Lockheed ASTOVL, JAST, JSF projects

Antonio · 27 March 2006

Supersonic STOVL fighter from Lockheed (This is one of the ancestors of the F-35)

Flight International Week Ending 11 June 1988

Dronte · 31 March 2006

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)

flateric · 22 April 2006

Can someone explain what was that weird stuff all about?

overscan (PaulMM) · 22 April 2006

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 · 22 April 2006

Aircraft & Spacecraft Conceptual Design Drawings & Pictures

Conceptual design drawings and pictures of aircraft and spacecraft design concepts

www.aircraftdesign.com

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

It is a Lockheed project identified as RIVET

Antonio · 22 April 2006

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"

rodrigoavella · 3 September 2006

Lockheed jast concepts

Matej · 4 September 2006

That are Lockheed´s proposals to SSF (Supersonic STOVL Fighter) secret program, covered by publicly known ASTOVL program.

Antonio · 21 September 2006

Ecco l'erede dell'Harrier by Guido Bassani. Volare (Early 90's)

Lockheed ASTOVL concept
(ancestor of the JSF)

flateric · 10 December 2006

More of Lockheed SSF from Lockheed's Code One magazine

hesham · 11 December 2006

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 · 21 December 2006

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4901947&id=3w4CAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#PPA3-IA1,M1

hesham · 1 October 2007

Hi,

that is a reverse engine VSTOL (RIVET) design from Lockheed.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=3w4CAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=GRUMMAN+design+of+airplane&num=100#PPP3,M1

overscan (PaulMM) · 19 January 2008

New topic for Lockheed projects leading to JSF. Pics posted by flateric in other topic.

overscan (PaulMM) · 19 January 2008

from jsf site

flateric · 14 March 2008

Found on HDD

Pyrrhic victory · 16 October 2008

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

flateric · 17 December 2008

Source: Inernational Combat Arms

flateric · 17 December 2008

Lockheed CALF artist's impression and full-scale mockup. Note human figure relative size.

Source: CodeOne magazine/Lockheed

flateric · 17 December 2008

Lockheed CALF/JAST demonstrator (X-32) WT model and desktop model

Source: CodeOne magazine/Lockheed

flateric · 20 January 2009

the earliest predecessor of F-35 - 1986 Lockheed's SSF (STOVL Supersonic Fighter)

lantinian · 20 January 2009

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 · 20 January 2009

Check your mail, Niko

lantinian · 20 January 2009

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 · 20 January 2009

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 · 20 January 2009

Bevilaqua was XVF-12 during his Rockwell years...sic...

AeroFranz · 20 January 2009

He must have remained scarred with memories of the augmentor flop. Any other system looks more feasible after that!

AeroFranz · 20 January 2009

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 · 22 January 2009

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 · 23 January 2009

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 · 24 February 2009

Hi,

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

flateric · 11 March 2009

hesham said:
Hi,

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

This is Lockheed CALF X-32

flateric · 30 March 2009

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.

Lampshade111 · 21 April 2009

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 · 6 May 2009

flateric said:
hesham said:

Hi,

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

Click to expand...

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.

Ian33 · 20 March 2010

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 · 20 March 2010

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 · 21 March 2010

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 · 21 March 2010

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.

sublight · 21 March 2010

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..... :'(

Lockheed ASTOVL, JAST, JSF projects

Moderator

Attachments

Argentinean ugly bird

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

Administrator

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

rodrigoavella

Guest

Attachments

Multiuniversal creator

Moderator

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

ACCESS: USAP

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

Administrator

Attachments

Administrator

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

This is going to hurt

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: USAP

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: USAP

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Confidential

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: Confidential

ACCESS: Confidential

Ian33

Guest

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.

ACCESS: Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

sublight

Guest

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.