The Joint Strike Fighter Program - Case Study Example

The Joint Strike Fighter Program Author’s Name Institutional Affiliation Tutor Date Introduction Almost every country around the world takes the issue of national defence seriously and hence national defence is given priority. Historically, the survival of countries has depended on superiority of arms. This is because countries have utilized their superior weapons to defend their borders. In the past countries were able to make colonies through the use of their superior fire power. This position does not appear to have changed much in modern times since countries still launch attacks against others and the success of such attacks depends primarily on the superiority of arms of the invading army. During the twentieth century, the field of war far experienced what would be termed as a revolution (Martin-Baker, 2012). Countries the world over invest huge sums of money in arms research so that they are able to be better than their contemporaries. There are a number of reasons why countries have continued to invest so heavily in weapons research. The first reason is that a country with the latest arsenal cannot be attacked at the whims of any country. Therefore, the first reason could be to act as a deterrent which could be the greatest role played by nuclear weapons (Martin Baker, 2012). The second reason that countries invest a lot of funds in developing weapons is to gain superiority in case they were to go to war. Technology has been the hallmark of modern warfare and this is meant to ensure that a country should be able to attack within the shortest time possible, inflict the greatest damage, and suffer the least number of casualties. The first and the second World Wars can be seen as the main reasons behind the modernization of weapons of war. The two catastrophic wars gave countries reasons to develop the latest weapons and also stockpile such weapons just in case they were needed. The two World Wars saw countries put in a lot of resources which included financial and human to ensure that they came up with the best weapons (Reed, 2010). A good example would be the Manhattan Project whose outcome was the first atomic bomb ever. This paper is concerned about one of the latest projects aimed at modernizing the way warfare is conducted. The paper therefore looks at the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The JSF is a joint venture with the United States of America being at the head and having the support of other countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada. A statement on the program's website aptly covers the objective of the program as:"...the Department of Defense's focal point for defining affordable next generation strike aircraft weapons for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and our allies (Venlet, 2012)." Background to the program The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) refers to a program for development and acquisition of military aircraft. The program was conceived with the goal being to diverse types of aircraft which specifically targeted aircraft used for ground attacks, striking and fighter aircraft. The program was intended to benefit a limited number of countries such as the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and the countries allied to them. The program began with a competition between two leading companies. The two companies pitted against each other were Boeing a leading aircraft manufacturer and Lockheed Martin a defense contractor. The two models which got into competition were the Lockheed X-35 and Boeing's X-32. The winner in this competition was Lockheed Martin's X-35. The Joint Strike Fighter program resulted from a merger of two independent projects. According to Jeremiah (2012) these projects were the Joint Advanced Strike Technology and the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter. Initially the project born out of the merger proceeded under the name Joint Advanced Strike Technology with the name changing to Joint Strike Fighter during the engineering, manufacturing and development phase. The Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter program had been born out of the need to come up with a Short Take off and Vertical Landing strike fighter intended for the Marine Corps of the United States. This aircraft was intended to get in the place previously occupied by F-16 Fighting Falcon. The year 1992 saw the US air force and the Marine Corps coming together so as to come up with a fighter known as the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter. The Joint Advanced Strike Technology came into existence in 1993. It was in essence an implementation of one of the recommendations that had been made by the Department of Defense of the United States. The program was geared towards replacing a number of different aircraft from the United States and the United Kingdom with one type of aircraft. Both the United Kingdom and Canada entered into an agreement with the United States under which the two countries would contribute finances to ensure the success of the project. Boeing and Lockheed Martin were to develop prototypes which were supposed demonstrate various capabilities such as vertical land and short takeoff (Martin-Baker, 2012). The aircraft developed by Lockheed Martin was the most impressive and hence the company emerged the winner for the tender. Lockheed Martin was therefore awarded the contract for the System Development and Demonstration. This was after Lockheed Martin aircraft the X-35 proved to be better than the X-32 developed by Boeing. The aircraft developed by Lockheed Martin had a good method of achieving the short take off and vertical landing through the use of a high performance fan system. The Achilles’ heel for the Boeing’s prototype was that hot air from the exhaust went back to the engine which resulted in overheating and having a weaker thrust. Current Situation of the Project The Joint Strike Force program has had a number of challenges. These problems have ranged from delays and increase in costs (Sullivan, 2010). The problems facing the program led to one casualty who was the head of the program. The former Defense Secretary of the United States Mr. Robert Gates removed major General David R. Heinz from the position he held as being at the helm of the program (Whitlock, 2010). The Defense secretary cited the reasons for taking such a drastic action as delays and a host of other problems which were facing the Joint Strike Force Program. The defense secretary also arrived at a decision to withhold money amount to $614 million from Lockheed Martin which amount would have been used as bonuses (Sullivan, 2010). The Deputy Defense Secretary, Bill Lynn, made an announcement in 2010 that the program would be delayed by a period of one year. Some estimates point to the fact that the cost of the Joint Strike Force Program would rise to about $400 billion due to overruns. This would mean that the cost of the entire project would have gone up by about 50% of the price that had been projected initially. The complications for the program, both technical and financial are as a result partly from a version of the Joint Strike Force which was developed by the United States Marine Corps and which has capabilities of taking off and landing vertically. A senate committee dealing with the Armed Forces conducted investigations in the year 2010. The outcome of the investigations involving top officials from the Pentagon was that the committee was able to understand the cause of the rise in costs. Reed (2010) notes that the Joint Strike Force program could be summed up as having been introduced for the purpose of improving the performance of the aircraft used in warfare. The project has also consumed a lot of time and resources (Sweetman, 2008). Therefore, performance must improve as it is the yardstick through which success of the whole program would be measured. F-35 is one of the aircraft that has been developed as part of the program and there have been concerns raised about its performance. These concerns partly emanate from simulations by a certain company. In the simulation by RAND Corporation, many Sukhoi fighters from Russia are able to defeat a number of F-35 fighters by ensuring that tankers do not refuel. As a result of the concerns resulting from the results of the simulation the defence minister from Australia made a request for a briefing from his country's department of defence about the simulation results (Reed, 2010). The outcome of the briefing was that the department had found that the simulation's reports were not accurate. The people conducting the simulation had also failed to measure the performance of F-35 against the performance of other aircraft. It therefore important that the performance of the aircraft is assessed to ensure that it meets very high standards so as to ensure that the time and resources spent on the program have been put into good use. In manufacturing of aircraft, it is important that the design is such that the aircraft is safe. In November 2011, the American Department of Defence conducted its investigations as to the quality of the design of the aircraft developed by the Joint Strike Force program. The team from the Department of Defence found no fundamental risks in the design of the aircraft but there thirteen issues of varying degrees of severity which when taken on the whole would result in the aircraft's design being adjudged as lacking in some respects. Some of the issues identified by the committee had to do with a tail hook developed by the navy for aircraft landing on aircraft carriers (Whitlock, 2010). An issue was also found to exist with the system for dumping extra fuel before the aircraft could land and the aircraft shook excessively during the flight. According to the Department of Defence's Report, F-35 was also found to have more changes and retrofits than earlier planned. It was the department's opinion that low design maturity could be attributed to the many requests that were made with regard to changing of the aircraft's design. (Trimble, 2008) The flaws pointed out with respect to the aircraft are very important and therefore cannot be ignored. The challenges facing the development of aircraft under the Joint Strike Fighter program has meant that the life of some older aircraft has been extended as a result of the delays in delivery by Lockheed Martin in conjunction with Joint Strike Fighter program. The testing of F-35 jets has been running ahead of the restructured schedule. The program has also been complicated by the quality of pilot helmets produced and this has resulted in BAE Systems being awarded a tender to provide pilot helmets for the F-35 jets. It is incumbent upon the team charged with developing the aircraft to ensure that they are able to come up with designs which are better thought out so as to ensure that the end product is worth the effort. Analysis of the Program's Leadership According to Sweetman (1999) leadership is the principal determinant whether any project gets to succeed or ends up in failure. The Joint Strike Fighter has placed a lot of emphasis on the quality of leadership since this is what shall play a role as to whether the project goes through or falls through. The Joint Strike Fighter program is an enormous one and it would probably be many years to come before such a project is initiated. It is therefore absolutely necessary to ensure that utmost care is taken in deciding who takes what role in the development of the program (Gorman et al, 2009). The program is managed jointly and members of staff are drawn from the Air Force and the Navy. Service Acquisition Executive is a position which is held alternately between the Department of the Air Force and the Department of the Navy. Therefore, when a member of the Air force hold the Service Acquisition Executive authority, then the director of the F-35 program is drawn from the Navy. In the year 2010, the Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates made a decision dismissing the Joint Strike Force program manager. The Defence Secretary also announced that the position of the program manager would be upgraded to a 3-star billet from the prevous 2-star. The Defence Secretary nominated Vice Admiral David J. Venlet to the position of program manager and the Senate confirmed him for the position. The operating costs for the program have been quite high with the cost of operating and sustaining the fleet of F-35 amount to above $1 trillion. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform released a report in 2010 which tackled the ways through which the United States would decrease its large national debt. Some of the suggestions by the Commission were that the F-35B ought to be cancelled and this would save the government about $17.6 billion (Sullivan, 2011). The Commission then proposed that F-16s and F/A 18Es should then be purchased in place of the planned purchases of F-35A and Cs. According to the report by the Commission, having such a combination would result in $9.5 billion being saved. The Chief Financial Officer of Lockheed Martin was of the opinion that implementing the recommendations of the commission would not be a viable idea since the company was already set to produce F-35s and would manage to build very few F-16s in any given month. The vision of the program is to deliver and maintain strike aircraft which are very advanced and to be able to protect the generations to come the world over (Sullivan, 2011). Thus the program places emphasis on affordability. The leadership of the program therefore aims at ensuring that the costs of production, development and ownership are reduced to the minimum. The leadership also places emphasis on jointness, advancement of technology, demonstration of concepts and cost performance which is central to the definition of requirements. The Joint Strike Fighter project could be described as a joint venture since several countries mostly America and Europe have contributed various sums of money to ensure the success of the project. However, the real leadership comes from the Department of Defence of the United States. In this program, the Secretary of Defence of the United States has a lot of power. The reason for this is that the project is led by the military which is answerable to the Secretary of Defence. Boeing a mega project, the program requires leadership which is accountable and robust so as to ensure that the goals and aims of the project are achieved (Sweetman, 1999). Coordination is required since different countries are interested in the project either as potential purchasers or as both purchasers and manufacturers. Therefore, decisions have to be made to determine which countries are to play which role and why. This kind of interaction means that the decisions which are made have to be balanced and take care of different and competing interests from different countries. Effective decision making is required in determining the quantities to be produced and the cost of each aircraft (Sweetman, 1999). The leaders of the program should come up with ways to ensure that countries placing orders do not later change their minds. They should also ensure that they make timely deliveries of the fighter planes. Extensive consultations are required to ensure that no specific country or institution shall feel short changed in the deal as it is meant to be beneficial to the developers of the aircraft and their allies. Balance between hard and soft skills For any project to be successfully completed, it is required that there be people who have the technical skills (Gorman et al, 2009). However, in a program which is such big, many people are required. It is important that the people participating in the program have the required skills to enable them work well with their colleagues. When people work together in harmony then they are able to give their best. To a large extent, the kinds of interactions that people have are determined by the quality of leadership or training that they have been through. However, leadership is the more important factor when it comes to ensuring both the technical know and interpersonal interactions work together in harmony to bring out the best in people. However, in a program which is such big, many people are required. It is important that the people participating in the program have the required skills to enable them work well with their colleagues. When people work together in harmony then they are able to give their best. In the United States, the program to produce versions of aircraft which are suited to meet the needs of each of the three services of the military (Sullivan, 2011). The project also makes use of people from other countries outside America and hence the need to have proper coordination to ensure that people who operate differently are properly managed. The leadership should balance the hard and soft skills by designing the program in a good way. The leadership comes from the senior personnel in the military and the posts are held on a rotational basis. This kind of shared leadership means that the interests of each department of the defense forces of the United States feel represented. This means that every major decision which is made regarding the way the project is being run is arrived at through a consultative process and involving the different departments of the defense forces. The technical knowhow mostly comes from the contractors involves such as Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems. Having a centralized leadership means that the needs of the different military service are well taken care and there is coordination with the defense contractors who have to deal with the actual designing of the aircraft. The program is one of national importance and thus it is important that the activities involved should be run in a transparent manner (Daily News, 1995). This role is played by the defense secretary and also the congress mostly through the committee involved in defense. The senior executives in the program are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that they understand both the technical side and the human side of any program. The executives in this program have to ensure timelines are respected and those budgetary allocations are optimally utilized (Daily News, 1995). Coordination results in the entire project running smoothly and at the end of the whole program everyone involved feels contented with the outcome. Recommendations 1. The program's leadership should guard against espionage. Theft of crucial information regarding the project could lead to enemy countries obtaining sensitive information to the detriment of the Department of Defence and also the entire project (Jeremiah, 2012). A Wall Street Journal report in April 2009 was to the effect that some computer spies from China had been able to access the database for the program and this infiltration in loss of a lot of information which should not been let out to anyone else (Jeremiah, 2012). The program can only achieve the objective of being dominant if sensitive information is closely guarded and only people who are authorized should access the sensitive information on the program. 2. The program's leadership ought to manage the costs of the project. Estimates point to the fact that the project would end up costing about one and a half times the initial cost. The amounts involved in the project are not little and having an increase of about 50% shows that there could be very serious ramifications on the economy (Bolkcom, 2003). Therefore, ways should be adopted which should see to it that the relevant parts of the project are handled in a cost effective way and there should not be much deviation from the initial cost estimates as it is expected that expertise was utilized in coming up with such estimates (Trimble, 2008). The government has had to contend with large amount of deficits and ways are being sought to reduce those deficits. It is therefore imperative that funds are utilized optimally to ensure that the program does not result in the economy being affected negatively. 3. The program ought to be completed within the set timelines. The Joint Strike Fighter project has had to be delayed owing to some challenges. This even resulted in the then Defense Secretary dismissing the head of the program. Failing to observe timelines creates inconveniences and leads to escalation of costs. The Department of Defense had to extend the life of quite a number of its military aircraft and this was occasioned by the unnecessary delays. Servicing of old aircraft and the cost of maintenance is quite high and in the end is clear that unwarranted costs would be incurred though these would have been avoided had proper measures been put in place to ensure that everything goes on smoothly. 4. The leadership of the project must ensure that the aircraft meets the set standards. There is no other option for the program but to develop the highest quality of aircraft possible. This can only be achieved through proper and thorough tests to ensure that the aircraft does not have any weaknesses which would result in poor performance or even the risk of loss of the aircraft and personnel during a mission. Proper standards should be put in place which the aircraft should meet and it is important for tests to be done to ensure that the limits of the aircraft are tested before such aircraft can be certified as fit for mass production. There have been some concerns about the stability of the F-35 fighter plane while in flights. Have proper mechanisms of testing are the only way to ensure that no substandard aircraft is released after spending huge sums of money. 5. The program's leadership should be properly selected. The success of any program depends to a large extent on the quality of leadership that is available. The leadership should be able to create a harmonious working relationship at the program. Proper leadership would also ensure that no unwarranted delays ever occur and the finances allocated are utilized in the best way possible. Having in place proper leadership makes sure that the aircraft produced would have passed all the quality control tests and no patent or latent defects would be discovered once the aircraft gets into operation. Having the right leaders in place would also ensure that there is confidence in the whole project and recouping the amount utilized in the development of the aircraft would not be an uphill task. Therefore, the necessary background checks and the temperament of a leader should be put into consideration before one can be deemed as qualified to hold an important position. 6. The program should be distributed evenly. The program is a joint one. As a result of this, many countries have a direct interest in the outcome. It is therefore important that as many countries as possible play a part in the production of the aircraft. Such participation would help the countries to feel proud for having participated in developing the fighter aircraft. Having only one or two countries doing everything or the most important tasks would leave other countries with feelings of resentment which is worse than if they had not been involved in the project to start with. In the Joint Strike Fighter program, there is already hue and cry from some countries that feel that they have been relegated to the sidelines. Such countries feel that they are only left to do the less technical work while the key players handle the most important parts of the all important project. Conclusion The Joint Strike Fighter program is a program on a large scale. The program was conceived by the American Department of Defence so as to replace their fighter planes. The program was meant to develop planes which were much advanced and which would take a lot of time before the need to replace them arising (Watt, 2012). Due to the complexity and expenses involved in the program, the United States government sought to have collaboration from other countries especially from Europe so as to make the program successful. Australia is one of the countries participating in the program. The budget presented by the Australian government involved proposals to delay purchase by the Australian government of some of the Joint Strike Fighters it had planned to buy (Watt, 2012). The decision to delay the purchase of the fighter planes is calculated to lead to saving of about $1,6 billion. The delay in the purchase by the Australian government also followed a decision by the Department of Defense of the United States to defer the number of planes of the F-35 fighters that could be procured. The Joint Strike Fighter program is meant to revolutionize the air capabilities of the armies of a number of countries involved in the program which is basically the United States and its allies. References Bolkcom, C. (2003). JSF: Background, Status, and Issues. Retrieved from , on 5th December 2012. Daily News, (1995). US, UK sign JAST agreement. Aerospace Daily: McGraw-Hill. Fulghum, D., Morrocco, J. (1996). Final JSF Competition Offers No Sure Bets. Aviation Week and Space Technology: McGraw-Hill. Gorman S., Cole A., & Dreazen Y. (2009). Computer Spies Breach Fighter-Jet Project Article. Wall Street Journal. Jeremiah G. (2012). F-35 Joint Strik Fighter (JSF) Program: Congressional Research Service. Martin-Baker. (2011). A history of the Joint Strike Fighter Program. Reed, J. (2010). "Pentagon Official Confirms 1-Year Delay For JSF". Sullivan, M. (2010). Joint Strike Fighter: Additional Costs and Delays Risk Not Meeting Warfighter: Diane Pub. Sullivan, M. (2011). Joint Strike Fighter: Restructuring Should Improve Outcomes, but Progress Is Still Lagging Overall: Diane Pub. Sweetman, B. (1999). Joint strike fighter: Boeing X-32 vs Lockheed Martin X-35. Osceola, WI: MBI Pub. Sweetman, B. (2004). Ultimate fighter: Lockheed Martin F-35, Joint Strike Fighter. St. Paul: Zenith Press. Sweetman, B. (2008). "JSF Leaders Back In The Fight." Retrieved from , on 5th December 2012. Trimble, S. (2008). US defence policy - and F-35 - under attack. Flight International, Reed Business Information. Venlet, D. (2012).F-35 Lightning II Program. Retrieved from , on 5th December 2012. Watt, D. (2012).Budget Review 2012-13. Retrieved from ,on on 5th December 2012. Whitlock, C. (2010). Gates To Major General: You're Fired. New York: Washington Post. Read More