Inventing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Jacob Darlington
Old Dominion University
Introduction
During the 2009 Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, Paul Bevilaqua of
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics gave a lecture on the companies invention of the F-35 Joint Strike
fighter. This aircraft was conceived to meet the demands of the U.S. military and its allies
requirements for a new and superior 5th generation fighter aircraft. The aircraft needed to meet
the requirements for a plethora of different missions, which meant that it had to have multiple
configurations. The three configurations for the U.S. military are as follows: The F35-A (the
standard version) for the USAF, the F-35B (a VTOL capable variant) for the USMC, and the F35C (a carrier variant) for the USN. These aircraft, being joint service aircraft, would save
money and allow for greater cooperation between services and nations. I chose this article
because I plan on becoming a Naval Aviator in the future, and this is the aircraft that I will most
likely be flying due to its rapid integration into the branches of the military. Because of this, I
thought it would be a good idea to learn more about the aircraft to prepare myself for the future.
Summary
The paper/lecture began with problems the company would need to overcome to design,
prototype, and contract an advanced fighter jet that would fill the multiple roles that each branch
of the military would need it for, specifically the Marine VTOL variant. In the past, there were
previous attempts to create a multi-platform airframe for multiple services and they failed due to
a lack of cooperation and a sub-par airframe that could not meet all the services requirements.

The company would also have to develop the worlds first VTOL airframe that would produce
enough thrust and that is aerodynamic enough to achieve supersonic flight.
There were many problems with previous VTOL technologies, specifically the inability
to achieve supersonic flight. Engineers experimented with different technology until they came
up with the idea to divert part of the rear thrust output to the front of the aircraft. This would give
the aircraft stability and balance during hover. The problem was, with the diversion of airflow,
the engine produced less thrust overall and the engine size would have to be increased to provide
the extra thrust. The problem with this solution was that the aircraft would be bulkier and less
aerodynamic. The aircraft then could not achieve the high speeds that non VTOL jets could. So,
the company went to the drawing board to try to solve this. Their solution was to list previous
technologies and test them one by one. They would mesh the technologies together to see if they
could get them to solve the problem. The solution that worked was to connect a lift fan to the
main engine while ducting off bypass air from the engine. This reduced size and maximized
thrust for achieving supersonic flight with VTOL capability. The paper also had diagrams and
equations to further prove the viability of the solution. This included graphs of the thrust to
pressure ratio for each stage of takeoff/flight and the shaft speed to diameter ratios for the drive
train in the fan. The aircraft then went into multiple concept models and maturation to finally
produce the current VTOL model. The other airframes are based off of this variant because the
VTOL aircraft was the hardest to develop and would shape the other airframes.
After this development, it was time to design the other variants for the rest of the
branches. So the company began work on variants for the Navy and the Air Force. The Air Force
was easy because the aircraft would experience standard conditions. The Navy however, was
trickier because they need to be able to fly slower to land and had to have sturdier landing gear to

launch off the deck of a carrier. The company chose to make an airframe with a larger wing
design to improve low speed flight and titanium landing gear which is strong enough for catapult
launches. These designs were further perfected until 2006 when the first F-35 lightning II rolled
out of the plant to begin Air Force tests.
Critique
This article was, as a whole, was fun to read and very educational. The presenter clearly
knew what they were talking about and was good at explaining the information in a way that can
be understood. The presenter/author was clearly excited about the subject which made the article
easier to read because the author genuinely wanted the reader to learn the information and
presented it clearly and organized; merging the science and the politics during production
seamlessly together to give the reader a clear picture in their head what was going on at the time.
What I liked the most about this article was the way the presenter could almost read the minds of
their audience and somehow was able to answer any questions the reader would have as soon as
the question was formed. As soon as the reader became confused or had an inquiry on the
reasoning behind something, the author wrote the answer usually within the next sentence.
Sometimes, however, the information was hard to process and had to be read multiple times
because the airframes designs are complex. Also, because of the high complexity, the reader was
expected to have background knowledge on how turbojets work because the formulas and graphs
presented in the article were hard to understand without it. What I disliked the most about the
article was the presentation of the formulas in the article. The writer did a good job of explaining
the formulas, however, the formulas were thrown into the article in a way that makes the authors
train of thought seem disjointed and hard to follow.

Conclusion
In conclusion, this article provides a well written and detailed report on how Lockheed
Martin overcame many obstacles and developed the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It details the steps
that the company went through to get the aircraft to a concept to todays newest and most
technologically superior airframe that operates for America and its allies. Although the article
requires background knowledge on turbojets and other scientific principles in flight, the report is
well written and organized in a way that is easy to understand by its readers.

Bibliography
Bevilaqua, Paul M. "Inventing the F-35 joint strike fighter." AIAA Paper 1650 (2009): 2009.