed for the Air Force? Or the version for export?

Trump is making political statements, not informed statements. He is making a political statement just like he claimed he would drain the swamp.

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

The main difference between 4th generation and 5th generation fighters is analogous to the difference between magnitude 4 and magnitude 5 earthquakes, in that the newer fighter costs ten times as much as the older one.

Archibald Buttle's picture

is there no end to the theft, fraud, fucking blatant corruption? FFS, we can get way better earthquakes for our tax FRNs if we just subsidize the fracking fiasco instead of these unusable gazillion FRN contracts for planes that dont get  cleared for combat. /s?

Vatican_cameo's picture


Every version of this junk is nothing but a Bottomless Money Pit.  In this case, the "4th Generation" A/C is Superior to the "5th Generation" A/C (what does all this "Generation" crap mean anyway?)  Multi-role/ Multi-purpose Aircraft are an Urban Legend.  A-10 were designed for a specific niche and they fill it better than anything else.  C-130 are niche specific as well as the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18.  As soon as you try and put a "Square peg in a Round hole", the result is an A/C that doesn't do ANYTHING well.  Think about this for a moment.  You have a "5th Generation" fighter with a price tag upwards of $300 million each at mature volume.  It can't defeat a Mig-15 in a dog fight, it actually loses.  $300 million dollars gets you an A/C that can be defeated in battle by a jet introduced in 1949.  If that isn't indicative of a Huge Problem, than nothing is.  BTW, the exotic swiveling tail nozzle is good for about 80 hours of operation before it has to be replaced.  The Helmet for the pilot is just over $500,000 Each.  Bottomless Money Pit.

Archibald Buttle's picture

the inability of our betters to understand the inevitable consequences of complexity boggles the mind. so it goes.

Verniercaliper's picture

No one dogfights anymore. It's about guided missiles....and older jets light up like a Christmas tree on modern radars. It may be way too expensive, but the F-35 will kill 4th gen opponents in a real battle. It;s not about the capability, it's the cost, especially when drones are relatively cheap.  

mkkby's picture

Shut up, fuck tard.  First you say dogfights never happen.  Then you say the f-35 would win a dogfight.

What does the f-35 win sitting in a maintenance hangar?

Resume your goat sucking and comment at another site.

SoDamnMad's picture

It isn't fair to you to get into this type of discusion. People compare aircrafts and not "greater things".  I wonder if stealth technology is a dead horse because of inovations in low band radar. Russia is still moving ahead with their T-50 but I wonder if it is because of finances or have the Russian physicists shown that they can detect stealth and are working on a secondary radar platform.  If so then they gin out more and better rugged aircraft that can operate from highways under the protection of SA-400/ 500 ground air defenses which negate the long standoff missiles that support our theory of destroying aircraft beyond the horizon before they are close enough to even think about dog-fighting.  Perhaps warfare is headed towards swarms of pilotless drones that can hunt the treetops of the battlefield.  Cruise, hypersonic missiles will go after the long out targets.  

To rattle on about selecting grossly expensive, piloted aircraft seems like defending the battleship over the aircraft carrier.  I'd go with the air independent, diesel electric sub over a 9 billion dollar Gerald Ford but as Boris says, "What do I know?"

IronForge's picture

I've been IN IT since the Late 80s on the DoD Side - managed Govt Engineers at a Major Aerospace Sub's Plant.

What The Donald just did was make everyone in LMT pee their pants a bit.

Everyone knows that this could mean yet another Competitive Showdown and a New Production Run for the (previously anemic) F-18 (friggin totally useless during Desert Shield - Top Brass Snowflaking Sortie Ordnance Loads cut the icing on the Cake). 

The F-15 Sales Team have been touting their "Updated Stealth Version" for some time as well.

Next Step?  A Halt/Pause in Production - just to tighten the screws a bit more...

Barney Fife's picture

Some of us didn't spend our lives wallowing in abject ignorance, glued to the idiot box, or in pursuit of mindless distracting amusements, while eschewing intellecual discourse and knowledge acquisition as 'fagotty'. This unfortunately is an accurate caricature of about 90% of Americans. 

In other words, some people actually took a liking to learning for the sake of pure curiosity as its own motive, and continued to acquire knowledge long after high school. Cog is one of them. 

Lex_Luthor's picture

It was never designed to engage ground forces in the manner of the A-10


You are sooo wrong, my friend. F-35 was supposed to replace A-10. It was supposed to be designed like that. It's not (another story), but it was supposed (and paid for) to.

ACP's picture

Absolutely right, I saw Die Hard 4.

balolalo's picture

it's pathetic to see all the trumpsters suck his dick over a tweet. 

  all he is doing is distracting you, all the while promising to increase the excessiviley bloated and genocidal military industrial complex.

and you all fall for it. 



and sinker

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

What you and I (and Congress) were told the F-35 was designed to do and what it actually was designed to do are two different things.

You simply can't design a Mach 1.5 fighter jet that can also engage ground forces at the slow speeds the A-10 utilizes. Nor carry the external weapons load of the A-10. And certainly not the Gatling gun of the A-10.

Even with the three different versions, they failed to accomplish what we were sold....and everyone knew it at the time. In fact, when Lockheed and Boeing were competing for this contract two decades ago, Boeing was frank in their design proposal,  indicating it could not be done and compromises would need to be made. Lockheed lied and said it could.

Guess who got the contract.

Archibald Buttle's picture

the one that bribed the .gov enough to get the contract to build the unicorn? thats the one my money is on...

caconhma's picture

I hear Trump has asked the Wright brothers to bid against Boeing on the replacement Air Force One...

1980XLS's picture

The f-35 is a piece of Shit. 

max_leering's picture

over the life of the f35 program, it's a $1.5 trillion piece of shit

bh2's picture

Perhaps we should be studying how Russia manages to produce its war-making equipment for a fraction of the cost of ours. :)

Victor von Doom's picture

They shoot fuckers that try to rip off Putin.

Perhaps the US taxpayer should have the same line of defence.

mkkby's picture

The russian strategy has always been about superior numbers and battle hard reliability over high tech doo dads.  But then, they have too because they don't have the reserve currency and an unlimited printer.

If you can print money, and you intend to default some day, you can waste money on technical masturbations.  The problem is, when those experiments fail it's best to cut bait.  Not double down and waste trillions.

GCT's picture

Cog I just had to chime in on this one.  The A10 is a life saver for us ground pounders.  That ole jet is frigging tough.  No other close air support plane, jets, comes close to its lethality. I know I have blessed the pilots when I needed them.

The aircraft is cheap compare to most Air Force and Navy planes.  They were so lethal the Army wanted to appropriate them when the Air Force wanted to retire them.  Of course we cannot have that as the ground war is not an issue to the other forces.  Although ground forces will always be needed to help the terrain.  No drone, fighter aircraft of bombs will hold territory contrary to the current thought process in DC.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I an NOT putting down the A-10. It is one of the best aircraft ever designed and built. They have tried to put that aircraft out to pasture many times and still it is flying.They should update the design and build hundreds more.

It is a flying tank that can take incredible punishment and still fly. There are pictures of A-10's with huge holes in the wings or a tail nearly completely gone and still it was landed safely.

When I say it is a tank, I am complementing it.

My first comment was about the F-35 and the F-18. Someone else was talking about the A-10.

edotabin's picture

Right. The A10 is cheap, straitforward and does its job marvelously. We can't have that now, can we?

As usual, they claimed they were going to save money by making one plane do everything and they spend tons more and the F-35 does little, if anything. Classic .gov syphon the money out tactics.

Verniercaliper's picture

It's the age of drones.....too risky to send pilots into harm's way in an A-10. SAM's and MANPADS are very capable today. A-10 is an old platform that has had its day

Cynicles's picture

F 35 the "piolet killer" remains an overpriced POS.

If it worked as billed, well...then we will, see when (if) that happens.

Inexcye Solm's picture

The F-22 is an air athlete, and still protected tec, while the F-35 is for sale to all US allies. No brainer if you follow aviation.

zenbones's picture

How do you defeat the F-22? You send up 50 Cessnas for every F-22. After 49 Cessnas are shot down and no more bombs or bullets remain, the F-22 has to go back to base and spend 100 hours in maintenance. That's when the 50th Cessna comes and drops bombs.

turnball the banker's picture
turnball the banker (not verified) zenbones Dec 22, 2016 7:01 PM

In simulated dogfights the red baron beats the f35

Koba the Dread's picture

Yeah, the F-35 is an athlete. . .if you're competing in the special olympics.

83_vf_1100_c's picture

Future wars (between big players) will be internet based and/or nuclear (EMP).You don't really need all the modern technoligical toys to sestroy a modern enemy. A dozen or less EMPs will put a large country back to the stone age.

No, not in the same class. The F-18 is reliable. The F-35 is fast proving to be a boondoggle that will never do what it was advertised to do. Lockheed fucked up.


Archibald Buttle's picture

maybe. ask the CEO and his gang if they fucked up. if they are candid, they will tell you that, no, they made out like bandits.

mkkby's picture

The russian planes have been EMP hardened since the 70s.  Your imbecile strategy just failed.  You're dead. 

Now SHUT UP and go back to the kid's table.

Law97's picture

Cog, I love your comments and you are usually right on, but this time, you are mistaken.  The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter.  It is not an "air athelete."  It is primarily a strike or attack aircraft that also has decent air-to-air capability.  A jack-of-all-trades (master of none).  But NOT an air superiority fighter.  The F-22 is designed from the get go to be an air superiority fighter, but not the F-35.


I'm in the military and follow this very closely.  Let me just say, the F-35 is designed primarily to enrich defense contractors, and at that mission, it has succeeded spectacularly.  Trump is right on this one.  The F-35 is good, no doubt, but it has terrible bang-for-the-buck compared with other aircraft types.  It costs 20X (or more, depending on how many we end up buying, the more we buy, the less per unit they cost) as much as a new F18 Super Hornet, but it isn't 20X as good.  The US military needs to start considering overall fighting capability vs the money spent.  And by this measure, the F-35 is an overpriced boondoggle.  If cost was no object, then sure, the F-35 is good, but that's not the world we live in.  Give me 1,000 F-18 Super Hornets and I will defeat 50 F-35's (using the 20X cost figure).  The colonels will tell you this, but the generals are all pushing the F-35 in hopes of a lucrative defense contractor "consulting" job upon retirement.  


The best place to spend big bucks on the best aircraft is for a dedicated air superiority fighter.  Once you have air superiority, it almost doesn't matter what aircraft you use for ground attack and other missions.  That's why I am a big proponent of the F-22.  Plus, the generals won't let the F-35 do ground attack anyway.  They are too expensive to risk doing strafing runs or being based close to the front lines.  And it requires a huge logistical tail and improved runways.  I could go on and on.  The F-35 is just a bad idea.  


I agree with you the A-10 is totally awesome and they should just keep building new ones as the old ones wear out.  It is the best ground attack aircraft ever and can dominate that role for decades to come.   Cheap.  Effective.  And the ground troops love 'em.  



BigDuke6's picture

I know general dynamics is owned by cheesepopes but is Lockheed too?