Register here

Author Topic: Navy AX and A/FX projects  (Read 116481 times)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: Navy AX and A/FX projects
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2007, 06:10:42 am »
Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin JSF executive VP? A/F-X program manager in 1992...Yes. never heard of him...
« Last Edit: October 26, 2007, 06:15:12 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Maki

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Anytime Baby!!!
Re: Navy AX and A/FX projects
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2007, 02:12:40 am »
Found this picture in one of my old magazines. It says that it's a early concept for the A/X program for the navy. Doesn't say whose concept it is,but since it reminds me of Lockheed's early sketches for the ATF program I presume that it was one of their bids.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1879
Re: Navy AX and A/FX projects
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2007, 06:02:58 am »
It's a PR image... doubtless vetted to make sure it did not look like anything real.

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3174
Re: Navy AX and A/FX projects
« Reply #18 on: November 22, 2007, 06:11:51 am »
LowObservable, could you please tell me what is a PR image?

thanks :)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: Navy AX and A/FX projects
« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2007, 06:21:36 am »
Maki, this is early Lockheed pseudo-'NATF' illustration from Syd Mead
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1165.0.html
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Navy AX and A/FX projects
« Reply #20 on: November 22, 2007, 06:22:20 am »
That was Lockheed artwork done by Syd Meade (renowned industrial designer).  
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Maki

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Anytime Baby!!!
Re: Navy AX and A/FX projects
« Reply #21 on: November 22, 2007, 07:08:18 am »
So the magazine was wrong,it actually wasn't a AX proposal but PR artwork from the NATF :o. Sorry about that. I honestly thought it was a genuine AX proposal.And all this time I was wondering why a single-seat delta-canard configuration was chosen for a carrier based strike fighter when it is well known that the navy prefers two-seat and a wing configuration better optimized for carrier landings.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: Navy AX and A/FX projects
« Reply #22 on: November 23, 2007, 03:42:03 am »
Following discussion of what PR image is was moved here http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1099.0.html
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1879
Re: Navy AX and A/FX projects
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2007, 05:53:27 am »
Maki,
I'm not sure why the Navy hates canards. They can certainly work fine for carrier landings because they can be set up for low approach speeds (Rafale) with moderate angle of attack. And canards can be stealthy too (X-36).  Northrop Grumman proposed a species of canard, the hammerhead LEX, for JSF, before teaming with Macs and losing.

Offline Maki

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Anytime Baby!!!
Re: Navy AX and A/FX projects
« Reply #24 on: November 23, 2007, 11:23:29 am »
Of course delta-canards can land on carriers,that is not an issue,but since the A/F-X is a bigger and heavier bird then the Rafale,to operate at slow speeds would probably require more enlarged control surfaces (larger canards) which could complicate things. I have read that in the beginning of the JSF competition Lockheed started out with a delta-canard design but abandoned it for a number of reasons,among which was the Navy's requirement for controllability at slow speeds during carrier landings. They started enlarging the canards to try to meet the requirements but noticed that their size was starting to grow to big and that it degraded other elements of their design. Instead of pursuing this route Lockheed chose to switch to a conventional tailplane design,which would eliminate a great technical risk and speed up development.

So I guess that is the reason the Navy isn't fond of delta-canards,v-tails or any other unconventional solution. They don't like great risks,especially after the A-12 fiasco. Perhaps that's why some of the A/F-X proposals have variable geometry wings. But then you have to wonder what are the RCS numbers for swing wing designs,so they present a risk of their own.

Offline CFE

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 258
Re: Navy AX and A/FX projects
« Reply #25 on: November 23, 2007, 12:02:05 pm »
Maki,
I'm not sure why the Navy hates canards. They can certainly work fine for carrier landings because they can be set up for low approach speeds (Rafale) with moderate angle of attack. And canards can be stealthy too (X-36).  Northrop Grumman proposed a species of canard, the hammerhead LEX, for JSF, before teaming with Macs and losing.


If I understand the speculation on the Naval F-23 correctly, Northrop proposed a canard on their navalized F-23.  The wing would be moved aft, and the ruddervators would be replaced with canted vertical stabilizers.

Offline TinWing

  • What-if addict
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 862
Re: Navy AX and A/FX projects
« Reply #26 on: November 23, 2007, 01:07:30 pm »
Maki,
I'm not sure why the Navy hates canards. They can certainly work fine for carrier landings because they can be set up for low approach speeds (Rafale) with moderate angle of attack. And canards can be stealthy too (X-36).  Northrop Grumman proposed a species of canard, the hammerhead LEX, for JSF, before teaming with Macs and losing.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Lockheed droped canards from its ASTOVL/JAST/JSF proposals when it was determined that to maintain effectiveness as a control surface, a "stealthy canard" would have been prohibitively large and heavy? 

I won't deny that the Rafale M has a lower approach speed and more moderate angle of attack than the first generation Hornet, allowing for a far less robust landing gear - although there seems to be no great advantage in terms of overall structural weight.  However, a usefully lower approach speed was accomplished with the second generation Super Hornet by the simple expendient of increasing wing area.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: Navy AX and A/FX projects
« Reply #27 on: November 23, 2007, 03:20:40 pm »
At least three sources that have seen final Northrop/MDC ATF proposal, said that their NATF was a).canard and b).weird looking canard
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Maki

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Anytime Baby!!!
Re: Navy AX and A/FX projects
« Reply #28 on: November 23, 2007, 03:55:12 pm »
One of the factors that helped the YF-22 win the ATF competition was that its design was considered more adaptable for carrier usage. A canard YF-23 was probably to unconventional for the Navy.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2342
Re: Navy AX and A/FX projects
« Reply #29 on: November 23, 2007, 04:53:06 pm »
Actually, you're incorrect regarding "risk aversion." The reason the JSF went from a canard to a tailed aircraft is the same reason the ATF prototypes didn't have canards; Canards have a more limited AOA capability when compared to a standard tailed aircraft. Especially in the naval environment where they have the bring back weight requirement coupled with the WOD requirement. The simple fact is the tailed aircraft was the better solution to this problem than the canard configuration was and was also the reason the X-32 gained a horizontal tail. I seriously doubt the Rafale comes anywhere near meeting the U.S. navy's requirements in this regard.

It wasn't about risk, it was about what was the best design to meet the requirements, pure and simple. The mission drives the design, not the other way around.