“Can some one please explain to me again why 'operational sovereignty' is such a concern with JSF but not with Trident, TLAM, C17, etc?”
I think it important to realise that this is very much a personal crusade for Lord Drayson. He put his marker down in his Defence Industrial Strategy. Because he understands the detail, he is getting into areas that his predecessors have delegated to CDP. The problems arising from not being in control of the build standard of our equipment, be it an aeroplane or whatever, are well known. (SA80 is the all time classic example). There are some notable examples of projects hitting trouble because we have not acquired (or properly controlled and managed) these rights; but many, many more where laid down procedures have been followed, we have the rights, and the equipment is fully supportable in the UK. But, as usual, the successful projects are never mentioned, and it’s certainly never mentioned that there are extant procedures. Easier to spin it as a new initiative.
I’d like to think he realises that adhering to these procedures on Day 1 of any project is the basis of good project management. If you don’t, it’s catch-up for ever more and, by definition, you don’t have the funds to do it. All he is doing is clamping down hard on IPTs who are remiss and trying to ensure best established practice is followed. And word is he’s climbing all over them. And he's picked a high profile project to make his point.
However, the fact that the sponsoring branch for aforementioned procedures have, for many years, been proposing cancellation, supported by many who think the subject (incl. safety!!) a waste of money, indicates (to me) that he doesn’t quite have all bases covered. If he wins, whoever is charged with implementation will have to re-invent the wheel and will face much resistance. His approach is top-down, but it will take a long tiime to get to the bottom. Meanwhile, I can guarantee you that 99% of DPA haven't the foggiest what I'm rambling on about.