Two years into the system design and development (SDD) phase of the Joint Strike Fighter programme, there remain major questions over whether the international workshare project will deliver on its promises to participating nations.
The multinational approach to developing the JSF is bold and far-reaching. No nation other than the USA can afford a wholly indigenous next-generation military combat aircraft programme, and the model being developed for the JSF is a critical test-bed for how projects will progress in the future.
The key to approaching, understanding, competing and working within the programme is that the entire effort is developmental. Nothing of this scale has ever been attempted in the international military aerospace arena. For this reason, the project was always going to acquire a veil of controversy over how the multinational participation aspects were enacted.
This supplement charts the experiences of the majority of JSF international programme members over the past two years. It reveals that many of the issues faced by those nations have a common focus, particularly the complaint that not enough workshare has been directed to their industrial bases. It reveals common concerns about the US domestic political environment; US exports and information-sharing policy; the preparedness of US companies to consider working with industry in other nations; and the potential impact of the US "Buy American" policy.
But the concerns are not all one-way. Domestic politics within JSF member nations has also played a major role in shaping perceptions and criticisms of the programme. It is easy to target the programme management and US politics for near-term political gains.
The extent to which short-term objectives will affect the decade-long ramp-up to full-scale JSF production is to be seen. But what is clear is that Lockheed Martin, as prime contractor for the project, has little room to manoeuvre, and the company is publicly expressing its frustration.
Companies that do well out of JSF can claim to be at the forefront of the aerospace industry. Likewise, those that are failing to make the grade face hard questions from shareholders.
In this sense, the international programme is an extraordinary benchmarking exercise that has set new standards of global best practice. This outcome alone deserves to be celebrated, regardless of where next the programme takes us.
Source: Flight International
