The Department of Defense should stick with its winner-take-all strategy to develop and produce the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). But as a hedge to ensure later versions of this next- generation aircraft-which is slated to become the workhorse fighter for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps-have the most effective and innovative sensor, computer, and software technologies, the Pentagon should consider spending money to keep a second developer and producer of these vital electronics components in the market. Such an investment in a second producer of such missions systems, the electronics eyes and ears of the JSF, could be relatively modest. But it would provide future decision makers with the option to competitively develop a second mission system source when and if it were needed. So concludes this study of competitive strategies for the Joint Strike Fighter. Performed over the summer and early fall of 2000, we examined both near and long-term competition options, some in more detail and more quantitatively than others, constrained only by the available time (about four months). Throughout the study we obtained critical information from the competing program contractors and the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office. while much of that information was considered competition sensitive by the firms, in this report we present only our own analysis and conclusions, thus permitting unrestricted distribution.