Originally Posted by
LowObservable
Stonecipher admits that the MDC-led team's near tail-less aircraft design and complex engine installations were a calculated gamble. The concept included a lift-plus-lift/cruise STOVL configuration. As designed, a forward gas-turbine engine, mounted behind the cockpit, offers vertical lift, while the main power plant provides rear lift and conventional forward thrust. He feels MDC lost because the propulsion concept was considered "higher risk".
He was more or less right, although the source selection authority was probably wrong about LPLC and there were other undesirable aspects to the MDC proposal. But that doesn't mean that there was a requirement that JSF be single-engine. "Words have meanings", as someone said a few posts ago, and in the context of acquisition, a "requirement" has a specific meaning.
Interesting. So you're saying that Stonecipher was "probably right"
and "incompetent." And FWIW, JSF was an outgrowth of SSF, CALF, MRF, and finally JAST/ASTOVL. CALF, MRF, and JAST were all for single-seat/single engine "low-cost/lightweight fighter" aircraft in the F-16 class. JSF inherited that requirement. And yes, it was a requirement. Stonecipher's "high risk" assessment was correct in that MDC took a huge risk in proposing an LPLC configuration under the assumption that the reviewers would not view the pure lift engine as a true second engine. Their projections showed it would be lighter and probably cheaper than both a gas coupled and shaft coupled lift fan, thus meeting the "low cost / lightweight fighter" goal.. He assumed they would view it the same as they viewed an augmented gas coupled lift fan which was MDC's original configuration. He was dead wrong.