JSF Program without VSTOL - what would it have meant?

AceAttorney

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
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?
 

Nik

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
382
Reaction score
0
Harrier keeps flying ??

Uh, IIRC, the VSTOL version was intended to replace Harrier for UK & US Marine applications...

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

SteveO

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
358
Reaction score
0
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.
 

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
0
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
SteveO said:
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.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,184
Reaction score
0
Website
www.up-ship.com
Matej said:
SteveO said:
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.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
1
AceAttorney said:
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.
 

aero-engineer

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
The requirements may have been different, but there are a few Joint USAF and USN efforts pre-JAST.
 

Demon Lord Razgriz

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
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.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,600
Reaction score
1
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Demon Lord Razgriz said:
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
 

erkokite

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
AceAttorney said:
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
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,725
Reaction score
0
erkokite said:
sferrin said:
AceAttorney said:
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.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,725
Reaction score
0
SteveO said:
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...
 

AceAttorney

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
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)
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
686
Reaction score
0
Website
www.tommythomason.com
AceAttorney said:
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.
 

AceAttorney

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Another question is, would the requirement or lack of, for supercruise change?
 

royabulgaf

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
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.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,725
Reaction score
0
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.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
1
F-14D said:
SteveO said:
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.
 

SteveO

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
358
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
...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!
 

SteveO

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
358
Reaction score
0
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.
 

SteveO

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
358
Reaction score
0
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).
 

Attachments

cthippo

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
GTX said:
Demon Lord Razgriz said:
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.
 

royabulgaf

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
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.
 

cthippo

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
royabulgaf said:
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.
 

Meteorit

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
427
Reaction score
0
cthippo said:
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.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,949
Reaction score
1
"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.
 
Top