Lockheed ASTOVL, JAST, JSF projects

Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
22 January 2006
Messages
3,885
Reaction score
1,133
Supersonic STOVL fighter from Lockheed (This is one of the ancestors of the F-35)

Flight International Week Ending 11 June 1988
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed VSTOL Fighter.jpg
    Lockheed VSTOL Fighter.jpg
    102.8 KB · Views: 2,722
  • Lockheed STOVL '88.jpg
    Lockheed STOVL '88.jpg
    104.4 KB · Views: 1,650
In this place they can it turns diverse artistic conceptions of the different stages of development of the program JSF including the V/STOL versions of course:

http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/

And here another drawing of the varying VSTOL of Lockheed of the stage of development of the concept .

(source: Popular Mechanics edition Argentinean April of 1995)
 

Attachments

  • CDE_JSF.jpg
    CDE_JSF.jpg
    60.7 KB · Views: 2,235
Can someone explain what was that weird stuff all about?
 

Attachments

  • rivet3.jpg
    rivet3.jpg
    9.7 KB · Views: 1,982
  • rivet3vw.jpg
    rivet3vw.jpg
    34.3 KB · Views: 3,065
I believe its a Lockheed project (RIVET) that Dan Raymer worked on while he was a Lockheed. The idea was to install the engine backwards, which would put the exhaust in a more favourable position for single engine vectoring.
 
AW&ST. April 23 1990

Lockheed concept for an advanced STOVL fighter. "The Navy has a tentative requirement for such an aircraft that could be fielded by 2010"
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed ASTOVL concept.jpg
    Lockheed ASTOVL concept.jpg
    123.6 KB · Views: 1,144
Lockheed jast concepts
 

Attachments

  • lockheed_1.jpg
    lockheed_1.jpg
    91.4 KB · Views: 980
  • lockheed_2.jpg
    lockheed_2.jpg
    56.5 KB · Views: 915
Ecco l'erede dell'Harrier by Guido Bassani. Volare (Early 90's)

Lockheed ASTOVL concept
(ancestor of the JSF)
 

Attachments

  • File0278.jpg
    File0278.jpg
    240 KB · Views: 980
More of Lockheed SSF from Lockheed's Code One magazine
 

Attachments

  • lock-ssf3.jpg
    lock-ssf3.jpg
    84.7 KB · Views: 569
  • lock-ssf2.jpg
    lock-ssf2.jpg
    61.3 KB · Views: 512
  • lock-ssf1.jpg
    lock-ssf1.jpg
    40.9 KB · Views: 475
Hi rodrigoavella,

the first artist was for MRF,and the second was
for look like JAST concept,but the building aircraft
for JAST was different a little.
 
New topic for Lockheed projects leading to JSF. Pics posted by flateric in other topic.
 

Attachments

  • Lock_CALF_ASTOVL_X-32.jpg
    Lock_CALF_ASTOVL_X-32.jpg
    309.1 KB · Views: 645
  • Lock_CALF_ASTOVL_X-32-2.jpg
    Lock_CALF_ASTOVL_X-32-2.jpg
    381.6 KB · Views: 895
from jsf site
 

Attachments

  • cddr_loc_008.jpg
    cddr_loc_008.jpg
    124.5 KB · Views: 585
  • cddr_loc_007.jpg
    cddr_loc_007.jpg
    331.1 KB · Views: 495
  • cddr_loc_006.jpg
    cddr_loc_006.jpg
    206.8 KB · Views: 489
  • cddr_loc_005.jpg
    cddr_loc_005.jpg
    212 KB · Views: 689
  • cddr_loc_004.jpg
    cddr_loc_004.jpg
    35.1 KB · Views: 701
  • cddr_loc_003.jpg
    cddr_loc_003.jpg
    56.9 KB · Views: 692
  • cddr_loc_002.jpg
    cddr_loc_002.jpg
    47.5 KB · Views: 747
  • cddr_loc_001.jpg
    cddr_loc_001.jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 725
Found on HDD
 

Attachments

  • PC035-029.gif
    PC035-029.gif
    181.4 KB · Views: 589
Source: Inernational Combat Arms
 

Attachments

  • Untitled-9.jpg
    Untitled-9.jpg
    375.3 KB · Views: 518
Lockheed CALF artist's impression and full-scale mockup. Note human figure relative size.

Source: CodeOne magazine/Lockheed
 

Attachments

  • CALF_04s.jpg
    CALF_04s.jpg
    45.4 KB · Views: 2,418
  • CALF_05.jpg
    CALF_05.jpg
    399.7 KB · Views: 454
  • CALF_03s.jpg
    CALF_03s.jpg
    70.7 KB · Views: 381
Lockheed CALF/JAST demonstrator (X-32) WT model and desktop model

Source: CodeOne magazine/Lockheed
 

Attachments

  • CALF_06.jpg
    CALF_06.jpg
    405.8 KB · Views: 487
  • CALF_07.jpg
    CALF_07.jpg
    223.5 KB · Views: 556
the earliest predecessor of F-35 - 1986 Lockheed's SSF (STOVL Supersonic Fighter)
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed DARPA_SSF_1986.jpg
    Lockheed DARPA_SSF_1986.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 681
the earliest predecessor of F-35 - 1986 Lockheed's SSF (STOVL Supersonic Fighter)
Is that a Shaft driven lift fan in a 1986 concept?

Because if it is, this guy (Paul Bevilaqua) in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Iw3Z6Dh8g
has got to correct himself about where exactly did he get the now patented idea.

Well maybe he did as his said, but it seams looking into history can give you more ideas that if you think on your own.
 
A million thanks.
Looks like the Shaft Driven lift fan was indeed 10+ years in the works before it saw the light of day with the X-35.

Lockheed really got a big head start on technologies for a supersonic STOVL fighter, leaving Boing and MDD to experiment with new or existing ideas.

I always thought the shaft driven lift fan to be a superior concept to all else put forth but I swear I did not see it in any of the books by Bill Guston in the 80's. I can remenber he was trying to come up with every possible STOVL engine configuration in support of the concept.
 
Bevilacqua came up with the "simplified" (actually, just not as scary) concept on the JSF, with the fan vertical and shut off during cruise.

SSF usually stood for "STOVL Strike Fighter". But surely there is a straight-aft nozzle too on that thing?
 
Bevilaqua was XVF-12 during his Rockwell years...sic...
 
He must have remained scarred with memories of the augmentor flop. Any other system looks more feasible after that! ;)
 
LowObservable said:
SSF usually stood for "STOVL Strike Fighter". But surely there is a straight-aft nozzle too on that thing?

You'd think that...but in the drawing it looks like the rear of the engine is split in the two 'trouser' legs and that's it. The long flattened wing trailing edge exhaust probably does wonders for IR (lots of mixing), but it's really bad for propulsive losses...I wonder how they could claim supersonic speeds with this arrangement.

Nice find on that picture, BTW. I had never seen that concept, or that propulsive arrangement. Reminds you of a distant relative of the tandem fan.
 
So when did Lockheed start to switch from this "X-32" design to the more conventional X-35? What drove them to get rid of the delta-ish wing and canard configuration?
 
What drove them to get rid of the delta-ish wing and canard configuration?

IIRC, it was the Naval requirements which led to the conventional configuration. I believe it's about the combination of bring back weight and being able to properly trim the aircraft at low speed for the approach without excessive AOA at the required wind over deck. That's what comes to mind, but someone else here probably remembers the exact reason(s).
 
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19970041513_1997101037.pdf
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed.JPG
    Lockheed.JPG
    49.7 KB · Views: 886
hesham said:
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19970041513_1997101037.pdf

This is Lockheed CALF X-32
 
In 1994, two design studies were conducted to explore the benefits of applying AAW Technology to subsonic multi-role fighters. These studies applied AAW technology to wing designs that did not have the supersonic requirements of the earlier ATF study.

In the first study (5), Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company conducted a conceptual design study on a joint USAF, USN, USMC multi-role aircraft configuration, shown in Figure 9. The aircraft was a single seat, single engine design with a "butterfly" type all-flying empennage. The engine was equipped with a pitch vectoring nozzle. The wing, shown in Figure 10, was supplied by Rockwell and had an aspect ratio of 3.84, a 40 degree leading edge sweep and a 4 % thickness-to-chord ratio.

Using conventional wing design, the baseline configuration had a TOGW weight of 48,278 lbs. Following application of AAW Technology, the resized aircraft had a TOGW of 44,866 lbs. , a 7.1% weight savings. Based upon the estimated cost of $1000 per lb. for fighter aircraft structure, this weight savings translates into a production cost savings of approximately $3.5 million per copy.

(5) Norris, M., and Miller, G.D., "AFW Technology Assessment", Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company and Rockwell-Aerospace Report No. NA 94-1740, December 1994.
 

Attachments

  • figure9.gif
    figure9.gif
    79.7 KB · Views: 811
  • figure10.gif
    figure10.gif
    36.8 KB · Views: 839
I presume the Lockheed C 160 is the aircraft tested here? Did any of the other concepts make it into such a mockup form?

cddr_loc_006.jpg


How could it fulfill the VTOL requirement using the Raptor like 2D engine nozzle?
 
flateric said:
hesham said:
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19970041513_1997101037.pdf

This is Lockheed CALF X-32

Was the X-32 a company designation? How was VTOL managed with the 2D thrust vectoring nozzle? Makes me wish the F-35 had that same nozzle configuration.
 

Unfortunately, Skunk Works destroyed the documentation for the classified GhostHawk concept after the DARPA-sponsored program terminated. When the US Marine Corps and US Air Force launched the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program a few years later, Skunk Works was forced design a whole new airframe.

Pity as it looks beautiful.

ghosthawk.jpg


Thought this might interest people - sad to see LM destroyed everything relevant to the project :(
 
Ian33 said:
Thought this might interest people - sad to see LM destroyed everything relevant to the project :(

This is about as close to the actual configuration as the public ATF renderings were to the YF-22.
 
I suppose that the "X-32 Ghost Hawk" model from "Jane's ATF" on the PC is also a reflection of the publicly-releasable fantasy released by Lockheed public affairs, rather than a reflection of the ongoing work at the time.
 
quellish said:
This is about as close to the actual configuration as the public ATF renderings were to the YF-22.

Well, you have to consider that this design study was just for a stealthy STOVL fighter. It was designed before the JSF requirements were ever released, IIRC. I also believe it was the Navy requirement which forced them to go from a canard to a conventional tail when they began designing for the JSF program.
 
Unfortunately, Skunk Works destroyed the documentation for the classified GhostHawk concept after the DARPA-sponsored program terminated. When the US Marine Corps and US Air Force launched the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program a few years later, Skunk Works was forced design a whole new airframe.

SO, anytime a DARPA funded program of a new classified tech demonstrator gets concluded, all the related work and materials go *poof*?
Both the taxpayer and the Aerospace fan in me are pretty appalled by this.

From a technological evolution point of view I find this pretty horrific as well. Patent b.s. aside, no man makes great technological strides without standing on the shoulders of those before him. We cant just go around wiping out the shoulders..... :'(
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom