The JSF’s diverse international experiences reflect the cost of high technology and delays inherent in multinational defense acquisitions. It also reflects the close intersections between military spending and the aerospace industry as the following quotation demonstrates:


  1. Ahronheim, Anna. “Israel Air Force Commander Maj.-Gen Amikam Norkin Speaks Ab out Israel’s Use of the F-35 (IDF Spokesperson’s Unit) Adir Stealth Fighter Jet.” Jerusalem Post (May 23, 2018): 1–2. Accessed May 23, 2018.
  2. Alic, John A. “Managing US Defense Acquisition.” Enterprise & Society, 14 (1) (March 2013): 31. Scholar
  3. Anderson, Kenneth. “The Case for Drones.” Commentary, 135 (6) (June 2013): 14–23.Google Scholar
  4. Atherton, Kelsey D. “Get Ready for the Next Generation Fighter Jet: The Pentagon Imagines a Post-F35 Future.” Popular Science (January 29, 2015): 1–4. Accessed June 29, 2017.
  5. Australia. Department of Defence. Australian Industry Building Global Joint Strike Fighter Capability (Canberra: Defence Material Organization, March 20, 2015): 1. Accessed January 5, 2018.
  6. Australia. Parliament. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade. Submissions Received by the Committee: Mr. Chris Mills.; 5–7. Accessed March 20, 2017; and the simulations referred to in this submission are accessible at Accessed January 5, 2018.
  7. Boyle, Michael J. “The Race for Drones.” Orbis, 59 (1) (Winter 2015): 76–94. Scholar
  8. Brooks, Stephen G. Producing Security: Multinational Corporations, Globalization, and the Changing Calculus of Conflict (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005): 161–162.Google Scholar
  9. Bugajski, Janusz. Dismantling the West: Russia’s Atlantic Agenda (Washington, DC: Potomac Books, Inc., 2009).Google Scholar
  10. Butler, Amy. “Frank, Feared, and Respected.” Aviation Week and Space Technology, 175 (1) (January 14, 2013): 48.Google Scholar
  11. Callick, Rowan. “Taking Up Arms.” The Australian (March 8, 2017): 11.Google Scholar
  12. Cleary, Paul. “Delivering the Right Stuff.” The Australian (March 3, 2017): 13.Google Scholar
  13. Clodfelter, Mark. “Theory, Implementation, and the Future of Air Power.” Air and Space Power Journal, 28 (5) (September–October 2014): 118–125. Accessed January 5, 2018.
  14. Converse III, Eliot V. History of Acquisition in the Department of Defense: Volume I: Rearming for the Cold War, 1945–1960 (Washington, DC: Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2012). Accessed August 16, 2018.
  15. Davis, Judy B. “The Impact of Defense Industry Consolidation on the Aerospace Industry.” Thesis (Wright-Patterson, AFB: Air Force Institute of Technology, 2006). Accessed January 5, 2018.
  16. Ekmektsioglu, Eleni. “Hypersonic Weapons and Escalation Control in East Asia.” Strategic Studies Quarterly, 9 (2) (Summer 2015): 62. Accessed March 20, 2017.
  17. Eliason, William T. “An Interview With Christopher C. Bogdan.” Joint Force Quarterly, 78 (July 2015): 54–60. Accessed March 21, 2017.
  18. F-35 Lightning II. Leadership (Washington, DC: Joint Strike Fighter Program Office, 2018): 1. Accessed January 5, 2018.
  19. Farrell, Theo, and Terry Terriff, eds. Sources of Military Change: Culture, Politics, and Technology (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002).Google Scholar
  20. Gholz, Eugene, and Harvey M. Sapolsky. “Restructuring the U.S. Defense Industry.” International Security, 24 (3) (Winter 1999/2000): 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grant, Rebecca. U.S. Air Dominance in a Fiscally-Constrained Environment: Tactical Aircraft and the Preservation of U.S. Air Dominance (Arlington, VA: Lexington Institute, 2013). Accessed March 20, 2017.
  22. Gray, Colin S. “Understanding Air Power: Bonfire of the Fallacies.” Strategic Studies Quarterly, 2 (4) (Winter 2008): 43–83. Accessed March 20, 2017.
  23. ———. Airpower for Strategic Effect (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 2012). Accessed January 5, 2018.
  24. Great Britain. Ministry of Defence. Guidance: About Lightning II (London: MOD, 2015): 1–2. Accessed January 5, 2018.
  25. Haddick, Robert. Fire on the Water: China, America, and the Future of the Pacific (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2014).Google Scholar
  26. Hanche, Morton. “The F-35 in a Dogfight: What I Have Learned So Far.” Kampflybloggen (March 1, 2016): 10. Accessed January 5, 2018.
  27. Harper, Jon. “F-35 in Trump Administration’s Crosshairs.” National Defense (February 2017): 8.Google Scholar
  28. Herr, Andrew. “Will Humans Matter in the Wars of 2030?” Joint Force Quarterly, 77 (2nd Quarter 2015): 78. Accessed March 22, 2017.
  29. Host, Pat. “DARPA Studying ‘Air Dominance Initiative” Defense Daily, 258 (37) (May 20, 2013): 3.Google Scholar
  30. Industry Canada. Canadian Industrial Participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program (Ottawa: Industry Canada, 2014).$file/Fall_2014_Report_Parliament.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2018.
  31. Kadercan, Burak. “Strong Armies, Slow Adaptation: Civil-Military Relations and the Diffusion of Military Power.” International Security, 38 (3) (Winter 2013/14): 117–152. Scholar
  32. Kadtke, James, and John Wharton. Technology and National Security: The United States at a Critical Crossroads (Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 2018). Accessed June 14, 2018.
  33. King, David. “The American Aircraft Industrial Base: On the Brink.” Air and Space Power Journal, 20 (1) (Spring 2006): 35–44. Accessed June 5, 2018.
  34. Knox, MacGregor, and Williamson Murray, eds. The Dynamics of Military Revolution 1300–2050 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
  35. Krepinevich, Andrew F., and Barry D. Watts. The Last Warrior: Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defense Strategy (New York: Basic Books, 2015).Google Scholar
  36. Lockheed Martin. Economic Impact: Powering Job Creation for America and Its Allies (Fort Worth: Lockheed-Martin, 2017a): 1. Accessed January 5, 2018.
  37. ———. Global Participation: The Centerpiece of 21st Century Global Security (Fort Worth: Lockheed Martin, 2017b): 1–2. Accessed January 5, 2018.
  38. Lorell, Mark A., and Hugh P. Leveaux. The Cutting Edge: A Half Century of U.S. Fighter Aircraft R&D (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1998): 149–153. Accessed January 5, 2018.
  39. Lorell, Mark A., Michael Kennedy, Robert S. Leonard, et al. Do Joint Strike Fighter Programs Save Money? (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2013): xii–xix. Accessed March 22, 2017.
  40. Mahnken, Thomas. Technology and the American Way of War (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
  41. Majumdar, Dave. “Russia’s Lethal Su-35 Fighter vs. America’s F-35, F-15, and F-16: Who Wins?” The National Interest (September 19, 2016): 1–4. Accessed March 20, 2017.
  42. ———. “Wargame Shows Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Kills 15 Fighters for Every Loss.” The National Interest (February 7, 2017): 1–3. Accessed March 21, 2017.
  43. Matteo, Dian. “The Pivot to Asia, Air-Sea Battle and Contested Commons in the Asia-Pacific Region.” The Pacific Review, 28 (2, 2015): 237–257. Scholar
  44. Murray, Williamson. Military Adaptation in War with Fear of Change (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
  45. Nakashima, Ellen. “Key U.S. Weapon Designs Hacked.” Washington Post (May 28, 2013): A01.Google Scholar
  46. Narang, Vipin. “Nuclear Strategies of Emerging Nuclear Powers: North Korea and Iran.” Washington Quarterly, 38 (1, 2015): 73–91.
  47. Nelson, Jeremy T. et al. “Enhancing Vigilance in Operators With Prefrontal Cortex Transcranial Stimulation (tDCS).” NeuroImage, 85 (3) (January 15, 2014): 909–917. Scholar
  48. Norheim Martinsen, Per M., and Tore Nyhamer, eds. International Military Operations in the 21st Century: Global Trends and the Future of Intervention (London: Routledge, 2015).Google Scholar
  49. Norris, Guy. “Pilot Reaction to Flying the F-35B.” Aviation Week Blog (April 24, 2014): 2–3. Accessed January 5, 2018.
  50. Osborne, Kris. “US Air Force Pilot: The F-35 Stealth Fighter is the World’s Best.” The National Interest (June 29, 2016): 2. Accessed March 21, 2017.
  51. Parillo, Mark. “A Century of Airpower.” In The Influence of Airpower Upon History: Statesmanship, Diplomacy, and Foreign Policy Since 1903, ed. Robin Higham and Mark Parillo (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2013).Google Scholar
  52. Pillsbury, Michael. The Hundred Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2015).Google Scholar
  53. Poole, Walter S. History of Acquisition in the Department of Defense: Volume 2: Adapting to Flexible Response, 1960–1968 (Washington, DC: Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2013). Accessed August 16, 2018.
  54. Public Law 111-23. “Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009.” 123 U.S. Statutes at Large 1703–1733. Accessed March 20, 2017.
  55. Sevastyanov, Sergei, and Alexey Kravchuk. “The Russian Approach to National Security in the Arctic.” The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 29 (1) (March 2017): 131–149.Google Scholar
  56. Shaud, John A. Air Force Strategy Study 2020–2030 (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 2011): 100. Accessed March 20, 2017.
  57. Simón, Luis. “NATO’s Rebirth: Assessing NATO’s Eastern European ‘Flank’”. Parameters, 44 (3) (Autumn 2014): 67–79. NATO’s Eastern European Flank.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2017.
  58. Tan, Andrew T.H., ed. The Global Arms Trade: A Handbook (London: Routledge, 2015).Google Scholar
  59. “The Other Pivot: Banyan.” The Economist, 4021 (9017) (November 26, 2016): 53.Google Scholar
  60. Thomas, Timothy L. Russia Military Strategy: Impacting 21st Century Reform and Geopolitics (Fort Leavenworth, LS: Foreign Military Studies Office, 2015): 179–190. Accessed January 5, 2018.
  61. Thornberry, Mac, and Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr. “Preserving Primacy: A Defense Strategy for the New Administration.” Foreign Affairs, 96 (5) (September/October 2016): 31.Google Scholar
  62. U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Subcommittee on Aviation Operation, Safety, and Security. The Global Competitiveness of the U.S. Aviation Industry: Addressing Issues to Maintain U.S. Leadership in the Aerospace Market (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014). Accessed January 5, 2018.
  63. ———. House Committee on Armed Services. Russian Military Developments and Strategic Implications (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015a). Accessed March 20, 2017.
  64. ———. Senate Committee on Appropriations. Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2016 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015b): 1. Accessed March 20, 2017.
  65. ———. Senate Committee on Armed Services. The Future of Warfare (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016): 37, 51. Accessed March 20, 2017.
  66. U.S. Congress. House Committee on Armed Services. Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces. Hearing on National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs: Fiscal Year 2015 Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Combat Aviation Programs (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014): 23. Accessed June 29, 2017.
  67. ———. Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces. The Role of Maritime and Air Power in DOD’s Third Offset Strategy (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015): 10–11. Accessed March 20, 2017.
  68. ———. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Oversight of the European Reassurance Initiative (Washington, DC: GPO, 2017): 1–2. Accessed March 20, 2017.
  69. U.S. Defense Science Board. DSB Task Force Report on Air Dominance (Washington, DC: Defense Science Board, 2016). Accessed January 5, 2018.
  70. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Defense Contracting: Early Attention in the Acquisition Process Needed to Enhance Competition (Washington, DC: GAO, 2014). Accessed March 22, 2017.
  71. ———. F-35 Aircraft Sustainment: DOD Needs to Address Challenges Affecting Readiness and Cost Transparency (Washington, DC: GAO, 2017a): 6. Accessed January 5, 2018.
  72. ———. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: DOD Needs to Complete Developmental Testing Before Making Significant New Investments (Washington, DC: GAO, 2017b): 1, 5. Accessed January 5, 2018.
  73. U.S. Naval Air Training Command. Flight Training Instruction: Basic Fighter Maneuvering Section Engaged Maneuvering T-45 (Corpus Christ: NAS Corpus Christi, 2016): 5–27. Accessed June 14, 2018.
  74. U.S. Navy. Chief of Naval Operations. Statement of Jonathan Greenert on the FY 2016 Department of the Navy Posture (Washington, DC: Department of the Navy, March 4, 2015). Accessed March 20, 2017.
  75. (Washington, DC, 2018). Accessed January 5, 2018.
  76. Velocci, Jr., Anthony L. “Further Consolidation Looms Over Industry: Many More Mergers and Acquisitions Will Occur Including One of Two ‘Elephant Deals’ Worldwide.” Aviation Week and Space Technology, 152 (19) (May 8, 2000): 22–24.Google Scholar
  77. Venable, John. Operational Assessment of the F-35A Argues for Full Program Procurement and Concurrent Development Process (Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, August 4, 2016): 9. Accessed January 5, 2018.
  78. Wood, Dakota L., ed. Index of U.S. Military Strength: Assessing America’s Ability to Provide for the Common Defense (Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, 2016): 378, 380, 388. Accessed January 5, 2018.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations