Showing posts with label defense industry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defense industry. Show all posts

Saturday, April 5, 2025

Trump 2.0 - Tariffs are beautiful, trade wars are easy

Poder Aereo reports: “Portugal’s Minister of National Defence, Nuno Melo, announced that the country will not acquire F-35 fighters from the United States, considering the current geopolitical context and the unpredictability of US policy.”

“The minister emphasized that … allied predictability is a crucial factor in deciding on the replacement of combat aircraft.”

[...]

In an interview with Publico, Melo also commented: “And this ally of ours, which for decades has always been predictable, may bring limitations in use, maintenance, components, everything that has to do with ensuring that aircraft will be operational and will be used in all kinds of scenarios.”

[...]

About a month ago, CBC reported: “The government’s facing calls to reconsider or cancel major Canadian contracts with the U.S. including a more than $19-billion deal to buy 88 F-35 fighter jets with U.S. defence company Lockheed-Martin.”

[...]

[New Liberal leader Mark] Carney has not commented specifically on the planned F-35 purchase yet, but in early-February, CBC reported that: “Carney said 80 per cent of defence purchases made by this country involve the U.S. and that has to change.”

  PBI
Who will win the war between Trump and American "defense" contractors?

Trump's idiotic trade war is not going to bring back manufacturing to the US - we don't have any fucking factories! - he's destroying the only industry we have.













Monday, January 6, 2020

Once again - war is good for business

Defense executives from around the country crowded into Goldman Sachs’ glimmering tower in downtown Manhattan in mid-May, eager to present before a conference of bankers and financial analysts.

[...]

Eric DeMarco, the president of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, addressed the conference, arguing that his company is “very well-aligned” for the shift in the military budget away from asymmetrical fighting toward nation-state warfare.

The rising threat of war with Iran, Russia, and China, DeMarco continued, could threaten U.S. naval power, which could require ballistic missile threat upgrades, the type of systems Kratos Defense specializes in.

  The Intercept
The same gleeful excitement that set up a vendors' trade show in the wake of the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Large arms manufacturers from across the industry have similarly told investors that escalating conflict with Iran could be good for business.

Thomas Kennedy, the CEO of Raytheon, was asked in January about the “demand signals” that could shape the defense budget going forward. Kennedy, according to a transcript of the call, said the “major concern there is Iran.” The company, Kennedy added, had recently won approval to provide missile defense systems to Saudi Arabia, as the country has ramped up defense systems in preparation for potential war.

The following month, Kennedy presented at the Cowen Aerospace conference for investors, again focusing on how conflict with Iran will boost revenue. Kennedy said he had spent time on Capitol Hill discussing “all the information that we’re seeing from Russia and from China and to a certain degree even still North Korea and then what Iran is doing.” The discussions in Washington, D.C., he said, left him “pretty optimistic about the U.S. budget moving forward.”

Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson also discussed the rising threat from Iran during her company’s investor call in January. The Defense Department’s National Defense Strategy, a blueprint released earlier this year for military planning, said Hewson, focused on “great power competition with China and Russia, and also the other players like Iran and North Korea.” The strategy, along with “bipartisan support for defense spending,” favored her company moving forward, Hewson said.
Eisenhower from his grave: I told you so.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Saturday, December 22, 2018

The brilliant minds in the Pentagon

Trump administration officials are removing the Pentagon’s top weapon buying negotiator

[...]

Shay Assad, a senior Defense Department bureaucrat, is being reassigned to a post in Massachusetts, one unconnected to the contract negotiating team he has led for seven years, according to current and former defense officials familiar with the decision.

[...]

Assad has been the Pentagon’s top contract negotiator for much of this decade. His office was created in 2011 under the Better Buying Power reforms created by Carter, the Pentagon acquisition chief who went on to become defense secretary. Assad became known as a hard-nosed negotiator; within five years, Politico dubbed him him “the most hated man in the Pentagon.”

[...]

The move comes after Assad championed a plan to change how the Pentagon pays defense firms, by tying contractor payments to their performance instead of to production milestones.

  Defense One
Gasp!
Assad had a special arrangement that allowed him to live in the Boston area and commute regularly to Washington, current and former defense officials said. Neither Ash Carter, then the Pentagon’s acquisition chief, nor his successor Frank Kendall objected to this arrangement, because they viewed Assad as unusually good at saving taxpayers’ money.

But the Defense Department spent $502,758 between 2012 and 2019 on Assad’s “transportation costs,” Lt. Col. Mike Andrews, a Pentagon spokesman, said in an email.
I hope during his tenure that he saved the DoD at least that much in contracts.
Current and former Pentagon officials describe Assad as a shrewd negotiator who has saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by getting better deals with major defense contractors. He is credited with getting the Pentagon lower prices on F-35 fighter jets and with allowing SpaceX to compete for government rocket launches, lowering the cost of putting satellites in space.

[...]

In 2016, the Pentagon credited Assad with saving taxpayers $500 million in his negotiating deals for C-17 transport planes, Apache attack helicopters and F/A-18 fighter jets.
About that F-35 contract...the manufacturer should have been required to pay the government to take them.
Much of the defense industry loathes negotiating with Assad, thanks in part to his demands for detailed documentation of the costs incurred while building weapons, several sources said. In March, Lockheed Martin’s CFO Bruce Tanner said that in recent years that negotiating with the Pentagon had become increasingly unpredictable — though he did not specifically mention Assad in his comments.

Then came the proposed rule that would have slowed payments to contractors, which sent defense firms into a frenzy. The three trade associations that represent aerospace and defense companies openly voiced their opposition — as shown by presentations at a September public meeting about the rule changes.

“The proposed rule will limit investment in more lethal and technologically superior capabilities,” the Aerospace Industries Association’s Steve Trautwein wrote in a PowerPoint brief. “The proposed rule undermines Secretary Mattis’s vision of ‘performance’ and will make defense products more expensive.”

[...]

When Wall Street caught wind of the rule change, shares of defense firms slid, including those of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics.

[...]

Then Congress got involved. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services committees, wrote to Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan saying they had “significant reservations” about the proposed change in payments to contractors, calling the rule “fundamentally flawed.”
I bet they did.

It's looking pretty obvious that Assad is being removed from his position due to complaints from the "defense" industry. They liked being able to charge whatever the fuck they wanted to charge.

 ...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Bipartisan

A bipartisan commission has determined that President Trump’s recent record defense bill is insufficiently massive to keep America safe, and we should spend more, while cutting “entitlements.”

The National Defense Strategy Commission concluded the Department of Defense was too focused on “efficiency” and needed to accept “greater cost and risk” to search for “leap-ahead technologies” to help the U.S. maintain superiority.

[...]

The report even contains a graph that shows defense spending crawling sadly along the floor of the spending X-axis as mighty mandatory “entitlements” soar to great heights.

  Matt Taibbi
Un.fucking.believable. Are they going to push this through before the next Congress gets a chance to knock it down?
This is the same Department of Defense with a serious existing accounting problem. In 2016, before Trump was elected, its Inspector General said he could not properly track $6.5 trillion in defense spending. A later academic study claimed the number was $21 trillion, looking at the years 1998-2015.

Trump originally asked for over $730 billion in defense spending for Fiscal Year 2019, and last spring a budget setting spending at $716 billion passed 85-10 in the Senate. This would have meant an $82 billion spending hike, an increase that by itself was larger than the entire defense budget of every country on earth, save China.

Trump later called for an across-the-board budget cut of 5 percent, leaving the amount of the defense budget in confusion. He still claims he wants $700 billion. Whatever the final amount turns out to be, it will be massive — about 10 times the size of Russia’s defense budget, and four times the size of China’s.

[...]

We regularly hear that our weapons systems are old, outdated and placing troops in harm’s way. It’s an ancient political device and it usually works.

[...]

Any sober assessment of the challenges faced by the United States since the collapse of the Soviet Union would have stressed human intelligence and data security at the expense of World War II-style arsenals designed to fight conventional wars. Aircraft carriers aren’t much help against terrorism or cyber-attacks.

But the companies that build ships and subs and fighter jets have huge lobbies in D.C., and the congressional pork system significantly revolves around defense allocations.

So instead of looking honestly at where we do and do not need to spend, the military mostly looks at existing weapons systems — even ones that work pretty well — and focuses on how long it’s been since we unveiled jazzy re-designs.

[...]

The Pentagon has a powerful lobby; the anti-Pentagon, not so much.

[...]

Even our president could see through it, once. Shortly after his election, Trump blasted the F-35 program as “out of control” and promised to save “billions” on it.

Then Trump met with Lockheed Martin chief executive Marilyn Hewson, and the president appeared to warm to the F-35. Among other things, he seems to believe “stealth” means the plane is literally invisible.

[...]

Before long, Trump was speaking of the weapon in almost erotic, Conan The Barbarian-esque tones.

[...]

There have been arguments over the years that new developments in long-range anti-ship missiles would expose the [new upgraded aircraft] carrier’s main weakness: it can be sunk rather quickly in modern warfare.

Which means we may find out just minutes into the next conventional war — if, God forbid, we ever have one — that we spent billions making obsolete forms of weaponry pillars of our defense strategy. But sure, free college tuition is a fairy tale.

[...]

Some other questions to consider: What has been the return on the trillions of dollars we’ve spent on wars around the globe since 9/11? Were those 480,000 deaths worth it? Why are we spending buckets of cash on questionable new weapons systems while leaving the VA system in disrepair?

[...]

The Pentagon doesn’t just spend money; it spends a lot of money asking for more money. And it has many friends in politics and the media to help them along. Its people may not be great at preparing for the next war, but, they know how to keep their budgets high, and they’re at it again.
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

And, Who's the Winner?

Always.
The Pentagon’s top weapons supplier, Lockheed Martin, says that customers’ requests for missile defense systems are rising, and North Korea’s continued threats as well as the US reaction may be responsible.

  RT

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

"Shutdown" Avoided

US Congress leaders have reached a bipartisan deal on around $1 trillion in federal funding to avert a government shutdown on Friday this week.

The proposed pact, reached by Republican and Democratic late on Sunday, will fund public spending until September. It will be put to a vote in the following days, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives.

The deal reportedly increases defence spending by $25bn and $1.5bn for border security. This money is not to be spent on the so-called deportation force and there are no cuts to federal funding for sanctuary cities.

[...]

One of the biggest campaign promises - the construction of a border wall to Mexico - had to be put off yet again, because the budget deal does not include any funding for it.

[...]

The Democrats were also able to force other issues during the negotiations. The city of New York was given $68m to cover the expense of protecting the president and his family during their stay at Trump Tower.

  alJazeera
Good for New York. But bad for the rest of the country. If Melania and Barron don't want to move to the White House, the Trump family should be paying that bill.
Republicans were not able to push through cuts to Obamacare subsidies or to the Planned Parenthood Programme.
Tired of all this winning yet, Trump supporters?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Draining the Swamp

Benjamin Cassidy, installed by Trump as assistant secretary for legislative affairs, previously worked as a senior executive at Boeing’s international business sector, marketing Boeing military products abroad. Jonathan Rath Hoffman, named assistant secretary for public affairs, previously worked as a consultant to the Chertoff Group, the sprawling homeland security consulting firm founded by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. The firm has come under fire for advising a variety of firms seeking government contracts, including for full-body scanners deemed invasive by privacy activists. Hoffman also led a state chapter of a neoconservative military-contractor advocacy organization during the 2016 presidential campaign. Neither position requires Senate confirmation.

[...]

Before their confirmations, Jim Mattis and John Kelly, the secretaries of the departments of Defense and Homeland Security, were primarily paid by defense firms.

[...]

Personnel from major defense companies now occupy the highest ranks of the administration including cabinet members and political appointees charged with implementing the Trump agenda. At least 15 officials with financial ties to defense contractors have been either nominated or appointed so far, with potentially more industry names on the way.

[...]

Defense firms have eagerly watched as Trump recently unveiled a budget calling for $54 billion in additional military spending next year, as well as an additional $30 billion for the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security for this fiscal year, which ends on September 31. About $15.5 billion of the $30 billion is slated to be spent on new military equipment.

[...]

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP has weaponized the revolving door by appointing defense contractors and their lobbyists to key government positions as he seeks to rapidly expand the military budget and homeland security programs.

[...]

In the White House, one of the newest members of the National Economic Council staff is Michael Catanzaro, formerly a registered lobbyist working for both Boeing and Halliburton.

[...]

The Trump administration is the “military-industrial complex personified,” said William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy.

  Lee Fang
Get the whole list here.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Monday, February 27, 2017

An Interesting Twist

China announced that Washington and Seoul will face “consequences” over a land swap deal which will allow the US to host its THAAD missile defense system on South Korean soil – a move which Beijing claims will undermine its own ballistic capabilities.

The agreement, which involves a land swap between Seoul and retail giant Lotte, was approved on Monday.

[...]

THAAD is an advanced system designed to intercept short, medium, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles during their terminal flight phase. Equipped with long-range radar, it is believed to be capable of intercepting North Korea’s intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Both Seoul and Washington claim the system is a defensive measure against Pyongyang, while Moscow has urged those involved to consider the escalated tensions it will inevitably cause.

The agreement, announced by the South Korean Defense Ministry on Monday, will allow for THAAD to be deployed to land which is currently part of a golf course owned by Lotte in the Seongju region, south-east of Seoul. In exchange, the retail giant will receive a parcel of military-owned land near the capital.

  RT
Why is the US putting military infrastructure on private corporate land?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 3/7/2017:
According to US Pacific Command, the first elements of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system arrived at Osan airbase in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, on Tuesday.

  RT

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Cock O' the Walk



Oh, "the government" made the accounting estimate error.  Not the Don.



So, don't worry yourself about that pesky wall. Instead...



...everything is grand.

But let's talk about that F-35 deal he made.  It turns out, he didn't.  He had a talk with Lockheed's CEO during which she told him that they expected to lower the price of the next run of planes due to "the company’s long-term effort to bring down the cost of the F-35 by lowering costs in the supply chain and manufacturing."  He immediately went forth and claimed credit.

As for Air Force One, we'll have to wait and see.
Richard Aboulafia, a senior aviation analyst with the Virginia-based Teal Group, questioned the usefulness of Trump’s tactics. He said he assumed Tuesday’s meeting was “theater.”

“These sorts of programs are all extremely complicated in terms of requirements, definitions and trade-offs.”

[...]

Neither Boeing nor the Air Force have indicated what might be reduced to cut costs.

Trump “probably has an idea that Air Force One is a little like his personal business jet so that you use a different supplier to get a cheaper grade of gold on the faucet rather than different electronic warfare suites,” Aboulafia said. “It’s really not like that at all.”

  Dayton Daily News
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:


Monday, December 19, 2016

Who Leaked the Podesta Emails? Who Hacked the DNC?

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has publicly denied that Russia was the source of the leaks and one of his associates, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a “disgruntled” Democrat upset with the DNC’s sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community.

[...]

“John Podesta was a paid lobbyist for the Saudi government,” Murray noted. “If the American security services were not watching the communications of the Saudi government’s paid lobbyist in Washington, then the American security services would not be doing their job. … His communications are going to be of interest to a great number of other security services as well.”

[...]

In reference to the leak of the DNC emails, Murray noted that “Julian Assange took very close interest in the death of Seth Rich, the Democratic staff member” who had worked for the DNC on voter databases and was shot and killed on July 10 near his Washington, D.C., home.

Murray continued, “WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the capture of his killers. So, obviously there are suspicions there about what’s happening and things are somewhat murky. I’m not saying – don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that he was the source of the [DNC] leaks. What I’m saying is that it’s probably not an unfair indication to draw that WikiLeaks believes that he may have been killed by someone who thought he was the source of the leaks … whether correctly or incorrectly.”

Though acknowledging that such killings can become grist for conspiracy buffs, Murray added: “But people do die over this sort of stuff. There were billions of dollars – literally billions of dollars – behind Hillary Clinton’s election campaign and those people have lost their money.

“You have also to remember that there’s a big financial interest – particularly in the armaments industry – in a bad American relationship with Russia and the worse the relationship with Russia is the larger contracts the armaments industry can expect especially in the most high-tech high-profit side of fighter jets and missiles and that kind of thing.

[...]

"So, there are people standing to lose billions of dollars and anybody who thinks in that situation bad things don’t happen to people is very naïve.”

  Consortium News
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Cut "Defense" Spending? Never!

The Pentagon has buried an internal study that exposed $125 billion in administrative waste in its business operations amid fears Congress would use the findings as an excuse to slash the defense budget.

[...]

The report, issued in January 2015, identified “a clear path” for the Defense Department to save $125 billion over five years. The plan would not have required layoffs of civil servants or reductions in military personnel.

  WaPo
How far would $125 billion go to restocking pilfered Social Security funds? To universal single payer health care? To improvement in public education or free college tuition? Oh my God! Did I just say "free stuff"?
But some Pentagon leaders said they fretted that by spotlighting so much waste, the study would undermine their repeated public assertions that years of budget austerity had left the armed forces starved of funds.

[...]

Pentagon leaders had requested the study to help make their enormous back-office bureaucracy more efficient and reinvest any savings in combat power. But after the project documented far more wasteful spending than expected, senior defense officials moved swiftly to kill it by discrediting and suppressing the results.

[...]

So the plan was killed.

[...]

For the military, the major allure of the study was that it called for reallocating the $125 billion for troops and weapons.
What this country needs is more armaments.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Obama's Great Democratic Legacy



It's not like we didn't know that would be a possibility when we gave all that power to Obama.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Friday, October 28, 2016

And There It Is

As the U.S. transitions to more sustainable forms of energy, the Obama administration has been steadily investing in retraining programs for people who used to work for the once-booming American coal industry, where states like West Virginia and Kentucky are losing thousands of jobs a year.

This week, the White House announced nearly $28 million in federal grants to fund 42 workforce and economic redevelopment projects in Appalachian states hit hardest, including $1.5 million to build a new education and technology training center in Tennessee and $2.2 million to train former coal workers to fly drones in southwest Virginia.

By including drone pilot training in federal workforce redevelopment programs, the Obama administration is sending a clear signal that it projects drones will soon become a key component of the American economy.

  Recode
Plowshares to swords. Why not? Our economy's base is our "defense" industry.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Friday, August 19, 2016

Marketing 101

The escalating anti-Russian rhetoric in the U.S. presidential campaign comes in the midst of a major push by military contractors to position Moscow as a potent enemy that must be countered with a drastic increase in military spending by NATO countries.

  The Intercept
"What we have is a foreign policy which is essentially a marketing strategy for selling weapons.”  [Jill Stein]

  RT
Aerospace Industries Association, a lobby group for Lockheed Martin, Textron, Raytheon, and other defense contractors, argued in February that the Pentagon is not spending enough to counter “Russian aggression on NATO’s doorstep.”

  The Intercept
This comes on the heels of Ukraine's break-away bid, fostered and supported by the US in a flagrant betrayal of our post-WWII assurances to Russia that we wouldn't try to extend NATO any closer to their borders.
The National Defense Industrial Association, a lobby group for the industry, has called on Congress to make it easier for U.S. contractors to sell arms abroad to allies in response to the threat from Russia.
Fabricated by US media, military and politicians though that threat may be.
The Soviet Union’s military once stood at over 4 million soldiers, but today Russia has less than 1 million. NATO’s combined military budget vastly outranks Russia’s — with the U.S. alone outspending Russia on its military by $609 billion to less than $85 billion.

[...]

“Russian saber-rattling has additional benefits for weapons makers because it has become a standard part of the argument for higher Pentagon spending — even though the Pentagon already has more than enough money to address any actual threat to the United States,” [said William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy.]
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

Putin, Russian, US Elections & NATO Expansion

Here's what you won't hear from the pundits and the pols. They'd rather you think in simple terms of good guys and bad guys, and hopefully lump Trump with Putin, who they tell us wants Trump to win.  Maybe he does.  He has experience with Hillary.  On the other hand, seriously, he has experience with Hillary.  I can't believe anyone who heads up a world power is looking forward to a Trump presidency in the US.
[W]hen Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she endorsed Russian dissidents running against the Putin regime in 2011 and 2012. Washington evidently thought meddling in that foreign election was a noble thing to do.

[...]

What’s going is that the United States and its neocon war hawks are flirting dangerously with the possibility of real war with Russia [...] [M]ost Americans may not [know that] the United States was deeply involved in agitating for the overthrow of Ukraine’s corrupt and Russia-friendly president. The so-called Maidan Revolution succeeded: Ukraine is now governed by a corrupt and US-friendly president. And US taxpayers are on the hook.

In a healthy democracy, both parties would be debating the question. Why should we care who owns Ukraine? The answer may shock some innocent Americans. It’s about gaining a larger market for the US military-industrial complex. That is, recruiting more customers for the planes and other war-fighting equipment manufactured by US companies.

[...]

After all, that was the real reason for NATO expansion after the Cold War ended. Contrary to its assurances [that it would not do so], Washington pushed hard to expand NATO membership eastward, right up to the Russia border. Former Soviet satellites were happy to join, though this was sure to be understood by struggling Russia as a hostile act. Putin’s aggressive posture was his response.

[...]

Ukraine was not included in the initial NATO expansion because that country was such a mess at the time.

[...]

The true winners were Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and other major arms makers. I know this because as a reporter I attended Washington issue forums where the US companies and their congressional lackeys laid out the arguments for expanding NATO. There was no plausible threat at the time to justify it; Russians were suffering through their horrendous post–Cold War depression.

[...]

Most of the new NATO members are too poor to buy the best American-made weapons, but they are part of the thriving second-hand market. Even then, the Pentagon has to provide bargain prices or lend the financing to many countries.

[...]

American taxpayers will be stuck with the check.

  William Greider @ The Nation
I can't remember who I heard say it, but recently I heard someone describe the US foreign policy as a marketing scheme for the defense industry.  Think about it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

There's a US "Planetary Defense" Department?


Is he on call 24/7?  Because, surely he should be.
In early January, NASA announced the establishment of a Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO), which will synchronize U.S. efforts to deal with threatening near-Earth objects (NEOs) and will supervise all NASA-funded projects to find and characterize asteroids and comets that visit Earth's neighborhood.

"There is no identified threat that we know of right now," said Lindley Johnson, NASA's new planetary defense officer.

  Scientific American
"That we know of."  I'd think "identified" would imply knowing of.

And will they be any better at responding than the Bush administration was to the identified threat of planes crashing into the World Trade Center?
"Our intent is to work within the international forums," Johnson said, "and encourage more involvement by other countries."
God knows they've been slackers in the War on Terror.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Monday, October 26, 2015

Those Rooskies Are Tryin'a Take Over the World!



Dude.  That's why we're kickin' their asses.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.