• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Lockheed ASTOVL, JAST, JSF projects

Dronte

Argentinean ugly bird
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
96
Reaction score
14
In this place they can it turns diverse artistic conceptions of the different stages of development of the program JSF including the V/STOL versions of course:

http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/

And here another drawing of the varying VSTOL of Lockheed of the stage of development of the concept .

(source: Popular Mechanics edition Argentinean April of 1995)
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,946
Reaction score
642
Can someone explain what was that weird stuff all about?
 

Attachments

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,118
Reaction score
2,632
I believe its a Lockheed project (RIVET) that Dan Raymer worked on while he was a Lockheed. The idea was to install the engine backwards, which would put the exhaust in a more favourable position for single engine vectoring.
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,450
Reaction score
158
http://www.aircraftdesign.com/acpix.html

You can find the drawings here, at Dan Raymer's web

It is a Lockheed project identified as RIVET
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,450
Reaction score
158
AW&ST. April 23 1990

Lockheed concept for an advanced STOVL fighter. "The Navy has a tentative requirement for such an aircraft that could be fielded by 2010"
 

Attachments

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,616
Reaction score
97
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
That are Lockheed´s proposals to SSF (Supersonic STOVL Fighter) secret program, covered by publicly known ASTOVL program.
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,450
Reaction score
158
Ecco l'erede dell'Harrier by Guido Bassani. Volare (Early 90's)

Lockheed ASTOVL concept
(ancestor of the JSF)
 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,111
Reaction score
3,018
Hi rodrigoavella,

the first artist was for MRF,and the second was
for look like JAST concept,but the building aircraft
for JAST was different a little.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,946
Reaction score
642
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4901947&id=3w4CAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#PPA3-IA1,M1
 

Pyrrhic victory

This is going to hurt
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
73
Reaction score
14
CALF/JAST (Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter/Joint Advanced Strike Technology) X-32 Test Program: Lockheed ASTOVL/CALF X-32 installed in 80x120ft w.t. test-930 - canard on nose

http://www.windtunnels.arc.nasa.gov/pics/80x120/80by18.html
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,946
Reaction score
642
Source: Inernational Combat Arms
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,946
Reaction score
642
Lockheed CALF artist's impression and full-scale mockup. Note human figure relative size.

Source: CodeOne magazine/Lockheed
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,946
Reaction score
642
Lockheed CALF/JAST demonstrator (X-32) WT model and desktop model

Source: CodeOne magazine/Lockheed
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,946
Reaction score
642
the earliest predecessor of F-35 - 1986 Lockheed's SSF (STOVL Supersonic Fighter)
 

Attachments

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
500
Reaction score
6
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com
the earliest predecessor of F-35 - 1986 Lockheed's SSF (STOVL Supersonic Fighter)
Is that a Shaft driven lift fan in a 1986 concept?

Because if it is, this guy (Paul Bevilaqua) in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Iw3Z6Dh8g
has got to correct himself about where exactly did he get the now patented idea.

Well maybe he did as his said, but it seams looking into history can give you more ideas that if you think on your own.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,946
Reaction score
642
Check your mail, Niko;)
 

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
500
Reaction score
6
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com
A million thanks.
Looks like the Shaft Driven lift fan was indeed 10+ years in the works before it saw the light of day with the X-35.

Lockheed really got a big head start on technologies for a supersonic STOVL fighter, leaving Boing and MDD to experiment with new or existing ideas.

I always thought the shaft driven lift fan to be a superior concept to all else put forth but I swear I did not see it in any of the books by Bill Guston in the 80's. I can remenber he was trying to come up with every possible STOVL engine configuration in support of the concept.
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,189
Reaction score
92
Bevilacqua came up with the "simplified" (actually, just not as scary) concept on the JSF, with the fan vertical and shut off during cruise.

SSF usually stood for "STOVL Strike Fighter". But surely there is a straight-aft nozzle too on that thing?
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,946
Reaction score
642
Bevilaqua was XVF-12 during his Rockwell years...sic...
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
121
He must have remained scarred with memories of the augmentor flop. Any other system looks more feasible after that! ;)
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
121
LowObservable said:
SSF usually stood for "STOVL Strike Fighter". But surely there is a straight-aft nozzle too on that thing?
You'd think that...but in the drawing it looks like the rear of the engine is split in the two 'trouser' legs and that's it. The long flattened wing trailing edge exhaust probably does wonders for IR (lots of mixing), but it's really bad for propulsive losses...I wonder how they could claim supersonic speeds with this arrangement.

Nice find on that picture, BTW. I had never seen that concept, or that propulsive arrangement. Reminds you of a distant relative of the tandem fan.
 

Lampshade111

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
So when did Lockheed start to switch from this "X-32" design to the more conventional X-35? What drove them to get rid of the delta-ish wing and canard configuration?
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
231
What drove them to get rid of the delta-ish wing and canard configuration?
IIRC, it was the Naval requirements which led to the conventional configuration. I believe it's about the combination of bring back weight and being able to properly trim the aircraft at low speed for the approach without excessive AOA at the required wind over deck. That's what comes to mind, but someone else here probably remembers the exact reason(s).
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,111
Reaction score
3,018
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19970041513_1997101037.pdf
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,946
Reaction score
642
hesham said:
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19970041513_1997101037.pdf
This is Lockheed CALF X-32
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,946
Reaction score
642
In 1994, two design studies were conducted to explore the benefits of applying AAW Technology to subsonic multi-role fighters. These studies applied AAW technology to wing designs that did not have the supersonic requirements of the earlier ATF study.

In the first study (5), Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company conducted a conceptual design study on a joint USAF, USN, USMC multi-role aircraft configuration, shown in Figure 9. The aircraft was a single seat, single engine design with a "butterfly" type all-flying empennage. The engine was equipped with a pitch vectoring nozzle. The wing, shown in Figure 10, was supplied by Rockwell and had an aspect ratio of 3.84, a 40 degree leading edge sweep and a 4 % thickness-to-chord ratio.

Using conventional wing design, the baseline configuration had a TOGW weight of 48,278 lbs. Following application of AAW Technology, the resized aircraft had a TOGW of 44,866 lbs. , a 7.1% weight savings. Based upon the estimated cost of $1000 per lb. for fighter aircraft structure, this weight savings translates into a production cost savings of approximately $3.5 million per copy.

(5) Norris, M., and Miller, G.D., "AFW Technology Assessment", Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company and Rockwell-Aerospace Report No. NA 94-1740, December 1994.
 

Attachments

Lampshade111

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
I presume the Lockheed C 160 is the aircraft tested here? Did any of the other concepts make it into such a mockup form?



How could it fulfill the VTOL requirement using the Raptor like 2D engine nozzle?
 

Lampshade111

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
flateric said:
hesham said:
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19970041513_1997101037.pdf
This is Lockheed CALF X-32
Was the X-32 a company designation? How was VTOL managed with the 2D thrust vectoring nozzle? Makes me wish the F-35 had that same nozzle configuration.
 
I

Ian33

Guest
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/03/photo-evolution-of-the-f-35.html

Unfortunately, Skunk Works destroyed the documentation for the classified GhostHawk concept after the DARPA-sponsored program terminated. When the US Marine Corps and US Air Force launched the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program a few years later, Skunk Works was forced design a whole new airframe.
Pity as it looks beautiful.



Thought this might interest people - sad to see LM destroyed everything relevant to the project :(
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,104
Reaction score
100
Ian33 said:
Thought this might interest people - sad to see LM destroyed everything relevant to the project :(
This is about as close to the actual configuration as the public ATF renderings were to the YF-22.
 

CFE

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
258
Reaction score
2
I suppose that the "X-32 Ghost Hawk" model from "Jane's ATF" on the PC is also a reflection of the publicly-releasable fantasy released by Lockheed public affairs, rather than a reflection of the ongoing work at the time.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
231
quellish said:
This is about as close to the actual configuration as the public ATF renderings were to the YF-22.
Well, you have to consider that this design study was just for a stealthy STOVL fighter. It was designed before the JSF requirements were ever released, IIRC. I also believe it was the Navy requirement which forced them to go from a canard to a conventional tail when they began designing for the JSF program.
 
S

sublight

Guest
Unfortunately, Skunk Works destroyed the documentation for the classified GhostHawk concept after the DARPA-sponsored program terminated. When the US Marine Corps and US Air Force launched the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program a few years later, Skunk Works was forced design a whole new airframe.

SO, anytime a DARPA funded program of a new classified tech demonstrator gets concluded, all the related work and materials go *poof*?
Both the taxpayer and the Aerospace fan in me are pretty appalled by this.

From a technological evolution point of view I find this pretty horrific as well. Patent b.s. aside, no man makes great technological strides without standing on the shoulders of those before him. We cant just go around wiping out the shoulders..... :'(
 
Top