The International Politics of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a good reason why the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is so often described as the arms deal of the century. In a report published on the last day of 2010, the Pentagon estimated lifetime operating and sustainment costs for the US F-35 Aeet-then projected at 2,443 units, not counting the prototypes-at US$1.45 trillion.1 Cost analyses of this type are always much-debated: How many units will be sold in total? How does one define lifetime? How reliable will the system be once it enters service? What will be the nature of its deployment? And so on. Beyond dispute is that the F-35 constitutes one of the largest, if not the largest, weapons programs in modem history.The story of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) began in 1994, when the United States Congress decided to merge two separate Department of Defense fighter jet research projects. The idea was to produce a fifth generation fighter aircraft for the joint use of the US Air Force (USAF), Navy, and Marine Corps. Preliminary research contracts were divided mainly among McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Northrop Gmmman, and Lockheed Martin, which subsequently formed teams that also involved other contractors, like Dassault (partnered with Boeing) and BAE (forming a threesome with McDonnell Douglas and Northrop Gmmman). The JSF program was purposely internationalized: a memorandum of understanding was signed by the US and British governments in December 1995, specifying a 90-10 split for co-funding the aircraft's demonstration phase, or, as it was officially known, the Weapons System Concept Demonstration (WSCD) phase.4 In November 1996 the Pentagon selected Lockheed Martin and Boeing as lead contractors; in October 2001 a long and fierce competition to carry out System Development and Demonstration (SDD) was won by the former. The Lockheed demonstrator X-35 turned into the F-35 Lightning II, which carried out its maiden flight in 2006; the two Boeing X-32 prototypes ended up in museums in Ohio and Maryland.The JSF was conceived from the beginning as a multi-role aircraft that would be capable of replacing four or five separate aircraft in use by the US military. To that end, the program gave birth to three different warplanes: the F-35A or the Conventional Take-Off Landing (CTOL) version, which is intended to replace the F-16 Fighting Falcon and A-10 Thunderbolt; the F-35B Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL), replacing the AV-8B Harrier II; and the F-35C Carrier Version (CV), taking over from the F/A18 Hornet and possibly the Super Hornet. All three versions completed the critical design reviews and are now in the SDD phase. Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft are rolling out from Lockheed Martin's assembly plant in Forth Worth, Texas, and the final Production, Sustainment, and Follow-on Development (PSFD) phase appears to be on the horizon. The US Marine Corps have established an operational squadron of F-35S at their Yuma, Arizona airbase, while instructor pilot training on the initial F-35S set to roll off the assembly line is progressing at a USAF base in Florida.5Globalized industrial partnerships propelled the JSF from the outset, but the multinational collaborative project took shape gradually. Most US allies were not briefed on the JSF until the beginning of the SDD phase, and it is unclear how the US government-specifically the nascent JSF office-decided which governments to engage.4 Canada joined in 1997, turning the US-UK collaboration into a multinational one. At that point, the JSF specified the conditions for different levels or tiers of partnership. Each level was mainly determined by the size of the partner's contribution. Level 1 partners contribute approximately 10 percent to the development of the aircraft. The UK is the only Level 1 partner and has committed $2.2 billion to the program. Level 2 partners, such as Italy and the Netherlands, contribute approximately $1 billion. Level 3 partners-Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and Turkey-contribute $ioo-$2oo million. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it