text: On Thursday afternoon, President-elect Donald Trump dropped a bombshell on the defense industry: He asked Boeing to price out an alternative to Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter jets, a hugely valuable contract that Trump has criticized as too expensive. Lockheed's share price plunged almost 2 percent in after-hours trading. 
   
   It was the culmination of weeks of interference by the president-elect in the arcane, bureaucratic function of federal procurement. In early December, it was Boeing on the receiving end of Trump's wrath, when he tweeted that the costs of the new Air Force One planes are “out of control” and told reporters, “Boeing is doing a little bit of a number.” A few days later, he criticized the cost of the F-35 contract. And earlier this week, he convened top military officials and the CEOs of Boeing and Lockheed at his Mar-a-Lago estate to discuss how to bring costs down. Trump told reporters afterward, "We’re just beginning, it’s a dance.” 
   
   More than any other president, Trump appears to want to take a direct role in federal contracting, a technical, complex part of the government that is run by tens of thousands of career civil servants. It is normally a stodgy, rule-bound job, governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation book, which has more than 50 parts and is nearly 2,000 pages long. Mastering the rules and norms takes years, if not decades, and rarely receives much, if any, attention from the upper echelons of government. 
   
   At first glance, Trump would appear to face significant obstacles in using federal contracts as a form of leverage. But conversations with nearly a dozen contracting experts, many who previously worked on procurement issues for the government, suggest that Trump could easily blow through them — and despite the complex bureaucracy, there would likely be few brakes on his use of the process to score political points, reward his friends and punish his enemies. If he does, it could have another effect as well: driving up prices for federal government purchasing overall. 
   
   Unlike traditional contracts, most federal contracts include a “get-out-of-jail” free clause that allows the government to break a contract for a wide variety of reasons. That power is not unlimited, but for companies to prove the government illegally violated the contract, they must prove that the contracting officer acted in “bad faith,” a standard that is exceptionally hard to meet. In one case, a judge held that the company needed “well-nigh irrefragable” — meaning indisputable — “proof” to meet that standard. 
   
   “That language really sent a message to how high the standard was,” said Sandy Hoe, a lawyer at Covington & Burling who has spent more than 40 years practicing government contracts law. “[The courts] have gone away from that but it is still a very, very high standard.” 
   
   It’s hard to know how far Trump could push this power; experts have never considered that a president could effectively use the clause as a weapon against individual companies to further his own political and policy agendas. But Trump has shattered norm after norm and rule after rule on his way to the presidency. 
   
   “Theoretically, it could be done,” David Drabkin, a former top procurement executive at the General Services Administration, said about Trump going after a specific company's federal contracts. “But I can’t imagine it would ever come to that, because it would be a complete violation of both our rules and the culture of how we buy things. He could certainly threaten it. He’s already done it and it worked a little.” 
   
   That the president would use the federal procurement process broadly to advance a certain agenda is actually not uncommon. President Barack Obama has issued numerous executive orders requiring contractors to adhere to certain policies, such as not discriminating against LGBT employees, raising their minimum wage to at least $10.10 per hour and offering paid sick leave. Previous presidents have used those powers as well. And these can have a significant effect on the economy, as the government spent $440 billion on procurement contracts in fiscal 2015. But these were blanket policies, applying to all contractors across the federal government. 
   
   What Trump is doing, by targeting specific companies or specific federal contracts, is new and unprecedented, experts said. “Never seen anything like this,” said Sean O’Keefe, a former secretary of the Navy and comptroller of the Defense Department. 
   
   The most famous example of the federal government canceling a contract came in 1991, when then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney terminated a $4.8 billion contact with General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas to design and build the Navy’s A-12 stealth attack plane. At the time, the aircraft was 18 months behind schedule, around $1 billion over budget and 8,000 pounds overweight. It was the largest weapons-program termination in history and set off a 23-year legal battle between the companies and the federal government. 
   
   The lengthy legal battle occurred because the Navy terminated the contract “for default,” a legal standard meaning that the contractor failed to fulfill its contractual duties. Terminating a contract for default is rare and carries significant financial repercussions for the contractor, which does not get compensated for any uncompleted work. 
   
   “That means you failed to perform, show’s over and we’re going to stop sending you money,” said O’Keefe, who was involved in the A-12 case. “We don’t owe you another dime. Contract closed.” 
   
   While the stakes are high for both the government and contractor in termination for default cases, the government can also terminate contracts “for convenience.” Under such scenarios, the government ends a contract because it deems it no longer in the best interest of the country. It’s a unique power, rarely found in the private sector, that effectively allows the government to get out of contracts. The rationale is that the government’s needs change all the time, sometimes abruptly, such as when a war ends, so it needs the flexibility to adjust or cancel contracts. 
   
   Unlike termination for default, termination for convenience allows the contractor to recoup the costs of all its work done up to the point of termination. The government may also pay settlement fees and even sometimes pays the contractor a profit. Still, the termination can be complicated and the contractor loses future revenue. If the contractor believes the contracting officer was acting in bad faith when they cancelled the contract for convenience, they can file a lawsuit against the government. But those cases are rare and extremely difficult to prove. 
   
   For Trump to use the contracting process to punish a company, experts said he likely would terminate a contract for convenience. This, too, would involve a disruption in the bureaucracy: While the president is the ultimate contracting officer in the federal government, an implied authority given to him in the Constitution, he delegates that authority throughout the government, down to low-level contracting officers. Technically, contracting officers are independent of their superiors, including the president; courts have held that officers must make an independent determination that terminating a contract is in the best interest of the country, said Steve Schooner, co-director of The George Washington University’s Government Procurement Law Program and a former top procurement official at the Office of Management and Budget. So Trump cannot simply force an officer to terminate a contract. 
   
   But political appointees are traditionally loyal to the president and civil servants would risk their career if they were to not fall in line. That means, in practice, contracting officers are likely to acquiesce. “They can choose to say, 'I refuse to do that,'” said O’Keefe, “and then obviously they find themselves counting barrels of fuel in Beirut or something after it’s over.” 
   
   How far does Trump’s authority stretch before his actions would constitute acting in bad faith, meaning a contractor could sue the government and collect damages? To find out, I posed a hypothetical scenario to a number of contracting experts: A company angers Trump by moving 1,000 jobs overseas and, in response, Trump tweets that the government will terminate a company’s contract. A few days or weeks later, a contracting officer exercises the “convenience” clause and terminates a valuable contract with the company. 
   
   Is that bad faith? Experts said it would depend on specific facts in the case and the contract itself. But none said that that would certainly constitute bad faith. In fact, many said the government would likely still be favored to win the case. 
   
   “I couldn’t predict a clear-cut outcome at this point,” said Hoe, who said he would expect the administration to “cloak it in language that sounded like it was advancing the country’s interests and economic policies, so it wouldn’t appear to be a vindictive shot at a particular company.” He explained that a court could even hold that Trump acted in good faith because his actions were premised on saving U.S. jobs — so even if the termination of the contract had nothing to do with the contract itself, it might be legal. “It would be a fascinating case,” he added. 
   
   “Let’s say he said publicly, ‘Boeing is criticizing my trade policy, so I am going to bring their prices down.’ That’s the most extreme version,” said Steven Kelman, who headed the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the 1990s and now is a professor of public management at Harvard’s Kennedy School. “My quick reaction is that that’s not illegal.” 
   
   More broadly, experts suggested that it would be unlikely that Boeing or other companies would sue the federal government for acting in bad faith, even if they had a good chance of winning the case. Such a move might jeopardize their other federal contracts, especially if the courts ruled against them. 
   
   "If I’m counseling Boeing, Air Force One is important to me, but am I going to fall on my sword? Come on,” said a lawyer who has done extensive work with government contracts and does not count Boeing as a client. “Boeing’s not going to challenge them on that. If you shoot at the king, you better kill him.” 
   
   Asked whether there are any concerns at Boeing about Trump using the contracting process to gain leverage over companies and what legal safeguards existed to protect contractors, a Boeing spokesperson said, “They set the requirements for our various programs and we work with them to execute on that,” but declined to discuss how much authority Trump has over the federal contracting process. 
   
   It’s tough to predict how Trump will use these powers once in office, and his transition team did not respond to a request for comment. He’s spoken frequently about punishing companies that move jobs overseas, including threatening them with tariffs, although experts are unsure if he has the legal authority to do so. If he wants to both punish companies that outsource while adhering to traditional norms and rules around contracting, Trump could issue an executive order that prohibits federal contractors from moving jobs overseas. It likely would only apply to future contracts, and might be hard to enforce. 
   
   If Trump involves himself in the federal contracting process purely to reduce costs, as seems the case with his attacks on the defense contractors, experts said he'll have more leeway to cancel the contracts without violating the law, although his exact legal powers will differ depending on the specific contract. "Participating in negotiations with Boeing or Lockheed Martin, I would call it highly unorthodox but there’s definitely nothing illegal," said Kelman. The F-35 program does contain clauses to terminate for default or convenience, said Drabkin, so the president could terminate it. However, that program is years in the making and the Chinese and Russians are developing their own variants of the F-35 jet. Any major delays or changes to the program will therefore draw significant interest, and possibly pushback, from Congress as well. 
   
   Still, just the possibility that Trump could use the contracting process in such a manner could have significant implications across the government and economy, creating new uncertainty for both companies and contracting officers. Whether Trump actually follows through on threats to interfere with the contracting process, those threats, often delivered through a tweet, can have an immediate impact on a company’s share price. 
   
   Even when Trump doesn't make an explicit threat, just his willingness to involve himself in individual contracts can influence a company's decision-making. In Trump's deal with Carrier Corp. to save about 700 jobs, Carrier executives said that the potential loss of federal business for Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, influenced their decision-making. (United Technologies currently has about $7 billion in federal contracts.) 
   
   The ultimate result of Trump threatening to terminate federal contracts, whether to prevent companies from moving overseas or to cut down on perceived waste, could be higher costs for the government. Companies, faced with the increased risk of termination or negative publicity from an angry tweet from the president, would likely raise their prices in response, experts said. “With long-term complicated programs, the things that drive up prices are instability and uncertainty,” Schooner said. “That’s what he just added to the process.” 
   
   The president’s involvement in federal procurement is also likely to also slow the process. Contracting officers will negotiate and implement deals even more carefully, Schooner said, worried that the president could send out an early-morning tweet criticizing their work. All of that drives up costs for the federal government and delays much-needed acquisitions. 
   
   “He will scare the bejesus out of some fifth-level auditor who is going to say ‘Goodness gracious, maybe I ought to look at whoever he is attacking at the moment,’” said retired Adm. Dave Oliver, who was a top acquisition official in the Defense Department in the 1990s. “Am I going to believe the Lockheed Martin comptroller who is telling me this is OK, or am I going to believe the president? 
   
   “Whether the president has any legal standing of any kind in this doesn’t matter. That’s what the bully pulpit is all about,” he said. “He is going to be heard and he is going to have an impact.” ||||| HONOLULU/LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Donald Trump heaped pressure on Lockheed Martin Corp on Thursday, saying he viewed costs for the aerospace company’s F-35 fighter as too high and had asked Boeing Co to offer a price for an older aircraft that lacks the same stealth capabilities. 
   
   U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn looks at U.S. President-elect Donald Trump as he talks with the media at Mar-a-Lago estate where Trump attends meetings, in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 21, 2016. REUTERS/Carlos Barria 
   
   Trump posted his Twitter message a day after the president-elect met with the chief executives of both aerospace companies, using the bully pulpit to press them on projects he says are too expensive. 
   
   In after-hours trading following Trump’s tweet, Lockheed shares fell 2 percent and Boeing’s rose 0.7 percent. 
   
   “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!” Trump said. 
   
   Lockheed declined to comment. The F-35 program is a critical sales generator for the company, accounting for 20 percent of last year’s revenue of $46.1 billion. 
   
   The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher said in an email that the company was committed to providing the capability and affordability to meet national security needs. 
   
   While the F-35 program has been dogged by problems and costs have escalated to an estimated $379 billion, it is significantly newer than the F-18, which does not have the same stealth capabilities. 
   
   “They’re two completely different aircraft from different generations,” said Phillip Carter, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank. “It’s like comparing an old jeep to a Humvee.” 
   
   Dan Grazier of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit that investigates government contractors, said the F-35’s stealth capabilities drove the cost up, but its usefulness had not yet been demonstrated. He said canceling the program, however, would be “disruptive.” 
   
   On the campaign trail, Trump touted his negotiating skills as a businessman, and he appears to be using similar tactics as he prepares to take office on Jan. 20. It was not clear how his blunt style would translate to Pentagon procurement or international diplomacy. 
   
   On Wednesday, Trump met the CEOs of Lockheed and Boeing at his resort in Palm Beach, Florida. Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg told reporters there that he had guaranteed costs would not get out of control for a replacement to Air Force One, the presidential plane, another project Trump calls too expensive. 
   
   Lockheed Chief Executive Marillyn Hewson did not speak to reporters but said in a statement that the meeting was “productive.” Trump told reporters he wanted to cut the F-35 program’s costs. 
   
   If he scrapped the F-35, such a move by a new administration would have some precedent. Then-President Jimmy Carter canceled the B-1 bomber program in June 1977, although it was resurrected by his White House successor, Ronald Reagan. 
   
   Trump’s jockeying for leverage via his Twitter account is likely to be a hurdle for all U.S. defense contractors in the next administration, Roman Schweizer, aerospace and defense analyst at financial services firm Cowen & Co, wrote in a note to clients on Thursday. 
   
   “We have no idea how this plays out but believe ‘Twitter risk’ for defense companies could be a significant issue over the next four years,” Schweizer wrote. “This is Lockheed Martin’s time in the barrel.” ||||| President-elect Donald Trump, second from left, shows out admirals and generals from the pentagon, foreground after a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Fla., Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew... (Associated Press) 
   
   President-elect Donald Trump, second from left, shows out admirals and generals from the pentagon, foreground after a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Fla., Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik) (Associated Press) 
   
   WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump has re-opened the debate over nuclear proliferation, calling for the United States to "greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability" until the rest of the world "comes to its senses" regarding nuclear weapons. 
   
   His comments Thursday on Twitter came hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin said strengthening his country's nuclear capabilities should be a chief military objective in the coming year. The president-elect's statement also followed his meetings a day earlier with top Pentagon officials and defense contractors. 
   
   Trump did not expand on the actions he wants the U.S. to take or say why he raised the issue Thursday. 
   
   Spokesman Jason Miller said the president-elect was referring to the threat of nuclear proliferation "particularly to and among terrorist organizations and unstable and rogue regimes." Miller said Trump sees modernizing the nation's deterrent capability "as a vital way to pursue peace through strength." 
   
   If Trump were to seek an expansion of the nuclear stockpiles, it would mark a sharp shift in U.S. national security policy. President Barack Obama has made nuclear nonproliferation a centerpiece of his agenda, calling in 2009 for the U.S. to lead efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons — a goal he acknowledged would not be accomplished quickly or easily. 
   
   Still, the U.S. has been moving forward on plans to upgrade its aging nuclear arsenal. Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the Pentagon planned to spend $108 billion over the next five years to sustain and improve its nuclear force. 
   
   The U.S. and Russia hold the vast majority of the world's nuclear weapons. In 2010, the two countries signed the New START treaty capping the number of nuclear warheads and missile launchers each country can possess. The agreement is in effect until 2021 and can be extended for another five years. 
   
   The state of the U.S. nuclear arsenal was rarely addressed during the presidential campaign. Trump's vanquished Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, repeatedly cast the Republican as too erratic and unpredictable to have control of the nation's nuclear arsenal. 
   
   The president-elect's transition website says he "recognizes the uniquely catastrophic threats posed by nuclear weapons and cyberattacks," adding that he will modernize the nuclear arsenal "to ensure it continues to be an effective deterrent." 
   
   Trump has spent the week at Mar-a-Lago, his South Florida estate, meeting advisers and interviewing candidates for a handful of Cabinet positions that remain unfilled. On Wednesday, he met with Pentagon officials and the CEOs of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, companies with lucrative government contracts. 
   
   Since winning the election, Trump has complained about the cost of Boeing's work on two new Air Force One planes and Lockheed's contract for F-35 fighter jets. Following the meetings, both CEOs said they had discussed lowering costs of the projects with the president-elect. 
   
   On Thursday, Trump pitted the two companies against each other on Twitter. "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!" he tweeted. 
   
   Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher said Thursday, "We have committed to working with the president-elect and his administration to provide the best capability, deliverability and affordability." Lockheed declined to comment. 
   
   Trump's tweet came after the close of trading on Wall Street. But in after-hours dealings, shares of Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp. fell 2 percent, while Chicago-based Boeing Co.'s stock rose 1 percent. 
   
   Boeing and Lockheed are also among the companies pursuing a contract for replacing Minuteman missiles in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Spokespeople for the two companies declined to comment on whether that contract came up during Trump's meetings with their CEOs. 
   
   The president-elect was also building up his White House staff, announcing Thursday that campaign manager Kellyanne Conway would serve as a counselor. The move will put Conway in close proximity to the president, though she is also expected to remain a visible presence promoting Trump's agenda in the media. 
   
   Trump also announced veteran Republican operatives Sean Spicer as his press secretary and Jason Miller as communications director. Hope Hicks, Trump's long-serving campaign spokeswoman, is also joining the White House in a senior communications position. 
   
   ___ 
   
   Associated Press writers Lynn Berry and Joan Lowy in Washington and Jonathan Lemire in Palm Beach, Florida, contributed to this report. 
   
   ___ 
   
   Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC ||||| An F-35B from Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 (VMFAT-501), flies near its base a MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina. Lockheed Martin 
   
   WASHINGTON — In response to a series of cost overruns and other development issues for the F-35 fighter jet, President-elect Donald Trump said on Thursday he has asked Boeing to "price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet." 
   
   Trump's request — announced via tweet— came a day after meeting separately with the CEOs from Lockheed Martin and Boeing to discuss bringing the "costs down" on the F-35 fifth-generation stealth jet and the next fleet of presidential aircraft. 
   
   Boeing's response — also announced via tweet— said it accepted the invitation to work with the Trump administration to "affordably meet US military requirements." 
   
   On December 12, Trump said the cost for Lockheed Martin's fifth-generation stealth F-35 Lightning II jet was "out of control." The message sent Lockheed Martin's stock down from $251 at the opening bell to $245.50, before it rebounded to a little more than $253 a share. Similarly on Thursday, shares of Lockheed Martin fell 2.0% to $247.75 after hours, while Boeing shares rose 0.7% to $158.52. 
   
   Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson arrives for a meeting with US President-elect Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, December 21, 2016. Carlos Barria/Reuters "We're trying to get costs down ... primarily the F-35, we're trying to get the cost down. It's a program that is very, very expensive," Trump said on Wednesday after meeting with Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson. Trump said the negotiations with Lockheed Martin were "just beginning" and described it as "a little bit of a dance." 
   
   "I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the importance of the F-35 program and the progress we've made in bringing the costs down," Hewson said in a statement. "The F-35 is a critical program to our national security, and I conveyed our continued commitment to delivering an affordable aircraft to our US military and our allies." 
   
   Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II, valued at an acquisition cost of $379 billion, has become one of the most challenged programs in the history of the Department of Defense. It has experienced setbacks that include faulty ejection seats, software delays, and helmet-display issues. 
   
   US Air Force F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter crew chief, Tech. Sgt. Brian West, watches his aircraft approach for the first time at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., July 14, 2011. US Air Force Photo "The problems on this program quite frankly in the past were very simple. We were overly optimistic in the technical risk in building this leading edge fighter and so we put unrealistic schedules and budgets together and then when we ran into problems we did not manage them very well," Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, head of the F-35 Joint Program Office, said during a briefing with reporters on Monday. 
   
   "I think that this program is vital for air dominance for us and our allies for the next 5o years. It replaces many, many, many legacy fleets, it has tremendous international participation and involvement, and it is a necessary program for the United States to maintain its security," Bogdan added. 
   
   We spent a day with the people who fly and fix the F-35 — here's what they have to say about the most expensive weapons project in history » 
   
   The suggested Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a generation behind the F-35, lacking the coveted capabilities such as stealth and sensor fusion. 
   
   In short, Boeing's Super Hornet would need to be significantly redesigned, manufactured, and tested over multiple years in order to meet the same requirements as the F-35. 
   
   A little bit of background on America's fifth-generation jet 
   
   Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II production facility in Fort Worth, Texas. Courtesy of Lockheed Martin 
   
   Manufactured by Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, Texas, the fifth-generation "jack of all trades" aircraft was developed in 2001 to replace the aging Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy fleet. 
   
   Designed to accommodate the unique needs of each sister-service branch, the F-35 comes in three variants: the F-35A for the Air Force, F-35B for the amphibious Marine Corps, and F-35C for the Navy. 
   
   All of the fighters are equipped with radar-evading stealth, supersonic speed, and "the most powerful and comprehensive integrated sensor package of any fighter aircraft in history," Jeff Babione, the head of Lockheed Martin's F-35 program, said in a statement. 
   
   We saw where America's most expensive war machine gets a classified feature, but this is all we can tell you about it » 
   
   "I have stealth," US Air Force Maj. Will "D-Rail" Andreotta, commander of the F-35A Lightning II Heritage Flight Team and F-35 pilot, told Business Insider in a recent interview. 
   
   "I've fought against F-16s and I've never gotten into a dogfight yet. You can't fight what you can't see, and if F-16s can't see me then I'm never going to get into a dogfight with them." 
   
   In other words, the F-35 gives pilots the ability to see but not be seen. 
   
   An F-35A performs a test flight on March 28, 2013. Courtesy of Lockheed Martin What's more, unlike any other fielded fighter jet, the F-35 can share what it sees in the battle space with counterparts, which creates a "family of systems." 
   
   "Fifth-generation technology, it's no longer about a platform. It's about a family of systems, and it's about a network, and that's what gives us an asymmetric advantage," Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, said during a Pentagon briefing. 
   
   Elaborating on the advantages, US Air Force Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus, the director of the F-35 integration office, said the aircraft was "o ne our adversaries should fear." 
   
   "In terms of lethality and survivability, the aircraft is absolutely head and shoulders above our legacy fleet of fighters currently fielded," said Pleus, an F-35A pilot and former command pilot with more than 2,300 flying hours. 
   
   Now for the price tag ... 
   
   A F-35B aircraft approaches a KC-130J Super Hercules aircraft to re-fuel as it flies over the North Sea having taken off from RAF Fairford on July 1, 2016 Matt Cardy/Getty Images 
   
   The US is slated to buy 2,443 F-35s at an acquisition cost of $379 billion. 
   
   Earlier this week, the F-35 Joint Program Office released the finalized price for the most recent production contract for the fifth-generation jet. 
   
   After a little more than 14 months of negotiations between the Department of Defense and Lockheed Martin, the ninth Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP-9) contract for 57 F-35 jets was valued at $6.1 billion. 
   
   The LRIP-9, which is essentially the ninth batch of jets, includes 34 jets for the US and 23 for five international countries. 
   
   The following is a breakdown of the unit price per variant in current year dollars (including aircraft, engine, and fee): 
   
   42 F-35A model aircraft: $102.1 million a jet 
   
   13 F-35B model aircraft: $131.6 million a jet 
   
   2 F-35C model aircraft: $132.2 million a jet
target: – He who pays the piper calls the tune, and it looks like the military-industrial complex is going to be dancing to Donald Trump's tune for years to come. Trump shook up the defense industry once again on Thursday when he tweeted about negotiations for fighter jets, pitting Boeing and Lockheed Martin against each other, reports Reuters. "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!" tweeted Trump, who has been holding meetings with aerospace execs at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Lockheed shares, which went down 4% after an earlier Trump tweet, dived 2% in after-hours trading, while Boeing was up 0.7%. A roundup of coverage: Politico takes a close look at the implications of Trump involving himself so closely in the federal procurement process and turning it into a "$440 billion weapon." Presidents including Obama have used the process to advance their agendas, but experts say it's unprecedented for one to target individual companies and contracts the way Trump is doing—and his approach is likely to create great uncertainty for defense companies. Business Insider looks at the F-35's capabilities—and the $379 billion contract for Lockheed to supply 2,443 of them to the military. Pentagon officials involved with the F-35 says the fifth-generation jet is far ahead of the Boeing plane, meaning it would take years of redesigning and testing for the Super Hornet to have the same capabilities. The AP reports that Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher said: "We have committed to working with the president-elect and his administration to provide the best capability, deliverability, and affordability," while Lockheed declined to comment. Bloomberg reports that Trump's action "sidelined decades of policy and practice in how the government spends billions of dollars annually on military hardware." A Teal Group military aircraft analyst tells Bloomberg that Trump's tweet was "bizarre," especially since only the Navy uses the Super Hornet, while the Marines are "completely dependent" on F-35Bs and the Air Force is sticking with the F-35A. "Thus, Trump's tweet is both late to the game and completely irrelevant." Retired Rear Adm. Dave Oliver tells Politico that Trump's attempt to bring the tactics of the New York real estate market to military procurement will probably just drive prices up. "He will scare the bejesus out of some fifth-level auditor who is going to say, 'Goodness gracious, maybe I ought to look at whoever he is attacking at the moment,' says Oliver, who was a top Pentagon acquisition official in the 1990s. "Whether the president has any legal standing of any kind in this doesn't matter. That’s what the bully pulpit is all about. He is going to be heard and he is going to have an impact."