Register here

Author Topic: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?  (Read 12815 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? 

Offline royabulgaf

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 388
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2011, 05:54:37 pm »
You probably would have got something along the lines of a smaller, single-engine F-22.  Or, perhaps more F-22s and some sort of A-10 replacement.  The Navy would get a big wing version of the mini-Raptor, and the Marines would get the new T-Bolt and told to like it.

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 #16 on: January 03, 2011, 11:42:19 am »
Looking at it this way, if ASTOVL had not been forced into JAST by Congress, the Marines would probably have gotten closer to their actual needs in a less expensive a/c.  JSF would have been somewhat cheaper and may have weighed less. 

It's unlikely that the lack of a STOVL requirement would have resulted in more F-22s.  Both USAF and USN still had their strike requirements, and one of the JSF drivers was to provide better strike at a lower cost than the F-22 would entail.   The F-22, though was still a major factor in the sense I mentioned earlier:  USAF wanted JAST/JSF to be good, but not so good (especially air-to-air) that it might threaten F-22 funding--that wouldn't change.  So I think it's unlikely that supercruise and the like would have been a requirement;  too much concern that JSFs would be bought in place of, rather than in addition to, Raptors. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2011, 12:43:17 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...

IMO something like the Convair 200A would have been perfect for the USMC.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 356
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2011, 01:44:34 pm »
...IMO something like the Convair 200A would have been perfect for the USMC.
The Convair 200A is a nice looking design but doesn't it have two lift jets behind the cockpit? I thought the USMC didn't like lift jets, that was one of the reasons the MD/NG/BAe JSF design didn't go ahead.

Hot gas up front and extra maintenance for the lift engine were the sticking points IIRC. I still think it looked simpler than the F-35B lift fan arrangement though!

Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 356
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2011, 01:57:20 pm »
Back on topic, I think a CTOL/CV only JSF design would have had larger internal weapon bays, probably capable of carrying 4x 2000lb JDAM type weapons or even 2x 4500lb bunker buster weapons.

Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 356
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2011, 09:57:22 am »
I wonder if the Boeing F-32 would have looked more like their MRF concept without the STOVL requirement?
(Boeing MRF pic first posted by Hesham here http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2121.0/highlight,boeing+mrf.html).
« Last Edit: January 16, 2011, 10:35:08 am by SteveO »

Offline cthippo

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 18
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2011, 01:24:28 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

  If (when) the F-35B gets canceled there is going to be a HUGE market for a Harrier replacement.  Not only Spain, but also Italy and India operate Harriers as part of their naval air arms. 

  Maybe Yakolev could dust of the YAK-41 plans and partner with someone to put them into production. 

Offline royabulgaf

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 388
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2011, 02:14:46 pm »
If you count all the small state Harrier purchases, you are looking at maybe 80.  Drop India, which is moving toward CTOL carriers, and Thailand, which can't afford to run its current Harrier fleet, and you are looking at Spain and Italy, respectively.  A production run of 40-50 tops for a unique and difficult aircraft design?  Not hardly.   Their Harrier replacements will be low-time airframes from Davis-Monthan AFB. 

Offline cthippo

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 18
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2011, 06:21:52 pm »
If you count all the small state Harrier purchases, you are looking at maybe 80.  Drop India, which is moving toward CTOL carriers, and Thailand, which can't afford to run its current Harrier fleet, and you are looking at Spain and Italy, respectively.  A production run of 40-50 tops for a unique and difficult aircraft design?  Not hardly.   Their Harrier replacements will be low-time airframes from Davis-Monthan AFB. 

  The UK has based the design of their new carriers around the F-35B concept and disposed of their Harriers, and the USMC still want a S/VTOL for close air support.  While it's true that existing airframes probably still have a lot of life left in them, the need for an eventual replacement remains.

Offline Meteorit

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 427
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2011, 01:00:43 am »
The UK has based the design of their new carriers around the F-35B concept and disposed of their Harriers, and the USMC still want a S/VTOL for close air support.  While it's true that existing airframes probably still have a lot of life left in them, the need for an eventual replacement remains.

Except the UK decided to drop the F-35B and switch to F-35C instead a couple of months ago.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?
« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2011, 02:07:50 am »
"The UK has based the design of their new carriers around the F-35B concept .."

In my understanding the design of the carriers was suitable from the start to be equipped
for CTOL, something that was often explained by the participation of France.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...