McDD/Northrop/BAe ASTOVL/MRF/JAST/JSF studies

[Hydroman]

Joint Strike Fighter JSF JAST Team Joint Advanced Strike Technology Sticker | eBay

<p>Joint Strike Fighter JSF JAST Team Joint Advanced Strike Technology McDonnell Douglas Northrop Grumman British Aerospace Sticker.</p><p>Don’t miss this rare opportunity to own a cool piece of aviation history.</p><p>Condition is "New". Shipped with USPS First Class.</p>

www.ebay.com

And I introduce the Boeing Ghost Bat.

 

[flateric]

Boeing X-32 Experimental Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft Models USAF & Royal Navy | #1992427591

Boeing X-32 Experimental Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft Models USAF & Royal Navy.This is for a flight of two aircraft. These models are exceeding rare.Desk Top Airplane Jet Space Models London England.

www.worthpoint.com

 

[flateric]

McDonnell Douglas JSF Concept Desktop Model - RARE | #4684888318

Up for sale is a Very Rare McDonnell Douglas JSF Concept Design Desktop Model. This was their design in the 1990s competition for the newest Joint Strike Force Fighter. They lost out to Boeing on the

www.worthpoint.com

 

[bobbymike]

My imaginary USAF was filled with these and F-23s. What a great looking airplane.

 

[Hydroman]

This could have potentially beat the X-35 but the separate lift-plus-engine was the killer. The MDD gas driven lift fan would have also had performance issues as well. This would have been a excellent USAF and USN version though.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This could have potentially beat the X-35 but the separate lift-plus-engine was the killer. The MDD gas driven lift fan would have also had performance issues as well. This would have been a excellent USAF and USN version though.

I really think that the JSF should have stuck to a two-service airframe, with the Marines getting a unique design that may not even share parts with the JSF.

Because seriously, what mission requires vertical takeoff and supersonic flight, and how often does that mission come up?

 

[donnage99]

My imaginary USAF was filled with these and F-23s. What a great looking airplane.

Since fantasy is mentioned, how bout including Lockheed swing wing LRS-B for theater bomber role replacing the F-15E and B-1B. Navy gets ASF-14 with additional frontal RCS reduction for fleet defense and quarter back/bomb truck behind supporting A/F-X. Marines get the Lockheed canard ASTOVL.

I really think that the JSF should have stuck to a two-service airframe, with the Marines getting a unique design that may not even share parts with the JSF.

Because seriously, what mission requires vertical takeoff and supersonic flight, and how often does that mission come up?

Especially now that Marines basically playing Sea Rangers. A smaller STOVL UCAV would fit the role better. I just don't buy the island hopping f-35B they touting. No one wants to see an intact f-35B in Chinese parade.

 

[flateric]

https://flic.kr/p/2ocTz8k

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/193204189@N08/52643085045/

 

[flateric]

...

 

[flateric]

...

 

[stever_sl]

This could have potentially beat the X-35 but the separate lift-plus-engine was the killer. The MDD gas driven lift fan would have also had performance issues as well. This would have been a excellent USAF and USN version though.

That's exactly what happened. I was on the project and we were urged repeatedly by the Marines to consider rethinking our design's propulsion system concept because they were firm about never buying a multiengine STOVL machine. The response by our brilliant management was to keep trying to tell them that they were wrong, and that we were right. Idiots. Why we let Northrop choose the STOVL propulsion system layout was beyond me then and I still can't comprehend why the only 2 companies that had ever actually produced a successful STOVL machine let the 1 that never had...well, it's water under the bridge, so never mind. But what's hugely frustrating is that a group that I'd been in before JAST had put together, with BAe and Rolls Royce, a clean-sheet AV-8B replacement with a startlingly original propulsion layout that not only used just 1 engine but arranged the hover bits in a way that let us put the main exhaust in the tail where such things belong. We could use a conventional afterburner to go supersonic without the awkwardness of plenum chamber burning or any of the other previous schemes. The Marines were excited, the Royal Navy offered to put 2 billion pounds into the R&D funds, and if we'd been allowed to go forward it would have made JAST a USAF/USN and export program only, just CTOL and not STOVL, which the MDC/BAe/Northrop configuration might well have won. And then JSF would have been a CTOL-only competition too, and that would have been very interesting indeed. But our own ASTOVL program people shut us down, and that was that.

 

[VTOLicious]

... But what's hugely frustrating is that a group that I'd been in before JAST had put together, with BAe and Rolls Royce, a clean-sheet AV-8B replacement with a startlingly original propulsion layout that not only used just 1 engine but arranged the hover bits in a way that let us put the main exhaust in the tail where such things belong. We could use a conventional afterburner to go supersonic without the awkwardness of plenum chamber burning or any of the other previous schemes...

Interesting... Can you provide further details about this configuration?

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Going off the description that sounds a lot like the arrangement used by Boeing's X-32, or am I mistaken? I'm less familiar of the history of Boeing's STOVL fighter design effort but maybe both companies were looking at similar propulsion setup. So somehow McDonnell Douglas drew the short straw and was told to work with Northrop on the gas-driven lift fan just because it was something "different". Of course, that didn't work out and they ended up using a lift jet instead, which the Marines absolutely hated the idea of.

Why were the logistics involved for the lift jet such a dealbreaker anyway? Having to be inspected and maintained like a full-sized engine?

 

[stever_sl]

Interesting... Can you provide further details about this configuration?

Only that it looked a lot more like a single-engine F/A-18 than a Harrier. I found out that information about it falls under ITAR and so I'd have to either get an export license or a waiver to talk about it in detail. That seems silly to me since most of the work was done by UK people at BAe and RR, but that's how it is. I can tell you that we planned to repackage that Pegasus core into something that RR designated as RB578 and I believe they have that listed somewhere on their website. Reusing the existing engine core would have saved us billions in program development costs. That was for the prototype that we hoped to build; for any production versions RR planned to do the same repackaging on a Eurofighter core, giving it the designation RB571. It seemed odd to me at the time, using a lower number to denote a later engine, but that's what it was. If you know anybody at RR you might approach them to see if they still have anything in their archives about this. The airplane itself was designated Harrier 21 (for 21st Century) or Harrier III High End because there were also 2 very recognizably AV-8B derived things, Harrier III Low End and Medium, that kept the engine as-is and focused on tweaks to the basic Harrier configuration. Somebody posted a front view of Harrier 21 in a forum somewhere but my computer's hard drive died yesterday and I've lost everything that was on it, so I can't point you in the right direction I'm afraid.

 

[stever_sl]

Going off the description that sounds a lot like the arrangement used by Boeing's X-32, or am I mistaken? I'm less familiar of the history of Boeing's STOVL fighter design effort but maybe both companies were looking at similar propulsion setup. So somehow McDonnell Douglas drew the short straw and was told to work with Northrop on the gas-driven lift fan just because it was something "different". Of course, that didn't work out and they ended up using a lift jet instead, which the Marines absolutely hated the idea of.

Why were the logistics involved for the lift jet such a dealbreaker anyway? Having to be inspected and maintained like a full-sized engine?

Nothing like X-32, which I was also involved with as a St Louis team member. The problem there was that the airplane was just too heavy, and we'd stretched the engine to the limit, there just wasn't any more thrust to be gained for hovering. St Louis came up with a solution involving changes to the exhaust nozzle but Seattle had already decided on "lift thrust augmentors" which were additional little jet engines pointed down for use in hover only, so they rejected our suggestion and pretty much doomed the program because if the Marines weren't going to buy an airplane that needed 2 engines to hover, they certainly weren't going to buy one that needed half a dozen. Which is too bad., because on a lot of other evaluation criteria our design scored "competitive advantage" over Lockheed's, and if it had just been a CTOL competition we might well have won.

 

[Scott Kenny]

because on a lot of other evaluation criteria our design scored "competitive advantage" over Lockheed's, and if it had just been a CTOL competition we might well have won.

I really liked the images of the McDD JAST/JSF concepts, think they would have been a better competitor as CTOL-only...

 

[VTOLicious]

Only that it looked a lot more like a single-engine F/A-18 than a Harrier. I found out that information about it falls under ITAR and so I'd have to either get an export license or a waiver to talk about it in detail...

The airplane itself was designated Harrier 21 (for 21st Century) or Harrier III High End because there were also 2 very recognizably AV-8B derived things, Harrier III Low End and Medium, that kept the engine as-is and focused on tweaks to the basic Harrier configuration. Somebody posted a front view of Harrier 21 in a forum somewhere but my computer's hard drive died yesterday and I've lost everything that was on it, so I can't point you in the right direction I'm afraid.

Thank you for insights! Too bad your hard drive died
Single engine F/A-18... So Harrier 21 looked similar to the T-7A?

 

[djfawcett]

This keep coming to mind.........

 

[stever_sl]

Thank you for insights! Too bad your hard drive died
Single engine F/A-18... So Harrier 21 looked similar to the T-7A?
View attachment 749462

Well now that you mention it...

 

[stever_sl]

Going off the description that sounds a lot like the arrangement used by Boeing's X-32, or am I mistaken? I'm less familiar of the history of Boeing's STOVL fighter design effort but maybe both companies were looking at similar propulsion setup. So somehow McDonnell Douglas drew the short straw and was told to work with Northrop on the gas-driven lift fan just because it was something "different". Of course, that didn't work out and they ended up using a lift jet instead, which the Marines absolutely hated the idea of.

Why were the logistics involved for the lift jet such a dealbreaker anyway? Having to be inspected and maintained like a full-sized engine?

I forgot to reply to the question about why the 2nd engine was a deal-breaker. If you need 2 working engines to maintain the hover, then you get into a reliability/safety crossover that the Marines found unacceptable. Having a second hover-critical engine just doubled the risk compared with a single engine. It's not like having 2 engines in an F/A-18 for example, where losing one just means you fly on in a degraded state. Lose one VTOL engine in a hover and you're likely going to kill a pilot. The downward-pointing exhaust streams on the MDC/BAe/Northrop design were forward and aft of the center of gravity, so losing either one would result in an immediate and strong pitching moment up or down depending on which one failed. You can easily get outside of the safe ejection envelope in a case like that. Frankly I've always been surprised that the Marines would accept a lift fan, because if you look at the one on the F-35B you can see that it's as complex as a full-up jet engine, lacking only the combustion chambers and fuel lines. Losing it would be just as dangerous as losing a lift engine, as that USAF pilot found out in that F-35B crash in Texas a couple of years ago. He was lucky to get out. Anyway that's what the USMC's position was based on.

 

[stever_sl]

For anyone with an interest in my earlier posts, here's a post from 8 years ago with a list of Rolls Royce engines that includes some pertinent details about RB.578, and some a bit more iffy on RB.571 - enjoy!

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/rolls-royce-rb-designations.27741/

 

[stever_sl]

Also this, from https://aeroenginesaz.com/en/brand_rolls-royce:

"The RB.578 double configuration engine would be a combination derived from the F406-RR-408 manufactured by Rolls-Royce and could act as VTOL and as a conventional jet giving 25,000 lbf dry and 41,000 lbf with afterburner... For the naval version EFA aircraft, a hybrid engine was experimented with, combining elements of the EJ.200 (of the Eurofighter) with those of the Pegasus. It was the experimental RB.571."