ASTOVL without the JSF program - What would it have meant?

SteveO

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
360
Reaction score
1
Inspired by AceAttorney's "JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?" thread.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,11709.0.html

How do you think a ASTOVL only design would have differed from the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter?

My personal preference would be for something with a lot less doors and hinges ;D
 

SteveO

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
360
Reaction score
1
I would have liked to see something based on the BAe P.125 stealthy ASTOVL project (without the buried cockpit though!).

The P.125 was actually quite like the JSF concept as a minimal change CTOL variant was proposed too. The ASTOVL P.125 used a system called the Remote Unaugmented Lift System (RULS) which was similar to the X-32 arrangement (main nozzle blocker and deployable Harrier style hot nozzles) but placed further back from the centre of gravity (IMO) and balanced by diverted relatively cool fan air through a duct exhausting just aft of the cockpit/intakes. This would also provide a useful cooler air curtain to prevent hot gas ingestion.

Here's a pic of a model (first posted by Zebeedee IIRC)
 

Attachments

cthippo

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Well, it might of meant something that would actually work. ::)

Trying to make a single airframe both a SVTOL and convention aircraft is pretty much daft. They involve a very different set of design trade-offs.

I understand the desire to have one design that does it all, but this is taking things a bit too far.

I think the VTOL version of the F-35 is going to get canceled and that's going to leave a lot of forces, especially the Fleet Air Arm up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Or, more directly, with two brand new aircraft carriers and no aircraft to fly from them.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,634
Reaction score
23
Website
beyondthesprues.com
cthippo said:
I think the VTOL version of the F-35 is going to get canceled and that's going to leave a lot of forces, especially the Fleet Air Arm up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Or, more directly, with two brand new aircraft carriers and no aircraft to fly from them.
Try to be up to date with facts before posting!
 

SteveO

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
360
Reaction score
1
flateric's thread about the low support vehicle http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,12006.0.html has, I think, a lot of qualities that could be transferred to a Pegasus type engined ASTOVL combat aircraft.

I guess it would end up looking like a Boeing X-32 with dorsal inlets and be designed for subsonic performance.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,640
Reaction score
130
donnage99 said:
Robert Gates, I've found the answer!
Is that the legendary hovering-while-supercruising version of the F-22? ;D
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,222
Reaction score
38
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/astovl.htm

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began a program in 1983 to begin looking at the technologies available to design and manufacture a follow-on supersonic replace for the AV-8 Harrier. The program, known as ASTOVL, would eventually lead become a joint U.S.-U.K. collaboration.

The Advanced Short Takeoff Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) Program started as a joint research and technology effort in 1983 between the US DoD and the UK Ministry of Defense (MoD). Its aim was to support the eventual development of a supersonic STOVL strike fighter. Four powered lift concepts were selected for initial study, and preliminary assessments were performed in 1985. Further studies indicated that none of the original four concepts were completely suitable. However with the projected thrust available from the F-119 engine then in advanced development, two revised evolutions of these four concepts showed significant promise. These were the Shaft Driven Lift Fan (SDLF) and the Gas Coupled Lift Fan (GCLF).

In 1987 the results of the ASTOVL program made clear that the technologies available were not yet advanced enough to generate a replacement that the US and UK would have been satisfied with. At this time, DARPA secretly approached the Lockheed Skunk Works in the hopes that they would be able to develop an aircraft like they had hoped would have appeared from the first phase of ASTOVL.
Can someone please explain me why wasn't the Bae P.1216 considered ? The timing looks right, it was a supersonic plane, PCB were better mastered than in the 60's.

I just don't understand.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,640
Reaction score
130
No stealth for starters. Also, PCB was never going to be runway friendly.
 

red admiral

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
557
Reaction score
3
sferrin said:
No stealth for starters. Also, PCB was never going to be runway friendly.
Not as much stealth, not none.

Creeping or rolling landings solve many issues
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,640
Reaction score
130
red admiral said:
sferrin said:
No stealth for starters. Also, PCB was never going to be runway friendly.
Not as much stealth, not none.

Creeping or rolling landings solve many issues
What was stealthy about the 1216? Just eye-balling it (yes, I know that's not the most reliable method) it seems to be replete with many examples of what NOT to do when it comes to RCS reduction.
 

red admiral

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
557
Reaction score
3
Later variants had more rcs reduction features applied
 

mrmalaya

Consider it done.
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
1
I have to agree in that it isn't stealthy. There is only so much you could do to that planform surely? So if the UK had adopted the P1216 we would have no experience of LO aircraft design because Replica and the work leading toward the JCA would have been unnecessary?

P.125 all the way for me.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
41
P1216 was intended to have similar RCS treatment to Eurofighter, i.e. reduced not minimised. Visual and IR signatures were seen as important too, and the booms helped with the latter.

P.125 was so full of pipes for the lift system that the stores were all external. Not sure how that would work for minimal RCS.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
12
The main customer for VSTOL aircraft with the necessary
political clout and resources is the US Marine Corps.
The RAF turned their Harriers into as close to a Jaguar or
Phantom as they could get. Operating away from nice comfy airbases with all their facilities especially post 1991
has been a zero priority so no need for ASTOVL.
The Royal Navy could not afford a nuclear carrier
so a US Marine style aircraft was inevitable. An improved LHA as a platform follows on
 

SteveO

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
360
Reaction score
1
I think I must have posted this thread before Michael's P.1216 book came out. It's the P.1216 all the way for me now! ASTOVL (CV and CTOL too) would have been more interesting without the JSF anyway :)

(F-35B will do though!)
 
Top