Boeing JAST / JSF / X-32 /PWSC F-32 projects

Working for a decade with the people who lived it in the UK and the US whilst being on the same program intimately involved in the STOVL variant myself. It was also taught as the “history” of F35 on several international STOVL technology courses. But you’d have had to attend them yourself, rather than being “at school with people” who did. I believe the older history of gas/shaft driven lift fan work is public and there were (years ago) a lot of images floating on the internet even then.

Understanding what HGI is (and I note you ignored the if not more important inlet and jet effects so presume you dont even know what they are) and accurately accounting for it in design and development are two enormously different things. As the many (10s of) millions spent during F35 SDD showed LM. Fortunately X35 had the potential and LM used the expertise (and DoD had the pockets...!)

The point, if it wasn’t clear enough - was Macair had that experience but Boeing didn’t, and then didn’t listen very well. That’s why X32 failed on basically every STOVL issue.

TomS - your dates are wrong, you’ve confused the concept demonstration phase of LM (incl. BAES as became) vs Boeing (incl MDD) which was from 1996. Downselect to SDD where the X32 proved, to borrow an adjective, absolute “crap”*, was late 2001. Those 5 years were that key period.
Click to expand...

FYI, I'm an Aeronautical engineer, so I did "attend" those classes. I was referring to people in those classes "with me" who ended up at MAC. I mainly had forgotten that the X-32 was a Boeing and not a Macair design, hence my shock at the hot gas reingestion issue, which every single engineer who was in our VSTOL aerodynamics course would have known about. So, your presumptions are quite wrong, but you are entitled to your smug bullshit; I sure can't stop you. I didn't mention the plume, etc, because I wasn't interested in getting into the details, but by all means, let's discuss that and ground erosion and ground effects ad infinitum.

Also, a shaft driven fan wasn't the only way to get the propulsion layout of the F-35. A tandem fan could have offered that as well. If you had known as much about STOVL as you proclaim, you probably would have known that. Of course, there would have been problems with the losses at the front fan due to the two ninety degree bends and it wouldn't be able to operate at optimum RPM being directly tied to the powerplant. Of course, it also wouldn't have had as much of a weight penalty since it wouldn't have required the lift fans gear box. I hope I was able to match your level of condescension, so that you may understand what I'm writing.
 
Sundog said:
Also, a shaft driven fan wasn't the only way to get the propulsion layout of the F-35. A tandem fan could have offered that as well. If you had known as much about STOVL as you proclaim, you probably would have known that. Of course, there would have been problems with the losses at the front fan due to the two ninety degree bends and it wouldn't be able to operate at optimum RPM being directly tied to the powerplant. Of course, it also wouldn't have had as much of a weight penalty since it wouldn't have required the lift fans gear box.
Click to expand...
Why hasn't a tandem fan been built? It seems very attractive at a surface level. Vought and BAE both had designs for them.
 
apparition13 said:
Sundog said:
Also, a shaft driven fan wasn't the only way to get the propulsion layout of the F-35. A tandem fan could have offered that as well. If you had known as much about STOVL as you proclaim, you probably would have known that. Of course, there would have been problems with the losses at the front fan due to the two ninety degree bends and it wouldn't be able to operate at optimum RPM being directly tied to the powerplant. Of course, it also wouldn't have had as much of a weight penalty since it wouldn't have required the lift fans gear box.
Click to expand...
Why hasn't a tandem fan been built? It seems very attractive at a surface level. Vought and BAE both had designs for them.
Click to expand...

FWIW, the SDLF has often been described as a tandem fan with the front fan rotated ninety degrees. Not quite accurate, as the fans do not share the same airflow in cruise, but in hover it's a fairly reasonable comparison. We've obviously seen studies on the tandem fan, but i've never seen any test hardware.
 
Hello,
Here are some plans I published in Le Fana de l'Aviation magazine I think last year. One 3-Views plan of the X-32A and an hypothetical 3-views plan of a F-32C. I based my work on excellent existing whatif illustrations that you can find on internet. I chose to depict a different squadron (actually I chose to draw the first squadron that deployed the F-35). I wanted to draw also some external payloads to make a sexier render (JSSAM and JDAMs, but I considered AIM-9X and AGM-159). The chief editor asked to have a shark teeth on the air intake. I added a few details, based on the F-35 detailed photos. Plan 3 vues F-32C_2eme version.jpg Plan 3 vues X-32A.jpg
Enjoy!
Regards
Alain
 
alanqua said:
Hello,
Here are some plans I published in Le Fana de l'Aviation magazine I think last year. One 3-Views plan of the X-32A and an hypothetical 3-views plan of a F-32C. I based my work on excellent existing whatif illustrations that you can find on internet. I chose to depict a different squadron (actually I chose to draw the first squadron that deployed the F-35). I wanted to draw also some external payloads to make a sexier render (JSSAM and JDAMs, but I considered AIM-9X and AGM-159). The chief editor asked to have a shark teeth on the air intake. I added a few details, based on the F-35 detailed photos.View attachment 657304View attachment 657305
Enjoy!
Regards
Alain
Click to expand...
Fabulous art.
 
pesholito said:
Do you still have it, can you share it? Nasa link is no longer active.
Click to expand...

NASA-CR-195079
Investigation into the impact of agility on conceptual fighter design

Investigation into the impact of agility on conceptual fighter design - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

The Agility Design Study was performed by the Boeing Defense and Space Group for the NASA Langley Research Center. The objective of the study was to assess the impact of agility requirements on new fighter configurations. Global trade issues investigated were the level of agility, the mission...
ntrs.nasa.gov ntrs.nasa.gov


Always include the report name, as links can change.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
pesholito said:
Do you still have it, can you share it? Nasa link is no longer active.
Click to expand...

NASA-CR-195079
Investigation into the impact of agility on conceptual fighter design

Investigation into the impact of agility on conceptual fighter design - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

The Agility Design Study was performed by the Boeing Defense and Space Group for the NASA Langley Research Center. The objective of the study was to assess the impact of agility requirements on new fighter configurations. Global trade issues investigated were the level of agility, the mission...
ntrs.nasa.gov ntrs.nasa.gov


Always include the report name, as links can change.
Click to expand...
Thank you!
 
Hi,

As far as I remembered, it seemed to me that from readings over 20 years ago, there had been cooperation between Dassault and Boeing regarding the X-32. It was particularly a question of benefiting from the experience of Dassault in the field of on-board fighters.

Today, I no longer find any mention of this cooperation, neither in articles, nor on the net (apart from the use of the Dassault CATIA software by Boeing. But LM also used it, among others) .

Therefore, I wonder if it's my memory that is playing tricks on me, or if it's an aspect of the program that has been forgotten or that no longer interests anyone today.

Does anyone on the forum have the answer?
 
I remember reading about much earlier proposed co-operation between Dassault and Boeing re: a US Mirage III (competitor to the F-5A for supply to US allies), don’t recall anything re: the JSF designs.
 
Have Battle of the X-Planes (had some ADP and Boeing pals on the programs) on DVD, Boeing made crucial errors during the Dem-Val; 1. Changing the design by adding the H-Stabs and re-shaping, 2. Not being able to demonstrate vertical takeoff, supersonic flight then a vertical landing, all in the single flight as compared to the X-35, they had to remove the inlet lip. However, they did demonstrate manufacturing processes which used less structural pieces and rapid composite fabrication techniques. Sometimes, even if you lose you actually can gain, because what you developed is yours to apply elsewhere.
 
Hydroman said:
Have Battle of the X-Planes (had some ADP and Boeing pals on the programs) on DVD, Boeing made crucial errors during the Dem-Val; 1. Changing the design by adding the H-Stabs and re-shaping, 2. Not being able to demonstrate vertical takeoff, supersonic flight then a vertical landing, all in the single flight as compared to the X-35, they had to remove the inlet lip. However, they did demonstrate manufacturing processes which used less structural pieces and rapid composite fabrication techniques. Sometimes, even if you lose you actually can gain, because what you developed is yours to apply elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Boeing always knew if the shaft driven lift fan worked, they wouldn't win. Their design changed (Adding the horizontal tails) because the U.S. Navy changed their requirements regarding the load the aircraft had to bring back to the carrier. That was no fault of Boeing's. Being able to take off vertically and then fly supersonically was never part of the requirement. It was just show boating, because no fighter will ever be used in that manner, unless the people operating it are idiots. The intake lip removal was a result of being marginal in the hover. Also, they suffered from hot gas re-ingestion, which was the more egregious problem. What I would like to know is why they were marginal in the hover. Was the development power-plant under thrust? Was the prototype overweight? We're the thrust losses in the system higher than expected? All of the above?
 
Sundog said:
Hydroman said:
Have Battle of the X-Planes (had some ADP and Boeing pals on the programs) on DVD, Boeing made crucial errors during the Dem-Val; 1. Changing the design by adding the H-Stabs and re-shaping, 2. Not being able to demonstrate vertical takeoff, supersonic flight then a vertical landing, all in the single flight as compared to the X-35, they had to remove the inlet lip. However, they did demonstrate manufacturing processes which used less structural pieces and rapid composite fabrication techniques. Sometimes, even if you lose you actually can gain, because what you developed is yours to apply elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Boeing always knew if the shaft driven lift fan worked, they wouldn't win. Their design changed (Adding the horizontal tails) because the U.S. Navy changed their requirements regarding the load the aircraft had to bring back to the carrier. That was no fault of Boeing's. Being able to take off vertically and then fly supersonically was never part of the requirement. It was just show boating, because no fighter will ever be used in that manner, unless the people operating it are idiots. The intake lip removal was a result of being marginal in the hover. Also, they suffered from hot gas re-ingestion, which was the more egregious problem. What I would like to know is why they were marginal in the hover. Was the development power-plant under thrust? Was the prototype overweight? We're the thrust losses in the system higher than expected? All of the above?
Click to expand...
I do recall they pursued some advanced thermoplastic material for their wing skin - a giant one piece assembly to be fitted to the wing structure. That however failed and they had to revert to a more conventional composite. The result was a wing skin 1500lbs heavier than the one planned for in a prototype that couldn't be redesigned to lower its weight. Not a gigantic amount added, but it is approaching a ton increase in weight (680kg) so it will be upsetting things if you were marginal as a start... Stripping parts probably brought them back to where they where.

Their might be more factors, but a not insubstantial weight increase didn't help matters.
 
Was hot gas bypassing the cold curtain of air fed from the front stages of the fan?
If so the modelling had failed and the basic solution was flawed.
 
The fan in the F-35B shields the inlets with cold hp flow.
The 32 didn't have the mass cold air flow to do the same.
 
TomcatViP said:
The fan in the F-35B shields the inlets with cold hp flow.
The 32 didn't have the mass cold air flow to do the same.
Click to expand...

The jet screen off the fan tried to do that.

But a 2 poster in a parallel arrangement is bad for many reasons apart from HGI, e.g. no fountain effect. Should have had a fully rotating rear nozzle as well for a 3 post arrangement.

But everything is a compromise: like X-32 actually being big enough to have weapon bays unlike the X-35...
 
Hydroman said:
Have Battle of the X-Planes (had some ADP and Boeing pals on the programs) on DVD, Boeing made crucial errors during the Dem-Val; 1. Changing the design by adding the H-Stabs and re-shaping, 2. Not being able to demonstrate vertical takeoff, supersonic flight then a vertical landing, all in the single flight as compared to the X-35, they had to remove the inlet lip. However, they did demonstrate manufacturing processes which used less structural pieces and rapid composite fabrication techniques. Sometimes, even if you lose you actually can gain, because what you developed is yours to apply elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Mission X was short take off, supersonic flight and vertical landing. Link.
X-35 probably couldn't take off vertically with enough fuel to reach supersonic. X-32 of course could never fly supersonic without the inlet lip.
 
red admiral said:
TomcatViP said:
The fan in the F-35B shields the inlets with cold hp flow.
The 32 didn't have the mass cold air flow to do the same.
Click to expand...

The jet screen off the fan tried to do that.

But a 2 poster in a parallel arrangement is bad for many reasons apart from HGI, e.g. no fountain effect. Should have had a fully rotating rear nozzle as well for a 3 post arrangement.

But everything is a compromise: like X-32 actually being big enough to have weapon bays unlike the X-35...
Click to expand...

A fully rotating rear nozzle would not work. The 2 rotating nozzles were located at the c/g, so moving some thrust further aft would require to move the rest of it further forwards.
Basically a 3 or 4 nozzle setup à la Harrier only works with a bigger bypass ratio so you can generate more thrust further forwards - but then you lose the supersonic capability.
 
I agree with you all, but I think a re-designed X-32/F-32 could have probably been a successful, modern A-7 Corsair II. Like the F-35 and would be able to get the job done. Boeing's timing was poor you have to admit. The re-designed F-32 actually did not look too bad.
 
Guys! What the specs of CTOL F-32?


Internal payload in AA missions = 4*AMRAAM?
Engine thrust = 191 kN or 178 kN?
Normal takeoff weight = ?
Maximum takeoff = ?
Wing area 53 m² = 570.5 ft²
Empty weight = 13600 kg (30 000 lb)
Internal fuel weight = 9100 kg (20000 lb)
 
alanqua said:
Hello,
Here are some plans I published in Le Fana de l'Aviation magazine I think last year. One 3-Views plan of the X-32A and an hypothetical 3-views plan of a F-32C. I based my work on excellent existing whatif illustrations that you can find on internet. I chose to depict a different squadron (actually I chose to draw the first squadron that deployed the F-35). I wanted to draw also some external payloads to make a sexier render (JSSAM and JDAMs, but I considered AIM-9X and AGM-159). The chief editor asked to have a shark teeth on the air intake. I added a few details, based on the F-35 detailed photos.View attachment 657304View attachment 657305
Enjoy!
Regards
Alain
Click to expand...
Could have been second coming of A-7 Corsair II.
 
TSARb said:
Guys! What the specs of CTOL F-32?
Click to expand...
Internal payload in AA missions = 6*AMRAAM
Engine thrust = 22700 kgf / cruise 19000 kgf ( F119-614)
Normal takeoff weight = 13600 kg (empty) + 100 kg (pilot)+ 6 * 161.5 kg (weapons) + 9100 kg (fuel) = 23769 kg
Maximum takeoff = 13600 kg (empty) + 100 kg (pilot)+ (2123 kg + 6800 kg = 8923 kg) (weapons) + 9100 kg (fuel) = 31723 kg
Wing area = 54.8 m2
 
nice, I really enjoy interviews with pilots. I just finished watching the whole thing..

my notes:

He was not surprised cost went up with the Lockheed design over time due to riskier technologies.
could also go up with X-32 being selected, but perhaps less likely.

He prefers the 2nd x-32 design with horizontal stabilizers due to F-18 experience, would make it easier to handle for carrier landings.

Boeing acknowledged that the X-32 was not an attractive design in comparison to the X-35 which had a more conventional look. so their mantra was "we are taking this war, not a prom"

Final part, what if X-32 was chosen. He believes that Boeing had a more robust manufacturing capabilities, especially at St. Louis plant. At that time, Boeing was more revolutionary compared to Lockheed's Palm Dale plant. Skunk works wasnt as as capable in mass production. He thinks ultimately that it doesnt matter if they added a new tail or not, thinks it would have been fine at that 6-7g requirements at that time. He suspects that the large inlets could have met whatever mach requirements that could be set later.
 
Good Day All -

A recent EPay buy - don't seen this anywhere else in the thread....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • zBoeing JSF Cut Sheet - 1.jpg
    zBoeing JSF Cut Sheet - 1.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 407
  • zBoeing JSF Cut Sheet - 2.jpg
    zBoeing JSF Cut Sheet - 2.jpg
    655.8 KB · Views: 444
I remember in the year 1999, I gave a totally improvement to the plane,to can
compete X-35.
 
...
 

Attachments

  • le-secretaire-a-la-defense-william-perry-annonce-les-finalistes-pour-la-prochaine-generation-d...jpg
    le-secretaire-a-la-defense-william-perry-annonce-les-finalistes-pour-la-prochaine-generation-d...jpg
    120.6 KB · Views: 127
  • le-secretaire-a-la-defense-william-perry-annonce-les-finalistes-pour-la-prochaine-generation-d...jpg
    le-secretaire-a-la-defense-william-perry-annonce-les-finalistes-pour-la-prochaine-generation-d...jpg
    118 KB · Views: 148

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom