Ideology in My Controversy

The F-35 program started in 1995 as a joint military venture to create an affordable fifth generation strike fighter. The intent is to build a series of multi-purpose strike fighters for the Army, Navy and Marines. The project has experienced multiple setbacks, and budget has skyrocketed in recent years, causing controversy and debate among congress and the general public.

Createordie "F-35 Lightning II" 03/13/2007 via Flickr CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Who is involved in the controversy?
The governments of the various countries involved (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States) are largely responsible for the funding of the project. Lockheed Martin won the overall contract after competing with Boeing and Northrop Grumman early on. Various components have been subcontracted to companies including Northrop Grumman and Pratt and Whitney. The general public of each of the involved nations is also invested in the project.

Who are some of the major speakers/writers within these groups?
Because the program is multi faceted and depends on various branches of many companies and governments, there is extensive leadership involvement. U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher C. Bogdan is the F-35 Lightning II Program Executive Officer. Lorraine M. Martin is the Lockheed Martin Executive Vice President and General Manager of the F-35 Lightning II Program, Aeronautics. The public voice is heard primarily in the online community.

What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?
The government's selection of Lockheed Martin for the F-35 contract significantly impacted Lockheed Martin's standing in the aerospace industry. The U.S. government has essentially placed all of its D.O.D. aircraft funds for the foreseeable future into the F-35 program.

What resources are available to different positions?
The level of funding available for the program is dependent upon congress' annual FY budget. The multinational cooperation allows the best engineers from each of the nine countries and the involved companies to work on the project.

What does each group value?
The government's end goal is to develop a cost effective multipurpose fighter that will fit the needs of the U.S. army, navy, and marines to aid in global defense. The companies are focused on meeting the goals, deadline, and budget that the government outlines.

What counts as evidence for the different positions?
Proponents and critics alike have used test data to prove their points. Critics point to test failures, setbacks, and rising costs. Proponents select more promising tests, met deadlines and future implications of the projects success for their arguments.

Is there a power differential between the groups?
The Bush and Obama administrations have continued to support the program, while making cuts to non-essential portions. The program has been largely supported in Congress, so the opposition has been fighting a losing battle.

Is there any acknowledged common ground between the groups?
Both sides agree that the costs for the project should be kept to a minimum.

Is there any unacknowledged common ground?
People generally agree that allying with other nations for common defense is beneficial however, the amount that should be spent on defense and how much should be invested in alliances are debatable topics.

Do the various groups listen to each other?
The groups share common goals, so they tend to work together to achieve a balance. However, there are people who are so completely against the program that they insist on its termination.