Typical inputs from the Monkey House. This is what really happened:
The pivotal program in the evolution of JAST/JSF was DARPA’s Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter demo program.
This arose from the ashes of US-UK ASTOVL, which had expired due to three causes: None of the ASTOVL concepts worked very well, Lockheed’s black-world STOVL Strike Fighter study was offering the Marines stealth for little or no added cost, and between them the RN and the Marines could not fund a program.
CALF was a way to find money for SSF. It was focused on a single, engine-driven fan (gas or shaft) that could be removed from a CTOL version and the space used for fuel, and an ATF-based engine. Boeing’s direct-lift design was an interloper.
JAST was initially a study of building blocks and technologies rather than a specific airframe – the idea being that whatever requirements emerged from different users, they would use a lot of common parts. It also involved looking at the implications of going to war with all guided weapons, which clearly would affect payload.
The next step was the fusion of CALF and JAST, which was a top-level decision (Perry/OSD) that also had huge domestic and industrial implications. From that point on, as JAST became JSF, anyone advocating a diversion from the CALF formula had to make a case for it. The Navy wanted a twin – a study was conducted to show that this was not necessary. Two seats were to be provided for (in either CV or CTOL versions) but never taken up. 1000 lb vs. 2000 lb weapons was not a big deal (the dimensions are not that different) but there was no question that there would be only two internal bombs other than emerging small weapons.
Note that the F-35 is the Lockheed CALF design in all major particulars (size, power, internal layout, LO approach), except for the wing and tail surfaces (external to the body layout): the canard delta did not scale easily to meet Navy approach speed standards.
Sign In
