Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

JSF and the United States

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Global Defense Procurement and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

  • 521 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter chronicles and documents the successes and failures experienced by the US JSF program from the 1990s to 2018. Chapter contents include JSF technical capabilities; cost overruns; versions used by the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy; and DOD responses to program developments and congressional oversight and attempted legislative remedies including the 2009 Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA). Detailed coverage and analysis are also provided concerning oversight of this program provided by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General and Government Accountability Office. Additional emphasis is placed on the wide geographic dispersion of the JSF industrial base, aerospace industry consolidation, and political campaign contributions received by key members of Congress from the aerospace industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Examples of the Brobdingnagian literature on US military acquisition includes Shannon A. Brown, Providing the Means of War: Historical Perspectives on Defense Acquisition, 1945–2000, (Washington, DC: Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2005); http://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/acquisition_pub/CMHPub70-87-1ProvidingtheMeans.pdf; Accessed April 27, 2017; Thomas C. Lassman, Sources of Weapons System Innovation in the Department of Defense: The Role of In-House Research and Development, 1945–2000, (Washington, DC: United States Army Center of Military History, 2008); http://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/acquisition_pub/CMH_51-2-1.pdf; Accessed April 27, 2017; J. Ronald Fox, Defense Acquisition Reform, 1960–2009: An Elusive Goal, (Washington, DC: United States Army Center of Military History, 2011); http://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/acquisition_pub/CMH_Pub_51-3-1.pdf; Accessed April 27, 2017; Elliott V. Converse III, Acquisition History Volume I: Rearming for the Cold War, 1945–1960, (Washington, DC: Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2012); http://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/acquisition_pub/OSDHO-Acquisition-Series-Vol1.pdf; Accessed April 27, 2017; Paul A.C. Koistinen, State of War: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1945–2011, (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2012) concludes an exhaustively researched multivolume compendium on this topic that is flawed by ideological antimilitary grandstanding; Willam F. Hartung, Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Military Industrial Complex, (New York: Nation Books, 2010) is a rhetorical broadside against the JSF’s primary contractor, and Walter S. Poole, Acquisition History Volume II: Adapting to Flexible Response, 1960–1968, (Washington, DC: Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2014); http://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/acquisition_pub/OSDHO-Acquisition-Series-Vol2.pdf; Accessed April 27, 2017.

  2. 2.

    Jeremiah Gertler, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 2014): 1–3; http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc306493/m1/1/high_res_d/RL30563_2014Apr29.pdf; Accessed April 27, 2017.

  3. 3.

    See Ibid., 50; “Lightning Rod: F-35 Fighter Family Capabilities and Controversies,” Defense Industry Daily, (April 23, 2015): 3; http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lightning-rod-f-35-fighter-family-capabilities-and-controversies-021922/; Accessed April 27, 2017; and Doug Hayward, F-35 Weapon System Overview, (Fort Worth: Lockheed Martin, 2010); http://docplayer.net/25354666-F-35-weapon-system-overview.html; Accessed April 27, 2017.

  4. 4.

    Paul M. Bevilacqua, “Genesis of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,” Journal of Aircraft, 46 (6)(November–December 2009): 1833; https://doi.org/10.2514/1.42903.

  5. 5.

    See Ibid., 1833; and U.S. Department of Defense, Report on the Bottom-Up Review, (Washington, DC: DOD, 1993): 35–38; http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106010456157;view=1up;seq=48; Accessed April 28, 2017.

  6. 6.

    U.S. Office of the Undersecretary of Defense For Acquisition & Technology, Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) Program, (Washington, DC: Defense Science Board, 1994): ES-2; http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a292094.pdf; Accessed April 28, 2017.

  7. 7.

    Ibid., ES-3.

  8. 8.

    Bevilacqua, 1834.

  9. 9.

    Ibid., 1835.

  10. 10.

    U.S. General Accounting Office, Combat Air Power: Joint Assessment of Air Superiority Can Be Improved, (Washington, DC: GAO, 1997): 7–8; http://www.gao.gov/assets/160/155769.pdf; Accessed April 28, 2017.

  11. 11.

    See Gertler, 4; and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996: Conference Report to Accompany S. 1124, House Report 104-450, (Washington, DC: GPO, 1996): 706.

  12. 12.

    U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, (Washington, DC: GPO, 1998): 47, 55.

  13. 13.

    Ibid., 124–126.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000, (Washington, DC: GPO, 1999): 147.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., 455; and U.S. Congressional Budget Office, CBO Testimony: Statement of Christopher Jehn on Modernizing Tactical Aircraft before the Subcommittee on Airland, Senate Armed Services Committee, (Washington, DC: CBO, March 10, 1999): 3–4; http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/031099.pdf; Accessed April 28, 2017.

  16. 16.

    U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, F-22 Cost Controls, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2000): 99; http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS7076; Accessed April 28, 2017.

  17. 17.

    U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Budget Options, (Washington, DC: CBO, 2000): 79; http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/wholereport_0.pdf; Accessed April 28, 2017.

  18. 18.

    See U.S. General Accounting Office, Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition: Development Schedule Could be Changed to Reduce Risks, (Washington, DC: GAO, 2000): 2–3; http://www.gao.gov/assets/110/108316.pdf; Accessed April 28, 2017; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition Reform: Will It Fly?, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2000): 5–9; http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS13019; Accessed April 28, 2017.

  19. 19.

    GAO, Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition: Development Schedule Could be Changed to Reduce Risks, 16.

  20. 20.

    Lockheed Martin, History: F-35 Program Timeline, (Fort Worth: Lockheed Martin, 2015): 1; https://www.f35.com/about/history; Accessed April 29, 2017.

  21. 21.

    U.S. Department of Defense, Briefing on the Joint Strike Fighter Contract Announcement, (Washington, DC: DOD, October 26, 2001): 1–5; http://www.defense.gov/utility/printitem.aspx?print=http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2186; Accessed April 29, 2017. For the webcast of this announcement see CSPAN, “Joint Strike Fighter Program, (October 26, 2001): http://www.c-span.org/video/?166956-1/joint-strike-fighter-program; Accessed April 30, 2017.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., Contracts: No. 544-01, (Washington, DC: DOD, October 26, 2001): 1; http://www.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=2131; Accessed April 29, 2017.

  23. 23.

    History: F-35 Program Timeline.

  24. 24.

    U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Department of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), (Washington, DC: GPO, 2002): 117–118; http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo46358; Accessed April 29, 2017.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., The Future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), (Washington, DC: GPO, 2002): 27.

  26. 26.

    U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Pentagon’s Procurement Policies With Respect to Small Business, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2002): 18; http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS15167; Accessed April 29, 2017.

  27. 27.

    U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, Controlling Costs in Tactical Aircraft Programs, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003): 181; http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS40567; Accessed April 29, 2017. Hearing webcast on CSPAN at http://www.c-span.org/video/?177486-1/joint-strike-fighter-program; Accessed April 30, 2017.

  28. 28.

    Ibid. Is DOD Meeting Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] International Cooperative Program Goals?, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2004): 1.

  29. 29.

    U.S. General Accounting Office, Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition: Cooperative Program Needs Greater Oversight to Ensure Goals are Met, (Washington, DC: GAO, 2003): 2–3; http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03775.pdf; Accessed April 20, 2017.

  30. 30.

    U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Department of Defense Authorizations for Fiscal Year 2005: Part 1, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2005): 63–64; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg93571/pdf/CHRG-108shrg93571.pdf; Accessed April 29, 2017.

  31. 31.

    U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations For Fiscal Year, 2005, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2004): 212; http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS58231; Accessed April 30, 2017.

  32. 32.

    Stephen G. DiDomenico, International Armament Cooperative Programs: Benefits, Liabilities, and Self-Inflicted Wounds-The JSF as a Case Study, (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air University Press, 2006): 14–16, 19–22, 34, 36, 39–41; http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS102741; Accessed April 30, 2017.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., 53–54.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., 54.

  35. 35.

    See Public Law 94-106, “Department of Defense Appropriations Authorization Act, 1976,” 89 U.S. Statutes at Large 539; and Irv Blickstein, Charles Nemfakos, and Jerry M. Sollinger, “Digging Out the Root Cause: Nunn-McCurdy Breaches in Major Defense Acquisition Programs,” Defense Acquisition Research Journal, 20 (2)(July 2013): 129; http://www.dau.mil/publications/DefenseARJ/ARJ/ARJ66/ARJ_66-Blickstein.pdf’ Accessed April 30, 2017.

  36. 36.

    See Blickstein, 129; and Public Law 97-86, “Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1982,” 95 U.S. Statutes at Large, 1129–1132.

  37. 37.

    Public Law 97-252, “Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1983,” 96 U.S. Statutes at Large, 741–746.

  38. 38.

    See Blickstein, 129; and Public Law 109-163, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006,” 119 U.S. Statutes at Large, 3367–3370.

  39. 39.

    U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Budget, National and Homeland Security: Meeting Our Needs, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2005): 35–36; http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS60598; Accessed April 30, 2017.

  40. 40.

    See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Issues Relating to Defense Acquisition Reform, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2007): 16; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg32970/pdf/CHRG-109hhrg32970.pdf; Accessed April 30, 2017; and Public Law 101-510, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991,” 104 U.S. Statutes at Large, 1638–1667.

  41. 41.

    History: F-35 Program Timeline.

  42. 42.

    GAO, Tactical Aircraft: Opportunity to Reduce Risks in the Joint Strike Fighter Program With Different Acquisition Strategy, (Washington, DC: GAO, 2005): 2–4; www.gao.gov/assets/245629.pdf; Accessed April 30, 2017.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Major Weapons Programs, (Washington, DC: GAO, 2005): 79; www.gao.gov/assets/250/245884.pdf; Accessed April 30, 2017.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., Joint Strike Fighter: DOD Plans to Enter Production Before Testing Demonstrates Acceptable Performance, (Washington, DC: GAO, 2006): 2–4; www.gao.gov/assets/250/249301.pdf; Accessed April 30, 2017.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., Joint Strike Fighter: Progress Made and Challenges Remain, (Washington, DC: GAO, 2007): 2–3; www.gao.gov/assets/260/257628.pdf; Accessed April 30, 2017.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., Defense Acquisitions: Analysis of Costs for the Joint Strike Fighter Engine Program: Statement of Michael Sullivan, (Washington, DC: GAO, March 22, 2007): 1–2; www.gao.gov/assets/120/116016.pdf; Accessed April 30, 2017.

  47. 47.

    U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittees on Air and Land Forces and Seapower and Expeditionary Forces, Hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs: Budget Request on Department of Defense Aircraft Programs, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2009): 184; http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/FDLP133; Accessed April 29, 2017; and Gertler, F-35 Alternate Engine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 2012): 4; http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41131.pdf; Accessed April 30, 2017.

  48. 48.

    U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs: Budget Request From the Department of the Navy, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2009): 42; http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/FDLP145; Accessed May 1, 2017.

  49. 49.

    U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for 2009, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2009): 266–267; http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS110514; Accessed May 1, 2017.

  50. 50.

    GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Significant Challenges Ahead in Developing and Demonstrating Future Combat System’s Network and Software, (Washington, DC: GAO, 2008): 17; www.gao.gov/assets/280/273386.pdf; Accessed May 1, 2017.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., Joint Strike Fighter: Recent Decisions by DOD Add to Program Risk, (Washington, DC: GAO, 2008): 2–3; www.gao.gov/assets/280/273563.pdf; Accessed May 1, 2017.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., 12.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., 15.

  54. 54.

    See Conor Duffy, “Australian Fighter Jets Inferior,” (Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, September 24, 2008): 1–3; http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2373457.htm; Accessed May 1, 2017; See webcast at http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200809/r296075_1274202.asx; Accessed May 1, 2017; and Leigh Sales, Joel Fitzgibbon Joins Lateline. (Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, September 24, 2008): 1–5; http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/joel-fitzgibbon-joins-lateline/521598; Accessed December 21, 2017; for Australian Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon’s response to this Rand Corporation analysis.

  55. 55.

    “Statement Regarding Media Coverage of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,” (Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, September 25, 2008): 1; http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25.html; Accessed May 1, 2017.

  56. 56.

    History: F-35 Program Timeline, Accessed May 1, 2015.

  57. 57.

    Congressional Record, 155 (69)(May 6, 2009): S5209, S5211; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2009-05-06/pdf/CREC-2009-05-06.pdf; Accessed December 21, 2017.

  58. 58.

    See Public Law 111-23. “Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009.” 123 U.S. Statutes at Large, 1704–1733; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Acquisition of Major Weapons Systems by the Department of Defense and S. 454, the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2009): http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS117925; Accessed May 4, 2017.

  59. 59.

    GAO, Weapons Acquisition Reform: Reform Act is Helping DOD Acquisition Programs Reduce Risk, but Implementation Challenges Remain, (Washington, DC: GAO, 2012): 14–29; http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/650908.pdf; Accessed May 4, 2017.

  60. 60.

    See Congress and the Nation 2009–2012: Politics and Policy in the 111th and 112th Congress, David R. Tarr, ed., (Washington, DC: Sage Publications, 2014): 277, 281; and Public Law 111-84, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, 123 U.S. Statutes at Large, 2238–2239, 2734, 2767, 2772.

  61. 61.

    U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Alternatives for Modernizing U.S. Fighter Forces, (Washington, DC: CBO, 2009): 25–44; esp. 28–29; http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS116409; Accessed May 5, 2017.

  62. 62.

    Gertler, 28–29.

  63. 63.

    See Ibid., 30–31; and “DOD News Briefing With Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen from the Pentagon,” (Washington, DC: DOD, January 6, 2011): 3; http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4747; Accessed May 4, 2017.

  64. 64.

    “Panetta Lifts F-35 Fighter Variant Probation,” (Washington, DC: DOD, January 20, 2012): 1; http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=66879; Accessed May 4, 2017.

  65. 65.

    U.S. National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, “200 Billion in Illustrative Savings,” (Washington, DC: The Commission, November 12, 2010): 18–19; http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/Illustrative_List_11.10.2010.pdf; Accessed May 4, 2017.

  66. 66.

    Public Law 112-25, “Budget Control Act of 2011,” 125 U.S. Statutes at Large, 240–267.

  67. 67.

    Jim Garemone, “Panetta Tells Senators Sequestration Would Devastate DOD,” (Washington, DC: DOD, November 15, 2011): 1; http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=66094; Accessed May 4, 2017.

  68. 68.

    U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Airland, Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014 and the Future Years Defense Program: Part 4 Airland, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014): 10–11; http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo46909; Accessed May 4, 2017.

  69. 69.

    See Public Law 112-81, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,” 125 U.S. Statutes at Large 1325, and Tarr, 304.

  70. 70.

    Public Law 112-239, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013,” 126 U.S. Statutes at Large 2237, 2261.

  71. 71.

    Public Law 113-66, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014,” 127 U.S. Statutes at Large 1093, 1115.

  72. 72.

    Public Law 113-201, “Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,” 128 U.S. Statutes at Large 3915, 3939.

  73. 73.

    U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) CFO, Program Acquisition Cost by Weapons System: Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request, (Washington, DC: DOD, 2015): 1–6; http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2016/FY2016_Weapons.pdf; Accessed May 4, 2017.

  74. 74.

    U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy: Domestic Minerals Supplies and Demands in a Time of Foreign Supply Disruptions, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2011): 33–36; http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo15613; Accessed May 4, 2017.

  75. 75.

    U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2013 and the Future Years Defense Program, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013): 1:259; http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo34177; Accessed May 4, 2017.

  76. 76.

    U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs: Budget Request from the Department of Defense, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013): 7; http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo41321; Accessed May 4, 2017.

  77. 77.

    See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013): 10; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg39104549/pdf/CHRG-113shrg39104549.pdf; Accessed May 4, 2017; and webcast from CSPAN at http://www.c-span.org/video/?313451-1/sen-subcmte-debates-joint-strike-fighter-system; 10:10–11:00, Accessed May 4, 2017.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., 13; webcast at Ibid., 14:35–15:24.

  79. 79.

    Ibid., 16; webcast at Ibid., 16:42–17:16.

  80. 80.

    Ibid., 27, 29–30, 34.

  81. 81.

    U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Initial Conclusions Formed by the Defense Strategic Choices and Management Review, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013): 99; http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo42204; Accessed May 4, 2017.

  82. 82.

    U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for 2015, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015): 45, 185, http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo54960; Accessed May 5, 2017.

  83. 83.

    See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, National Defense Authorization Act 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): 1–5; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg87858/pdf/CHRG-113hhrg87858.pdf; Accessed May 5, 2017; and CSPAN Archive, http://www.c-span.org/video/?318509-1/fy2015-combat-aviation-programs-budget; 11:13–12:17 features Bogdan’s comments; Accessed May 5, 2017.

  84. 84.

    U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015): 60; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg49104595/pdf/CHRG-113shrg49104595.pdf; Accessed May 5, 2017.

  85. 85.

    See “Statement of Admiral William E. Gortney, United States Navy Commander United States Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command Before the Senate Armed Services Committee,” (Washington, DC: Senate Armed Services Committee, March 12, 2015): 5; http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Gortney_03-12-15.pdf; Accessed May 5, 2017; Ibid., Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2016 and the Future Years Defense Program: Part 2: Seapower, (Washington, DC: GPO: 2015): 123; http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo67057; Accessed June 4, 2018 and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, Statement of the Hon. Sean J. Stackley Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition) and Lt. General Christopher Bogdan, Program Executive Officer F-35, (Washington, DC: Senate Armed Services Committee, March 5, 2015): 2–5; http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20150414/103032/HHRG-114-AS25-Wstate-BogdanC-20150414.pdf; Accessed May 5, 2017.

  86. 86.

    U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, Update on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016): 3; http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo68712; (Accessed February 13, 2017).

  87. 87.

    Ibid., 21.

  88. 88.

    Congressional Record, 162 (63)(April 25, 2016): S2404–2405; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2016-04-25/pdf/CREC-2016-04-25.pdf; (Accessed February 13, 2017).

  89. 89.

    U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2017, Senate Report 114-263, (Washington, DC: GPO, May 26, 2016): 8–9; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-114sprt263/pdf/CRPT-114srpt263.pdf; Accessed February 8, 2017.

  90. 90.

    U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, Military Services Fifth Generation Tactical Aircraft Challenges and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Update, (Washington, DC: House Armed Services Committee, 2017): 44–47; http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo85874; Accessed May 31, 2018.

  91. 91.

    Ibid., 48–54.

  92. 92.

    Ibid., 18, 25, 61–71.

  93. 93.

    Ibid., 97–98.

  94. 94.

    See F-35 Program Timeline, Accessed May 5, 2017, F-35 Lightning II: Lockheed Martin, “Development of F-35 3i Software for USAF IOC Complete,” (May 9, 2016): 1–2; https://www.f35.com/news/detail/development-of-f-35-3i-software-for-usaf-ioc-complete; (Accessed June 1, 2018); Ibid., “Air Force Declares the F-35A Combat Ready,” (August 2, 2016): 1–2; https://www.f35.com/news/detail/air-force-declares-the-F-35a-combat-ready; Accessed February 13, 2017.

  95. 95.

    Ibid., “F-35C Back at Sea for Third Round of Carrier Tests,” (August 17, 2016): 1–2; https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35c-back-at-sea-for-3rd-round-of-carrier-tests; Accessed February 13, 2017; Ibid., “F-35 Helmet, Ahead of Our Time, (November 4, 2016): 4–6; https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-helmet-ahead-of-our-time; Accessed June 1, 2018; and Ibid., “Agreement Reached on Lowest Priced F-35s in Program History,” (February 3, 2017): 4–7; Accessed February 13, https://www.f35.com/news/detail/agreement-reached-on-lowest-priced-f-35s-in-program-history; (Accessed June 1, 2018.).

  96. 96.

    Donald J. Trump, “The F-35 Program and Cost is Out of Control,” (December 12, 2016): https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/808301935728230404; Accessed February 13, 2017.

  97. 97.

    U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General, Export Controls: Controls Over the Export of Joint Strike Fighter Technology, (Washington, DC: DODIG, 2006): 8–9; https://media.defense.gov/2006/Jan/11/2001712075/-1/-1/1/D-2006-044.pdf. Accessed August 14, 2018.

  98. 98.

    Ibid., Quality Assurance Assessment of the F-35 Lightning II Program, (Washington, DC: DODIG, 2013): i; https://media.defense.gov/2013/Sep/30/2001713313/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2013-140.pdf; Accessed August 14, 2018; Accessed May 5, 2017.

  99. 99.

    See Ibid., F-35 Lightning II Program Quality Assurance and Corrective Action Evaluation, (Washington, DC: DODIG, 2015): i; https://media.defense.gov/2015/Mar/11/2001713476/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2015-092.pdf; Accessed August 14, 2018; and Public Law 108-136, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004,” 117 U.S. Statutes at Large, 1540–1541.

  100. 100.

    U.S. Department of Defense, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, FY 2016 Annual Report, (Washington, DC: DOD, 2017): 47; http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/other/2016DOTEAnnualReport.pdf; Accessed February 16, 2017.

  101. 101.

    GAO, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program: Restructuring Has Improved the Program, but Affordability Challenges and Other Risks Remain, (Washington, DC: GAO, 2013): 2–5; http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655295.pdf; Accessed May 5, 2017.

  102. 102.

    Ibid., 7–10.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., Sequestration: Observations on the Department of Defense’s Approach in Fiscal Year 2013, (Washington, DC: GAO, November 7, 2013): 37; http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655295.pdf; Accessed May 5, 2017.

  104. 104.

    Ibid., F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Problems Completing Software Testing May Hinder Delivery of Expected Warfighting Capabilities, (Washington, DC: GAO, 2013): 1–3, 5–9, 23; http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661842.pdf; Accessed May 5, 2017.

  105. 105.

    Ibid., F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Observations on Program Progress, (Washington, DC: GAO, April 14, 2015): 1–6; http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669605.pdf; Accessed May 5, 2017.

  106. 106.

    Michael J. Sullivan, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Preliminary Observations on Program Progress, (Washington, DC: GAO, 2016): 4; http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676012.pdf; Accessed February 13, 2017.

  107. 107.

    Ibid., 6–7.

  108. 108.

    Ibid., 9.

  109. 109.

    Ibid., 11–12.

  110. 110.

    GAO, Weapons Systems Requirements: Detailed Systems Engineering Prior to Product Development Positions Programs for Success, (Washington, DC: GAO, 2016): 21–22; http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/681106.pdf; Accessed February 14, 2017.

  111. 111.

    Ibid., F-35 Aircraft Sustainment: DOD Needs to Address Challenges Affecting Readiness and Cost Transparency, (Washington, DC: GAO, 2017): 12–20; https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687982.pdf; Accessed December 20, 2017.

  112. 112.

    Ibid., 32–33.

  113. 113.

    Ibid., 39–40.

  114. 114.

    See Mark A. Lorell, Michael Kennedy, et al., Do Joint Fighter Programs Save Money?, (Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 2013): xii–xiv; http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1200/MG1225/RAND_MG1225.pdf; Accessed May 6, 2017; and U.S. Air Force, “General Janet C. Wolfenbarger,” (Washington, DC: U.S. Air Force, 2015): 1–2; http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/107934/general-janet-c-wolfenbarger.aspx; Accessed June 1, 2018.

  115. 115.

    Ibid., xv.

  116. 116.

    See Ibid., xvi; and International Military Aerospace Collaboration: Case Studies in Domestic and Intergovernmental Politics, Pia Christina Wood and Davis S. Sorenson, eds., (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2000).

  117. 117.

    Ibid., xvii.

  118. 118.

    See Ibid., xviii, Bruce G Linster, Stephen Slate, and Robert L. Waller, “Consolidation of the U.S. Defense Industrial Base: Impact on Research Expenditures,” Acquisition Review Quarterly, 9 (2)(Spring 2002): 143–149; http://webharvest.gov/peth04/20041019074635/http://www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/2002arq/SlateSP2.pdf; Accessed May 6, 2017.

  119. 119.

    Ibid., xviii–xix.

  120. 120.

    U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics, Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) Summary Tables as of December 31, 2014, (Washington, DC: DOD, 2015): 6; http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/sar/SST-2014-12.pdf; Accessed May 6, 2017.

  121. 121.

    Ibid.

  122. 122.

    Lockheed Martin, F-35 Lightning II: Domestic Impact, https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-map; Accessed June 1, 2018.

  123. 123.

    William D. Hartung, Promising the Sky: Pork Barrel Politics and the F-35 Combat Aircraft, (Washington, DC: Center for International Policy, 2014): 10–18; http://www.ciponline.org/images/uploads/publications/Hartung_IPR_0114_F-35_Promising_the_Sky_Updated.pdf; Accessed June 1, 2018.

  124. 124.

    Center for Responsive Politics, OpenSecrets.org : Congressional Races, (Washington, DC: Center for Responsive Politics, 2016): http://www.opensecrets.org/races/; Accessed June 1, 2018.

  125. 125.

    Ibid., Accessed May 11, 2017.

  126. 126.

    Congresswoman Kay Granger, “Granger/Dicks Announce Joint Strike Fighter Caucus,” (Washington, DC: Rep. Kay Granger, November 9, 2011): 1–2; https://kaygranger.house.gov/press-release/granger-dicks-announce-congressional-joint-strike-fighter-caucus; Accessed June 1, 2018. For examples of scholarly literature on congressional caucuses see Susan Webb Hammond, “Congressional Caucuses and Party Leaders in the House of Representatives,” Political Science Quarterly, 106 (Summer 1991): 277–294; Scott L. Kastner and Douglas B. Grob, “Legislative Foundations of U.S.-Taiwan Relations: A New Look at the Congressional Taiwan Caucus,” Foreign Policy Analysis, 5 (1)(January 2009): 57–72; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2008.00083.x; and Kristina C. Miler, “The Constituency Motivations of Caucus Membership,” American Politics Research, 39 (5)(September 2011): 885–920; https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X11407148.

  127. 127.

    David Martin, “Is the F-35 Worth It?,” (New York: CBS News, 60 Minutes, February 16, 2014): 1–3; http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-60-minutes/; Accessed May 11, 2017.

  128. 128.

    See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs: Fiscal Year 2015 Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Combat Aviation Programs, 1–5; and 60 Minutes, 4; Schmidle quote and supplemental info at 6:17–7:45.

  129. 129.

    Ibid., 4–7.

  130. 130.

    U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management, America is Under Cyber Attack: Why Urgent Action is Needed, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013): 15; http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo34535; Accessed May 11, 2017; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Cyber Espionage and the Theft of U.S. Intellectual Property and Technology, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014): 23; http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo47093; Accessed May 11, 2017; and Michael W. Pietrucha, “The Comanche and the Albatross About Our Neck Was Hung,” Air and Space Power Journal, 28 (3)(May–June 2014): 136; http://www.au.af.mil/au/afri/aspj/digital/pdf/articles/2014-May-Jun/F-Pietrucha.pdf?source=GovD; Accessed May 11, 2017.

  131. 131.

    See “Vice-Admiral Mathias W. Winter Director, Joint Strike Fighter Program, Office of the Secretary of Defense, (Washington, DC: U.S. Navy, June 9, 2017): 1–2; http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=578; Accessed December 20, 2017; “F-35C Integration into the Fleet,” (Washington, DC: JST Joint Program Office, August 3, 2017): 1–3; http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20170803_F-35C_Integration_into_the_Fleet.pdf; Accessed December 20, 2017; Ibid., “USS Lincoln Test F-35C Lightning II at Sea,” (September 11, 2017): 1–2; http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20170912_USS_Lincoln_Tests_F35C_Lightning_II_at_SEa.pdf; Accessed December 20, 2017; and Ibid., “F-35 Exiting the Pattern: At Long Last, the F-35 Strike Fight Fighter Set to Complete Development Phase,” (December 18, 2017): 1–3; http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20171218_F35_Exiting_the_Pattern.pdf; Accessed December 20, 2017.

  132. 132.

    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, (Senate Report 115-125): Washington, DC: GPO, 2017): 116–117; https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo82611; Accessed December 20, 2017.

  133. 133.

    U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Aviation Readiness: What’s the Flight Plan, (Washington, DC: House Armed Services Committee, 2017): 6; http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS03/20171109/106611/HHRG-115-AS03-Bio-RudderS-20171109.pdf; Accessed June 1, 2018; and Ibid., Military Aviation Readiness and Safety Hearing; http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS03/20171109/106611/HHRG-115-AS03-Wstate-NowlandC-20171109.pdf; Accessed June 1, 2018.

  134. 134.

    U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services. “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019,” (Washington, DC: Senate Committee on Armed Services, May 24, 2018): 1, 8–9; https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/download/fy19-ndaa-summary; Accessed June 4, 2018.

  135. 135.

    See President of the United States, National Security Strategy of the United States of America, (Washington, DC: The White House 2017): https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905-2.pdf; Accessed December 20, 2017; U.S. Department of Defense, Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress, (Washington, DC: DOD, 2017): http://www.businessdefense.gov/Portals/51/Documents/Resources/2017%20AIC%20RTC%2005-17-2018%20-%20Public%20Release.pdf?ver=2018-05-17-224631-340; Accessed June 1, 2018; Ibid., Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy, (Washington, DC: DOD, 2018): https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf; Accessed June 1, 2018; Ibid., 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, (Washington, DC: DOD, 2018): https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF; Accessed June 1, 2018; James Z. Przystup and Phillip C. Saunders, Asia and the Trump Administration: Challenges, Opportunities, and a Road Ahead, (Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 2017); http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/1271523/asia-and-the-trump-administration-challenges-opportunities-and-a-road-ahead/; Accessed December 20, 2017; Wayne A. Schroeder, “The Future U.S. Defense Budget, Orbis, 61 (1)(Winter 2017): 64–75: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2016.12.003; and Robert P. Haffa, “Defense Decisions for the Trump Administration,” Strategic Studies Quarterly, 11 (1)(Spring 2017): 25–48; http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/SSQ/documents/Volume-11_Issue-1/Haffa.pdf; Accessed December 20, 2017; and “Marine Corps F-35B Conducts Combat Strikes in Afghanistan,” (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, September 28, 2018): 1–2; https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1647694/marine-corps-f-35b-conducts-combat-strikes-in-afghanistan/; Accessed October 10, 2018.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Bert Chapman

Authors
  1. Bert Chapman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chapman, B. (2019). JSF and the United States. In: Global Defense Procurement and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01367-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation