Register here

Author Topic: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?  (Read 12816 times)

Offline AceAttorney

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 3
JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« on: December 30, 2010, 02:46:39 pm »
a question.

given the obstacles facing the F-35B variant and rumors of its cancellation..
how would the JAST designs differ there been no STVOL requirements?
or also if supercruise was included as a requirement?


Offline Nik

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 382
Harrier keeps flying ??
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2010, 07:29:43 am »
Uh, IIRC, the VSTOL version was intended to replace Harrier for UK & US Marine applications...

If JSF lacks those facilities, what's the point ??

Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 356
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2010, 05:35:58 pm »
In hindsight I think if the STOVL requirement had been kept out of the JSF program the USAF and USN could have got themselves a much lower risk, higher performance design that could have provided the cost savings they hoped for.

It might possibly have looked like the sleeker MDC/NG/BAE concept with an off the shelf F119 engine and 3D thrust vectoring nozzle. It would have been interesting if the airforce and navy could have agreed on a single variant rather than seperate CTOL and CV variants  ;D

A pure ASTOVL airframe and engine design could still have shared many systems.

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2010, 05:50:39 pm »
It would have been interesting if the airforce and navy could have agreed on a single variant rather than separate CTOL and CV variants  ;D

Did it ever happened in the post ww2 US history?

JSF without the STOVL requirements is something like the original MRF competition/initiative.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7151
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2010, 06:03:23 pm »
It would have been interesting if the airforce and navy could have agreed on a single variant rather than separate CTOL and CV variants  ;D

Did it ever happened in the post ww2 US history?

The F-4 and the F-4 were reasonably similar.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2010, 06:04:42 pm »
a question.

given the obstacles facing the F-35B variant and rumors of its cancellation..
how would the JAST designs differ there been no STVOL requirements?
or also if supercruise was included as a requirement?



What "rumors"?  The only people I've seen talking about it are the F-35 hating diehards.  Because, you know, the whole program was just ruined by the STOVL requirement.  Reminds me of the F-22 critics moaning about it being compromised by the requirement for stealth.

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline aero-engineer

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2010, 08:28:10 pm »
The requirements may have been different, but there are a few Joint USAF and USN efforts pre-JAST.

Offline Demon Lord Razgriz

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 188
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2011, 02:58:06 am »
What "rumors"?  The only people I've seen talking about it are the F-35 hating diehards.  Because, you know, the whole program was just ruined by the STOVL requirement.  Reminds me of the F-22 critics moaning about it being compromised by the requirement for stealth.

I remember reading a statement by SecDef Gates considering to start pushing the USMC to switch to the F-35C like the RN's doing. So that's likely where it's stemming from, as other than Italy wanting about 15 Bs, there'd be no one else with orders to buy the F-35B.

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2555
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2011, 10:54:26 am »
other than Italy wanting about 15 Bs, there'd be no one else with orders to buy the F-35B.

Highly likely:

Spain - AV-8B replacement

Potentials:  Albeit slim for now.

Japan - potential use on Hyūga class DDHs
South Korea - potential use on Dokdo class LPHs
Australia - potential use on Canberra Class LHDs

There is even talk of Israel looking at a small number of the F-35B in the future.

Regards,

Greg

Offline erkokite

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 7
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2011, 12:14:45 pm »
a question.

given the obstacles facing the F-35B variant and rumors of its cancellation..
how would the JAST designs differ there been no STVOL requirements?
or also if supercruise was included as a requirement?



What "rumors"?  The only people I've seen talking about it are the F-35 hating diehards.  Because, you know, the whole program was just ruined by the STOVL requirement.  Reminds me of the F-22 critics moaning about it being compromised by the requirement for stealth.



Source:

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2010/November%202010/November%2012%202010/PresidentialPanelCancelF-35B,CutF-35A,F-35CBuys.aspx

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1726
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2011, 03:45:31 pm »
a question.

given the obstacles facing the F-35B variant and rumors of its cancellation..
how would the JAST designs differ there been no STVOL requirements?
or also if supercruise was included as a requirement?



What "rumors"?  The only people I've seen talking about it are the F-35 hating diehards.  Because, you know, the whole program was just ruined by the STOVL requirement.  Reminds me of the F-22 critics moaning about it being compromised by the requirement for stealth.



Source:

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2010/November%202010/November%2012%202010/PresidentialPanelCancelF-35B,CutF-35A,F-35CBuys.aspx


Keep in mind that that panel is not looking at any technical or cost/benefit issues.  They're just examining g, "What would cost less".  Like similar panels before it (especially back when the F-14, -15 and -22 were being developed), they're making the classic recommendation, "You can spend less per unit if you buy more older stuff than newer stuff".  Their recommendations were full of that kind of analysis.   

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1726
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2011, 04:04:09 pm »
In hindsight I think if the STOVL requirement had been kept out of the JSF program the USAF and USN could have got themselves a much lower risk, higher performance design that could have provided the cost savings they hoped for.

It might possibly have looked like the sleeker MDC/NG/BAE concept with an off the shelf F119 engine and 3D thrust vectoring nozzle. It would have been interesting if the airforce and navy could have agreed on a single variant rather than seperate CTOL and CV variants  ;D

A pure ASTOVL airframe and engine design could still have shared many systems.

You've got to keep in mind how this all came about.  Congress in 1994 thought it would be a good idea for one plane to perform similar missions for the three air arms, and ordered ASTOVL to be merged into JAST.  During the '90s a number of engineers salivated at the prospect because it would be a great  engineering exercise.  The then current Administration liked the idea because it would set a good schedule to "triangulate".  Specifcally, they could further cut the number of F-22s, while simultaneously proclaim they were moving forward on a superior strike aircraft but structure the schedule so that the big money would have to come in the next Administration. 

As so often becomes the case in these kind of joint exercises, the mandate evolved into, "Build what USAF wants, and any changes the other services need will have to be variations on that".   USAF had mixed feelings about the program in the sense they wanted the plane to be good, but not too good lest it threaten the F-22. 

So this question might be asked another way as well:  What would the Marines' Harrier replacement been like if they hadn't been forced into JAST?  Now, the F-35 will meet their basic requirements because what they were looking for was a STOVL CAS machine, and a STOVL F-35A meets the bill, in fact does more than they need   They're fully on board because they knew by riding along they could get what they wanted without having to take all the incoming fire themselves.   Still, given what they wanted the plane to do, had they been allowed to go their own way one has to wonder if they would have cared that much about supersonic performance or even  much stealth...

Offline AceAttorney

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 3
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2011, 05:36:12 pm »
thanks for the replies.
however I'm not interested in a discussion about the F-35B and its future
but rather, how the design of the JSF aircraft would've differed if there was no vstol requirements (either they created a separate aircraft to meet it, or not)

Offline Tailspin Turtle

  • Naval Aviation Author
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 683
    • U.S. Navy Aircraft History
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2011, 06:17:38 pm »
thanks for the replies.
however I'm not interested in a discussion about the F-35B and its future
but rather, how the design of the JSF aircraft would've differed if there was no vstol requirements (either they created a separate aircraft to meet it, or not)

For sure the Boeing airplane would have had the engine located more aft. (It was where it was because the VTOL exhaust had to be at the center of gravity.) One of the brilliant aspects of the Lockheed lift fan approach was that the CTOL version was minimally penalized by the VTOL configuration.

Offline AceAttorney

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 3
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2011, 03:08:37 pm »
Another question is, would the requirement or lack of, for supercruise change?