X-32 vs F35

oregonboy109

oregonboy109

Line Up and Wait
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
646
Display Name
Display name:
oregonboy109
With the issues the F35 program has been having and the recent, mostly negative, review of it's abilities, does anyone think that picking the F35 over the X32 was a mistake (aside from the people at Boeing)? Of course, the X32 could have had issues too if it had been put into production but the cost over-runs and performance issues seem to be worse than they should be for an aircraft that was supposedly the better of the two.

What say you?
 
oregonboy109 said:
With the issues the F35 program has been having and the recent, mostly negative, review of it's abilities, does anyone think that picking the F35 over the X32 was a mistake (aside from the people at Boeing)? Of course, the X32 could have had issues too if it had been put into production but the cost over-runs and performance issues seem to be worse than they should be for an aircraft that was supposedly the better of the two.

What say you?
Click to expand...

Didn't Boeing pretty much get to the competition and say "Oops, this one won't work, we'll have to go back to the drawing board if we're awarded the contract."? IIRC, it was waay overweight, needed major sections (the wing?) redesigned, etc.

IMO, there is nothing to suggest anyone would have done any better at doing so much with one basic airframe.
 
If they would of picked the X32 than we would be here discussing if they should of picked the F35.

There has been success with the jsf program. Unfortunately though people always harp on the negatives.
 
Admit it - the X-32 was just plain butt ugly.
 
OkieAviator said:
If they would of picked the X32 than we would be here discussing if they should of picked the F35.

There has been success with the jsf program. Unfortunately though people always harp on the negatives.
Click to expand...

Because the negatives far outweigh the positives especially for a trillion dollar program. The JSF concept is a poor one IMO. Whenever you try to build one platform that serves multiple masters, it has too many drawbacks to be optimum for any of the purposes. What was required was a replacement for the Harrier, and that could have likely been done for much less cost than trying to make it also meet mission parameters not required for that mission.

I found it quite interesting that the GAO decided to keep the A-10 platform.
 
Silvaire said:
Admit it - the X-32 was just plain butt ugly.
Click to expand...

Yep. I think it would have looked cool going supersonic though. Like a pig being shot out of a cannon with a shock wave around it. :D
 
Gucci Pilot said:
X-32....ugly
F-35...not ugly
Click to expand...
Unfortunately yes. I have no clue on the validity of the claims, but there are people I work with who were in T&E at the time that say appearance was a huge factor in the selection.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Unfortunately yes. I have no clue on the validity of the claims, but there are people I work with who were in T&E at the time that say appearance was a huge factor in the selection.
Click to expand...

Kind of sad since sometimes ugly is more practical than pretty.
 
There is no good angle on this thing, it's seriously ugly no matter how you look at it. I mean what on earth were they thinking?

iy0ky8.jpg
 
Last edited:
The F-117 was uglier than that. Pretty is not necessary to get a job done.
 
Henning said:
The F-117 was uglier than that...
Click to expand...

I don't think so, more bizarre for sure but it was a Skunkworks project and the major goal was to not be seen. I'm not sure how Boeing feels about the X-32 but I took their factory tour a couple of months ago and don't recall seeing any mention of it although I did notice their prominent displays and souvenir models of the "Boeing" F-15, F-18 and P-51 :wink2:
 
Silvaire said:
I don't think so, more bizarre for sure but it was a Skunkworks project and the major goal was to not be seen. I'm not sure how Boeing feels about the X-32 but I took their factory tour a couple of months ago and don't recall seeing any mention of it although I did notice their prominent displays and souvenir models of the "Boeing" F-15, F-18 and P-51 :wink2:
Click to expand...

That was also one of the major goals of the JSF program, and to do it vectoring a lot more thrust and capable of fulfilling even more roles. I'm not saying the F-32 was any good, just that looks shouldn't have been a determining factor.
 
Fearless Tower said:
there are people I work with who were in T&E at the time that say appearance was a huge factor in the selection.
Click to expand...
*I*was in T&E at the time and never heard any credible evidence to that effect, and I can state with near absolute certainty that an improvement in appearance alone would not have changed the outcome in the slightest.

Nauga,
and his performance margin
 
kyleb said:
Didn't Boeing pretty much get to the competition and say "Oops, this one won't work, we'll have to go back to the drawing board if we're awarded the contract."?
Click to expand...
For an easy-to-see example look at pictures of the X-35B hovering and see if you can tell where they're doing it. Then look at the X-32 and where they hovered it. Look at the external configuration of the X-32 in hover testing as compared to the X-32 in conventional flight. See a difference? Wonder why? See a difference in the X-35? Wonder why (not)?

Also see if you can find a desk model of an "F-32" that doesn't have a horizontal tail.

Nauga,
and his design iterator
 
Henning said:
... I'm not saying the F-32 was any good, just that looks shouldn't have been a determining factor.
Click to expand...

Agree and honestly I doubt it was a factor, I was just cracking a joke because it really is butt ugly.
 
nauga said:
*I*was in T&E at the time and never heard any credible evidence to that effect, and I can state with near absolute certainty that an improvement in appearance alone would not have changed the outcome in the slightest.

Nauga,
and his performance margin
Click to expand...

I don't doubt you. It just happens to be a story that I hear in the building. It could simply reflect a 'grass-is-greener' attitude with those dealing with the LockMart option.

VX-1?
 
I worked both programs and the issue was the X-32 was overweight and it had NO bring back ability, which is important for Navy ops. You don't want to drop million dollar missiles in the ocean, just to get back aboard the boat. :nono:l
 
Last edited:
The other thing is that they were both different approaches to the problem, VTOL. The X-35 used a "second engine", called a lift fan that was geared off the main engine. The X-32 used direct jet, diverted off the main flow. Ergo, the very large inlet. You should of see when it converted to VTOL, and the inlet droop, opened. Looked like a large Grouper opening its mouth!
 
Rcmutz said:
You should of see when it converted to VTOL, and the inlet droop, opened. Looked like a large Grouper opening its mouth!
Click to expand...

Probably even less attractive than it already was. So now we have the F-35 that looks like a dog taking a crap when it leaves the flight deck.
 
nauga said:
For an easy-to-see example look at pictures of the X-35B hovering and see if you can tell where they're doing it. Then look at the X-32 and where they hovered it. Look at the external configuration of the X-32 in hover testing as compared to the X-32 in conventional flight. See a difference? Wonder why? See a difference in the X-35? Wonder why (not)?

Also see if you can find a desk model of an "F-32" that doesn't have a horizontal tail.

Nauga,
and his design iterator
Click to expand...

I thought both aircraft were <mostly> tested over a special hover pit? Did they also test the X-35 outside of that environment because the lift fan largely eliminated the hot air ingestion issue that was unresolved in the X-32? I knew they'd removed things like gear doors and the chin scoop on the X-32 to get the weight down for hover testing. That's evident in the hover pic's.

Oh, and I can't find a desk model of the X-32. Probably not enough ex X-32 pilots (or wannabees) out there to create enough demand to commercialize. ;-)

You ever gonna make it to Oshkosh?
 
Last edited:
IMHO....the concept of a one size fits all is flawed. Name one thing a Swiss army knife does well?

But, it's the times....when politics and technology never get it right. Never have....never will.

Neither woulda been successful. :no:
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
IMHO....the concept of a one size fits all is flawed. Name one thing a Swiss army knife does well?

But, it's the times....when politics and technology never get it right. Never have....never will.

Neither woulda been successful. :no:
Click to expand...

But it's worked so well for the H-60....or not. Whoever thought an H-60 could do the job of an H-53 in the airborne mine warfare role was a complete idiot.
 
Off topic, but is anyone else as impressed as I am with the depth of knowledge and experience on this board? Even though I consider myself fairly successful in my chosen field, I sometimes feel insignificant around here.

Mabye it is as someone said on another thread, some people are easily impressed. (me?).
 
Rcmutz said:
I worked both programs and the issue was the X-32 was overweight and it had NO bring back ability, which is important for Navy ops. You don't want to drop million dollar missiles in the ocean, just to get back aboard the boat. :nono:l
Click to expand...

Thanks, now that is a serious flaw and legitimate reason for rejection.
 
kyleb said:
I thought both aircraft were <mostly> tested over a special hover pit?
Click to expand...
I was referring to the difference in performance available between EDW and NHK ;) RCMutz says the same thing but worded a little different. :D

Nauga,
high, hot, and overshot
 
Why not the F-15 STOL/MTD with 3d vectoring? That's more of the direction the Russians are going...
 
ktup-flyer said:
Why not the F-15 STOL/MTD with 3d vectoring? That's more of the direction the Russians are going...
Click to expand...

Because the Marines "Must Have" STOVL, which is the single biggest compromise (IMO) in the whole system. That and the desire for commonality really disadvantage the two non STOVL versions.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
Because the Marines "Must Have" STOVL, which is the single biggest compromise (IMO) in the whole system. It and the desire for commonality really disadvantages the two non STOVL versions.
Click to expand...

And a big reason why the Marines love the F-35 and the jury is still out for the AF/Navy like I was saying in the other thread.
 
Fearless Tower said:
And a big reason why the Marines love the F-35 and the jury is still out for the AF/Navy like I was saying in the other thread.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the mistake was not just developing a plane for the Marines, and using the F-22 platform for the other two. Making a carrier version of the F-22 would have been a simpler and better deal than making the F-35 fit all three rolls. I remember way back when they cut down the F-22 order the justification they were selling through the media was the F-22 was too expensive and the F-35 would be half the price. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

We just waste all our resources making money on weapons of war, we need to invest those resources in other ways and get us off the planet and out in space. Here we go extinct.
 
Like I have always said, If an F-35/F-22 encounters any plane in the SU-30 family, it's over. This "jack of all trades, master of none" approach is a bad idea
 
ktup-flyer said:
Like I have always said, If an F-35/F-22 encounters any plane in the SU-30 family, it's over. This "jack of all trades, master of none" approach is a bad idea
Click to expand...

You should probably read up on the F-22...
 
ktup-flyer said:
It would get owned by the SU-37, and probably the SU-35...
Click to expand...
BVR or WVR? All-aspect weapons? Intel beyond Janes?
There's much more to comparative analysis than 'pwnage'.

Nauga,
and his threat assessment
 
Henning said:
Making a carrier version of the F-22 would have been a simpler and better deal than making the F-35 fit all three rolls.
Click to expand...
suuuure it would :rolleyes:

Nauga,
who survived the development of 'a hawk with a hook'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top