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

Lockheed ASTOVL, JAST, JSF projects

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,119
Reaction score
1,181
sublight said:
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..... :'(
Yeah that does seem pretty @#$%%!! stupid given that you just KNOW someone is going to come by later and try that idea again because they don't know that it's a proven failure.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,122
Reaction score
2,640
Sundog said:
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.
I think Dan was saying that the picture shown is not an accurate depiction of the Ghost Hawk.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
232
overscan said:
I think Dan was saying that the picture shown is not an accurate depiction of the Ghost Hawk.
Oh, OK, thanks!
 
I

Ian33

Guest
quellish said:
This is about as close to the actual configuration as the public ATF renderings were to the YF-22.
I plead ignorance. I just read it and thought I'd show a bit of interest - Thanks for the correction.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
672
Reaction score
32
How did the Boeing JSF design (X-32) get assigned the same X-plane number as the Lockheed JAST/ASTOVL design? Or was the Lockheed "X-32" a company designation?
 
S

sublight

Guest
Can anybody cite the rules which DARPA operates by that gives them the authority to have all materials for a project destroyed? Surely there is some incredible red tape somewhere in our bureaucracy that prohibits them from doing this?
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
672
Reaction score
32
Perhaps it was the red tape that actually got the project materials destroyed.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
648
grab it while it's there

Inventing the Joint Strike Fighter
Dr. Paul Bevilaqua, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works
http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/Joint%20strike%20fighter.pdf
 
S

sublight

Guest
This is just pondering on my part, but does the name "GhostHawk" imply that it was a visual stealth platform and that is why DARPA requested Skunk Works destroy the documentation for said classified program?
 
S

sublight

Guest
flateric said:
grab it while it's there

Inventing the Joint Strike Fighter
Dr. Paul Bevilaqua, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works
http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/Joint%20strike%20fighter.pdf
Thank you!

However, every time the document pretends the JSF is a viable A-10 replacement I throw up just a little bit in my mouth.... ;D
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,859
Reaction score
195
XLNT, most interesting, I see from page 36,
that the JSF is referred to as the 'X-35 Musketeer',
that's a new one on me...


cheers,
Robin.
 

Mike Pryce

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
131
Musketeer - as in 'one for all and all for one'.

Paul Bevilaqua was using this name in 2003 when he taught on a V/STOL design course I was on - I think it was his preferred name for the aircraft, and maybe used informally inside LM at the time.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
672
Reaction score
32
Heh. Was the "What you see, is what you get!" slide taking a shot at the looks of the Boeing X-32?
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,189
Reaction score
93
The X-32 confusion: The designation X-32 was assigned to the DARPA CALF program before JSF was in being. I don't think DARPA had any hope of being able to flight test more than one concept, so the plan was to test Large Scale Powered Model (LSPM) versions of three designs (they started with Lockheed and Macs, then Boeing came in) and then downselect. In this stage, I believe that the three designs were known as Boeing X-32A, Lockheed X-32B and Macs X-32C (alphabetical order). Boeing and Lockheed tested LSPMs but the Macs gas-driven liftfan version was never tested, since Macs abandoned the GDLF before that happened.

The X-32 designation was continued into the JSF program and went to Boeing (alpha order again). In the meantime, X-33 and X-34 had been assigned to NASA, so LockMart's design became X-35... and as we all know the SDD aircraft became F-35 because of a misunderstanding in a press conference.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,241
Reaction score
398
robunos said:
XLNT, most interesting, I see from page 36,
that the JSF is referred to as the 'X-35 Musketeer',
that's a new one on me...
I thought exactly the same thing when I reached that page... Amazing we never heard it before! Another "lost" company name that the armed forces did not want...

harrier said:
Musketeer - as in 'one for all and all for one'.
Makes a lot of sense, actually!

harrier said:
I think it was his preferred name for the aircraft, and maybe used informally inside LM at the time.
I can't conceive of an employee, be it an isolated engineer or a PR guy, using a name like that just because he likes it, without there being some company endorsement for it at some point...

Colonial-Marine said:
Heh. Was the "What you see, is what you get!" slide taking a shot at the looks of the Boeing X-32?
Again, my thoughts exactly... sort of: "Look, ugly failed and handsome won!"

LowObservable said:
The X-32 confusion: The designation X-32 was assigned to the DARPA CALF program before JSF was in being. I don't think DARPA had any hope of being able to flight test more than one concept, so the plan was to test Large Scale Powered Model (LSPM) versions of three designs (they started with Lockheed and Macs, then Boeing came in) and then downselect. In this stage, I believe that the three designs were known as Boeing X-32A, Lockheed X-32B and Macs X-32C (alphabetical order). Boeing and Lockheed tested LSPMs but the Macs gas-driven liftfan version was never tested, since Macs abandoned the GDLF before that happened.

The X-32 designation was continued into the JSF program and went to Boeing (alpha order again). In the meantime, X-33 and X-34 had been assigned to NASA, so LockMart's design became X-35... and as we all know the SDD aircraft became F-35 because of a misunderstanding in a press conference.
Fascinating and quite logical indeed. Thanks for clarifying this annoying non-sequential allocation.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
453
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
648
The aircraft Lockheed proposed for the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter was called Configuration 100. The delta-canard design had twin vertical tails and a pronounced forebody chine. Trade studies were conducted to refine the design in late 1993. Configuration 140 emerged as a baseline used to build a 92 percent scale powered model. The requirements for testing the model in the NASA Ames 80- by 120-foot wind tunnel called for a safety factor of five times the normal design loads. To meet these requirements, the model was fabricated from sheets of 1/4-inch steel plate. The result, which weighed almost 50,000 pounds, incorporated an F100 engine and a lift fan built from the first stage of an F119 engine. The model was used to test the interaction of the airflow from lift fan and the aft nozzle. The data gathered from this these tests helped Lockheed win the Concept Development phase of the X-35 program.
Photo by Denny Lombard
 

Attachments

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,616
Reaction score
97
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
Six high-res pictures of the Lockheed X-32 JAST model are at AILS: http://ails.arc.nasa.gov/ails/?v=thumbs&st=1&so=unsorted&page=1&r=0&qs=JAST&x=0&y=0
 

Attachments

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,241
Reaction score
398
Matej said:
Six high-res pictures of the Lockheed X-32 JAST model are at AILS: http://ails.arc.nasa.gov/ails/?v=thumbs&st=1&so=unsorted&page=1&r=0&qs=JAST&x=0&y=0
Matej, that's X-35, not X-32!
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
648
that's true - that should become X-32. read the topic carefully, LowObservable had a remarks on this
 

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,616
Reaction score
97
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
Why do you think that it was not Lockheed X-32 (at the time when the photo was taken)? Lowobservable wrote:

The X-32 confusion: The designation X-32 was assigned to the DARPA CALF program before JSF was in being. I don't think DARPA had any hope of being able to flight test more than one concept, so the plan was to test Large Scale Powered Model (LSPM) versions of three designs (they started with Lockheed and Macs, then Boeing came in) and then downselect. In this stage, I believe that the three designs were known as Boeing X-32A, Lockheed X-32B and Macs X-32C (alphabetical order). Boeing and Lockheed tested LSPMs but the Macs gas-driven liftfan version was never tested, since Macs abandoned the GDLF before that happened.
Captions on the AILS photos are (the first is related to the photo that I posted):

AC95-0154-333
Photographer: Dominic Hart
Date: 02/23/96
CALF/JAST X-32 test program: the LSPM (Large Scale Powered Model), Lockheed's concept for a tri-service aircraft (Air Force, Navy, Marines) CALF (Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter) as part of the Department of Defense's Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) is being tested in the 80x120ft w.t. test-930 with rear horizontal stabilizer
Another photo:

AC95-0154-124
Date: 10/19/95
JAST (Joint Advanced Strike Technology) X-32 Test Program: Lockheed ASTOVL / CALF X-32, N-246 Test #930 arrival, unloading and test prep.
So what?
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,241
Reaction score
398
Don't be upset, Matej. I first thought it was a typo, not thinking of relating the picture to the info that had been discussed further up.
Also, I kind of figured that this early set of designations was strictly theoretical and only given in early papers, never applied officially at all. Was I wrong?
At any rate, if they were used, labeling the picture as plain "X-32" is insufficient, since it should be "X-32B", right? ;-)
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
453
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Names that were under consideration for the F-35 included Lightning II, Spitfire II, Black Mamba, and Piasa. Some of the names that were submitted by US Armed Services and Allies included Mustang II, Scorpion, Phantom III, and Skyruler. Fury was a favorite but rejected because of a possible trademark violation dispute with Chrysler Corporation and its Plymouth Fury automobile manufactured from 1956-1978.

Source:
http://www.f-16.net/news_article1821.html
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
648
One of Lockheed Martin's STOVL Strike Fighter concepts, developed under DARPA program
 

Attachments

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
125
Makes you think of VARIOUS
 

dannydale

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
214
Reaction score
7
Hmm, the JAST reminds me rather strongly of the new J-20 design. I suspect the resemblance runs the other way.
 

firepilot

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Triton said:
Names that were under consideration for the F-35 included Lightning II, Spitfire II, Black Mamba, and Piasa. Some of the names that were submitted by US Armed Services and Allies included Mustang II, Scorpion, Phantom III, and Skyruler. Fury was a favorite but rejected because of a possible trademark violation dispute with Chrysler Corporation and its Plymouth Fury automobile manufactured from 1956-1978.

Source:
http://www.f-16.net/news_article1821.html
Strange, because they USAF still used names like Lancer and Spirit for the B-1 and B-2, both Chrysler Corp names :)
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
125
Seriously...by that rationale Plymouth should have been sued by North American, which in turn should have been sued by Hawker (and who knows whom else used the name). I'm not questioning the fact that this actually happened, but this is ridiculous...
Frickin' lawyers... ::)
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,016
Reaction score
99
AeroFranz said:
Seriously...by that rationale Plymouth should have been sued by North American, which in turn should have been sued by Hawker (and who knows whom else used the name). I'm not questioning the fact that this actually happened, but this is ridiculous...
Frickin' lawyers... ::)
One of the rationales behind calling the F-16 the "Fighting Falcon" was that Dassault had already copyrighted the name "Falcon" for their bizjet.
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,189
Reaction score
93
Could be - it's got a hint of early F-22 about it.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
648
Matej said:
Lockheed? (unknown source)
Lockheed's. From Dan Raymer's site.
 
Top