Why The Boeing X-32 Failed

Dive into the high-stakes world of aerospace technology with our documentary exploring the evolution of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Beginning in the early 1990s, this pivotal initiative aimed to consolidate the U.S. military's airpower by developing a modern, versatile aircraft suited for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. The program sparked intense competition among major aerospace companies, each proposing innovative designs to secure a contract with the Department of Defense.
Discover the groundbreaking proposals from McDonnell Douglas, General Electric, Northrop, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing. Each company brought forward unique technologies to achieve the ambitious requirements of vertical and short take-off and landing capabilities, combined with stealth and maneuverability.
Witness the development of Boeing's X-32 and Lockheed Martin's X-35, two prototypes that pushed the boundaries of military aviation technology. The documentary covers key moments from the program's inception through to the dramatic conclusion in 2001 when Lockheed Martin's design was selected, reshaping future military aviation.
Join us as we provide detailed insights into the technical challenges, the rigorous testing processes, and the strategic decisions that defined the JSF program. Featuring expert interviews, test flight footage, and an in-depth analysis of the aircraft designs, this video is a must-watch for aviation enthusiasts and history buffs alike.
_________________________________________________
To contact me directly: [e-mail]
_________________________________________________
Our channel is about Aviation.
We make the best educational aviation videos you've ever seen; my videos are designed to clear misunderstandings about airplanes and explain complicated aviation topics in a simple way.

[@drksideofthewal]

“Why the X-32 failed” *takes one look at the X-32* I think I see the problem.

[@victorsaduwa9423]

a flying pig

[@unoriginalname4321]

Looks like a frog mid-croak

[@Daginni1]

I cant look at this thing without hearing in my head "HO HO HO HO HO :D"

[@user-xt4uf6ij6w]

It's like a scared dwarf 😆 my head I hear Haaaaa!

[@user-xt4uf6ij6w]

If Monica did what was promised heck I'd fly her

[@user-en9zo2ol4z]

The USAF was becoming suspicious about Boeing, and furthermore, it was the ugliest aircraft ever designed.

[@90lancaster]

Oh I don't know there is some especially ridiculous looking seaplanes that have been made in the previous century. this century though... likely a fair comment.

[@CraigLandsberg-lk1ep]

There is no scientific reason looks have anything to do with performance 😢

[@mikehipperson]

And the F-117 wasn't ugly?

[@piotrd.4850]

@@mikehipperson it was right kind of ugly. Had some menance to it. Some .... IDK , proprtion.

[@piotrd.4850]

@@CraigLandsberg-lk1ep "If it looks right it will probably fly the same". K. Johnson

[@nimaiiikun]

As a famous Lockheed designer once said.. the Navy doesn't know what it wants.

[@NumbersLetters_]

Aint no way USAF were gonna make this abomination the premium front-line fighter. Thats why it really lost

[@majorborngusfluunduch8694]

Its a shame, because from above it looks awesome. It just needs its side and front profile slimmed up.

[@Av0nKraD]

@@majorborngusfluunduch8694to make it more like laughing?

[@majorborngusfluunduch8694]

@@Av0nKraD No, if you make it more slim (less fat) it would look more like its smiling than laughing.

[@wat8437]

I guess that the nozzles doesn't help it's stealth

[@williamchamberlain2263]

​@@wat8437you mean the intake? It's usually the fan blades that create the radar return from the front, so the up-curve might _reduce_ the radar return from the front

[@shaider1982]

Those who call the F35 Fat Amy hasn’t seen the X32

[@bengtianyap4689]

X32 the flying Penguin.

[@fredtedstedman]

battle penguin .

[@piedpiper1172]

I saw the F-35B in person at MCAS Cherry Point today. I don’t think I’ll ever call it fat again. It’s a stunning machine, and remains so even in the immediate company of both the F-22 and F/A-18. (All three completed minimum radius turns over the same airfield, among all other maneuvers of complete demonstrations). The reality is that the F-35 has emerged as a truly impressive and fantastic machine, even if the program hit snags. Which I suppose is why it has so many export orders.

[@H1Guard]

More like Hungry, Hungry Hippo.

[@DOI_ARTS]

X32 "Big Bertha"

[@andrewtaylor940]

This is grossly downplaying what actually happened.The "some adjustment between modes" that were needed for the X-32 was in order to get it off the ground vertically, maintenance had to remove all of the doors and hatches and drain all but the absolute minimum fuel. They had to take the landing gear doirs off the plane to reduce weight. And even with that it took 3 or 4 attempts to take off. And they did not transition. Whereas Lockheed's X-35 taxi'd out in full everday configuration with a full tank of gas. It took off vertically smooth as silk and hovered there. It then smoothly transitioned to horizontal flight mode. And went Supersonic. Spun a few loops around the airfield. Returned to a hover, and landed vertically smooth as anything. Everybodies jaws were on the floor. No aircraft had ever taken off vertically and jumped supersonic before. Lockheed had not told anyone what they were going to do. It was the ultimate Mic Drop moment. Boeing was showing off disparate technology concepts on 2 airframes that were nothing like what would be a production plane. Lockheed demonstrated a full package aircraft. As soon as they saw that test flight the Boeing guys knew it was over.

[@andrewcox4386]

As soon as RR got the lift fan & clutch system working it was clear that the X35 would wipe the floor with the X32 for the STOVL requirement. The Boeing direct lift design limits the weight of the aircraft to the thrust of the engine while the lift fan allows greater vertical thrust and more growth potential with greater allowable CofG movement. The X35B weighed 6000lb more than the X32B but could hover with more payload.

[@j.f.fisher5318]

also, the Harriers are among the most frequently crashed jet aircraft, and doing the VTOL using the same principles was a bad idea.

[@andrewtaylor940]

The F-35 Lift fan also solved the biggest problem with both the Harrier and X-32 VTOL system. It prevents hot gas injection into the engines in a very elegant way. The biggest caused of loss and damage to harriers was as they near the ground the engines start sucking in the hot gasses being put out by the downward facing thrusters. Thus causing an engine overheat and shutdown. Dropping the plane like a rock. The Lockheed lift fan is moving cold air. It puts up a column of high pressure cold air between the engines hot exhaust and the intakes.

[@jfess1911]

I believe that a "winner takes all" system for emerging technology projects is a bad idea. Seldom does one of the competitors have all the best ideas, so bringing in at least one other manufacturer can provide a better final product since between them, more problems have been solved. It also spreads the knowledge base farther which will be an advantage for the next set of competitions.

[@srinitaaigaura]

Boeing was already on path to become the loser it is today. I tell you, if Boeing won that contest, they would have scrapped the whole program by now.

[@camilorodriguez5602]

but this competitiveness is what pushes the engineers to give their very best into making them, i think thats why modern american designs are the ones on top

[@jfess1911]

@@camilorodriguez5602 If there were new fighters every five years or so, it might be fine. Now, however, winner-takes-all will leave us with flaws or sub-optimal features for many years. The high expense of the F-22 has always been a problem, and it is argued that some of the features of the losing YF-23 design would have decreased that. We had to wait until the F-35 to get the implementation. In the recent Army NGSW weapon competition, the rifle that was chosen has the highest recoil and the heaviest ammo. Arguably, the polymer-cased ammo from the General Dynamics/True Velocity would have been a better choice, but Winner-Takes-All means that we are stuck with the more expensive SIG hybrid design, which is now going to be used at a pressure low enough that its advanced features are not needed.

[@nutsackmania]

stop

[@ravener96]

@jfess1911 if you are basically ensured to get a contract either way why innovate? It becomes a race to the bottom

[@gort8203]

So changes to the Navy requirement made the X-32 delta wing unsuitable. A similar thing happened to the F-111B, but it was unable to be modified to meet the revised Navy requirements.

[@jondrew55]

The problem with the F-111C was the engines could not provide enough power for carrier operations. Plus, the nose design made it almost impossible to see the carrier deck when landing. The F32 looked like a turd flying a hang glider.

[@gort8203]

@@jondrew55 The F-111C was the Australian variant and was not intended for carrier operations. The F-111B was the US Navy variant, and had a shorter nose than the land based variants, Its unsuitability for carrier operations is a myth, as reportedly the test pilots told other pilots present that it handled well during carrier trials. But I certainly agree that the X-32 looked like a turd flying a hang glider.

[@falkenlaser]

The X-32 looks like what you get when you start your final project for school the night before it’s due.

[@veleriphon]

As much derision as the look of the X-32 deserves, it also looks very happy.

[@Lord_Foxy13]

He's just happy to be included,

[@matthewcuratolo3719]

I always liked the X-32 due to it's sheer strangeness.

[@waynecrofts7954]

Personally I liked the X32's alien moth looks

[@onenote6619]

If you like weird aircraft, check out the Northrop Tacit Blue.

[@nutsackmania]

stop

[@Iskelderon]

Always reminded me of other planes with an intake like that, like the Crusader.

[@impossiblescissors]

The ungainly X-32 was actually a pretty ingenious approach to a stealthy strike fighter. But the prototype as flown didn't meet naval requirements, and the direct lift system was very sensitive to weight growth compared to the Lockheed Martin lift fan.

[@Matt-yg8ub]

Both issues were easily addressed….but not within the limitations of the project. The late stage Navy requirements changes required structural changes Boeing couldn’t do in the limited time frame …..and the power issues could have easily been achieved with a more powerful engine…but once again not in the limited timeframe and on the tight budget. Lockheed blew the budget wide open, their design was in compliance with the Navy changes before they were announced and made use of a more powerful engine Lockheed “just happened” to have developed in advance for this project. In summary…… Boeing made the mistake of following the rules and competing honestly and in good faith. Lockheed on the other hand leveraged their contacts to gain knowledge in advance and lean on officials to alter requirements after their competitor had already committed to a design. When the time came the Boeing pilots flew the demonstrated the required performance specs for a budget stealth missile bus… Lockheed brought in stunt pilots and blew the doors off with acrobatics and speed….neither of which was a project requirement…..but they looked cool and impressed the fighter mafia.

[@AaaBbb-ff1pn]

​@@Matt-yg8ubcome on, it's not like yf23 vs yf22 close competition. It was very clear that the x35 have more grown potential and flexibility than x32. x32 relay in process building to showcase lower cost and speed development. unluckily the first fail due to error in production (they have to scrape the first wing) and then they loose time with job strike. not a reliable bet looking from outside. DoD make the right choice to not put the bet on a plane that looks full of "we will do this and implement that" while lockheed deliver that pr stunts that make it looks like the x35 is way closer to be a definitive fighter.

[@Matt-yg8ub]

@@AaaBbb-ff1pn Lockheed lobbied hard to get the navy to change the requirements that forced Boeing to have to scrap the wing and start over again, they manipulated it from day one and continued to manipulate it throughout the entire project. most of the good things in the F 35 came from the Boeing side of the development. As for not being able to produce on time? Lockheed is a decade behind schedule and half $1 trillion over budget. The two advantages that he had in this project where the fact that they knew about it in advance and so they spent almost $700, million developing the engine before the project even began …. Giving them a massive advantage over Boeing who had to work within a much more restricted budget…… and the fact that they already had the contract for the F2 so all their F3 is is a slightly scale down version of the F2 two instead of the cheap mass produced stealth fighter of the project was supposed to be, which was what Boeing was trying to provide. Instead of a cost effective mass produced stealth fighter, we get Lockheed’s massively overpriced, cut down F22 variant

[@KapiteinKrentebol]

This was a very economical plane as from the looks of it ran on airplankton.

[@ltjjenkins]

Lol. This comment deserves respect

[@TonySaysHello]

This competition and the yf-23 competition are fascinating to me. Thank you for this video.

[@othgmark1]

The two competitions were the exact opposite in the appearance of the losers. The yf23 was the most beautiful plane to lose a fly off, the x32 is the ugliest.

[@xjArieswar]

The eye test matters. Great video.

[@seanbigay1042]

You mean the eye test as in whether or not the pilot's eyes glazed over on first seeing his aircraft?

[@zondervonstrek]

A family member of mine worked on the f-23 program (the McDonald Douglas entry) and assisted with the trials and some early test flights. He swore the project was confused and standards kept changing often well in to the prototype build stage. He also said the failed projects did so because the test pilots never tested the vertical takeoff and claimed they preferred "dog-fightability" a role none of the planes were not intended to fill.

[@slapshot0074]

"Unusual appearance" doesn't even begin to describe how ugly that plane was.

[@mostlynew]

X-32 did not pass inspection. That’s one ugly mf.

[@magoid]

4:59 Thank you for mentioning that. That is a crucial piece of information on the JSF program, that is often omitted when people talk about it. If you ask me, it was the spark that led to a lot of the troubles in the F-35, particularly in weight increase and missed performance metrics.

[@Schlipperschlopper]

When Crocs attempt to build an airplane :-)

[@MostlyPennyCat]

The most important difference was construction methods. Lockheed used traditional methods, start with a block of titanium alloy and mill it. Boeing attempted to use it's mass production skill to avoid large expensive pieces like type milled block. Boeing focused on making an aircraft that was cheap to mass produce. Shame really, the X-32 was really interesting.

[@andrewcox4386]

Boeing also had to produce a much lighter aircraft due to the limitations of direct lift for STOVL. Hence they were forced to avoid big structures. With the lift fan Lockheed had more leeway on weight so could go for more robust structure. The X35 was 6000lb heavier (25% more) than the X32.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

@@andrewcox4386 Yeah, real shame really. Boeing really did try to revolutionise fighter manufacturing by applying their mass production skills whereas Lockheed just carried on as they always had. They all would have had the same cost overruns though, the from-scratch avionics code and sensor fusion was really expensive.

[@SuperYellowsubmarin]

Can you be more specific ? I know Lockheed also uses carbon fiber - BMI composite exterior panels which inner mating surfaces are machines for a perfect fit.

[@ltjjenkins]

Who the F really wants to mill titanium if you can avoid it?

[@andrewcox4386]

@@ltjjenkins Standard practice in aerospace for decades now. We use far worse materials from a machining perspective 😆

[@jjkrayenhagen]

Stretch it out a bit and make it a bit more sleek and you have the Su-75 Checkmate.

[@billdunne5266]

really great video thanks

[@onenote6619]

The way I heard it told was that Boeing were not trying to make X32 succeed. They were hoping that the X35 would fail.

[@FortuneZer0]

It was way too joyful.

[@pajeetkumar1645]

But saaar its all about being happy and joyful, war is do sad and the world needs this..

[@chuckcawthon3370]

Well Done Sir.

[@DOI_ARTS]

Imagine graduating in Top Gun and they gave this happy Guppy as your new Jet 😂😂😂

[@140theguy]

The engineers were originally told they're entering an ugly contest. 😊

[@downix]

They changed the requirements after it was built in a way that favored Lockheed, and swapped the engine for one with 20% lower performance.

[@hydromaestro1298]

Toast to Monica , top effort!

[@ragingjaguarknight86]

👁 👁 👄

[@djtomoy]

They wanted a fighter jet, not a giant seagull with a big happy smile.

[@lorenzogattaldo3764]

"Why The Boeing X-32 Failed" --> too ugly.

[@fiskmasadventures]

It would've been very interesting if the separate branches were free to aqcuire what they wanted - imagine if the USAF would've adapted this, and the F-35 went to the Navy and Marines. That would've been an interesting looking mix in the skies. Even though the X-32 looks a bit funny, I think that if it had been adopted and we got used to the look, it would've instead looked really cool today. Also, I guess the "winner takes all" concept was one of the reasons the F-35 derailed when it came to costs and deadlines.

[@ravener96]

Kinda ruins the whole joint strike fighter concept though. The idea is that planes are getting psychotically expensive, so a larger order pushes down the unit cost.

[@user-ck3uu8rj3x]

I think it looked pretty neat, in a fast Pelican kind of way.

[@michealoflaherty1265]

Thanks for explaining how the x32 nozzles worked. How it remained stable in vertical landing while balanced on a single column of air is another question. Bleed air nozzles in the nose, wing tips and tail?

[@MostlyPennyCat]

Yep, it was very much the Harrier method. Unfortunately this came with the same pop-stalls problem as the Harrier.

[@CraigLandsberg-lk1ep]

Glad to see this video 😅 it answered all my questions & I think it could have been an awesome aircraft with a little more development, but as with the YF-23 US played is safe and stuck to a conventional design 😢

[@elliot7452]

I work on a marine base in Japan, F35 is super loud and does look cool doing it's vert take off and landing.

[@99jrome]

It was not USN changing its landing requirements. The X-32 could not satisfy the requirements. Tailless, delta wing aircraft have always done poorly landing on an carrier aircraft. Boeing claimed its tailless aircraft design would change that. Then after two years Boeing acknowledge the navy variant needed a horizontal tail (not vertical stabilizer) to satisfy USN requirements. Several other errors in the dialogue, but this was the most significant.

[@dramspringfeald]

As a young lad, I was there for the debates, it came down to 2 reasons, it didn't look like the yf23 and the Boeing "Battle Frog" didn't look as futuristic. Even though it's vertical takeoff was simpler and cheaper to do

[@TecnamTwin]

Northrop Grumman basically builds the F-35 and Lockheed puts the rest of the parts on it. The companies are sharing, but Boeing got shut out.

[@malakiblunt]

Swept back at 55º angle - wing tilt is a whole different thing

[@zephyr8072]

Because it looked like everybody’s first attempt at a plane with stock parts in Kerbal Space Program.

[@nimaiiikun]

wasn't the McDonnel Douglass design a similar lift fan design as the X-35?

[@kevincox9960]

It had a lift fan that was driven by a separate turbine. This was much like the Yak-141 (they had 2 lift fans). The McDonnel Douglass design looked a lot better with the V-tail configuration.

[@nimaiiikun]

@@kevincox9960 thanks, so the lift fan wasn't connected to the main engine like the F-35 then

[@kevincox9960]

@@nimaiiikun No it wasn't. I hear this why it wasn't selected. The design specs, by the government, said only one engine.

[@nimaiiikun]

@@kevincox9960 The Navy changes negatively affected the X-32 design, and there were challenges for the Marine VTOL variant.. but do you think for the AF, the x-32 was better for them than the 35?

[@kevincox9960]

@@nimaiiikun A few things didn't help, the Navy changing its requirements outwardly appears to have affected it. The VTOL performance did most of the harm, in my opinion. This could be traced back to the failed lightweight composite wing that had to be scraped in favor of a heavier design, remember that they weren't allow to use their own funds. The VTOL 'B' model had the same hot gases issues that AV-8B Harrier had. I think the AF version meet and exceeded the requirements, as did the X-35A. The thing that most people miss, is that it was an X plane so the airframe design was a lot more flexible, the technology, propulsion configuration, not so much.

[@Typing.._]

That aircraft you sneak out the back door 🤣

[@UnitSe7en]

The reason it actually lost was was because of the Military-Industrial Complex. The JSF concept (which X/F-35 is the direct lineage of) has been spinning through the tubes since nearly the 70's and they weren't about to let their infinite paycheck go away.

[@skydiver1013]

Word has it the USAF guys called the X-32 "The Monica."

[@skyserf]

It does look odd but I wonder if the nose wasn’t the final design. It doesn’t look large enough to house an adequate radar. Not that looks are important but the aesthetics might have changed with a larger nose.

[@louisbabycos106]

Radar and gun.

[@sonar8594]

It’s not about ugly. If it’s ugly but it works it starts to look pretty good. F-117, A-10, PBY, F-111, F-4, SU-25, all largely remembered for what they could do even if some might find their appearance unconventional if not downright unattractive . Any plane that saves your life will be loved by those who served in and alongside it. The X-32 just couldn’t keep up with the X-35. The 35 was able to meet all the requirements as is, the 32 had to strip weight or adjust its configuration for each test. Plus the design of the 32 made the risk of hot gas ingestion much higher which is a significant risk for a crash. They had to test it on a special platform during the demonstrations because of problems with loss of engine power in a hover. The lift fan design doesn’t have this problem because the intake for the ducted fan draws separate from the engine. This actually creates a curtain of fresh air that blocks exhaust from wrapping around the plane back to the intakes. Maybe the Boeing design could have matured and eventually competed with the 35, but just being honest when measuring the capability of the tech demonstrators as delivered it was an easy choice, at least if you assume there isn’t significant capability differences in classified performance results. (i.e. RCS)

[@stevedunch581]

That was one weird looking jet

[@karan_hiremath]

Do a video about the X-47B

[@jasonkent7858]

It even looks like it's going "duhurrr"😀

[@kaladore1982]

I imagine the air intake on the bottom of the aircraft might be an issue.

[@owenlaprath4135]

Boeing could not get their crate to work with the intake shroud. They had to remove part of it, to get enough air-flow to the engine for vertical operation, a problem they had no solution for. This can actually be spotted in this video, as in some frames the snout looks like a shark mouth, but in others, the intake is shorter and the lower "jaw" nearly touching the nose is missing. Very unfairly and for strangely unfathomable reasons, the Air Force refused to warm up to the concept of flying a partially disassembled aeroplane in combat conditions, and nixed the Boeing entry. As we now all witnessed, Boeing was able to prove very spectacularly, that they can indeed mass produce aeroplanes carrying large payloads loads of passengers, that could count as free-fall bombs, and disassemble them partially by removing various body panels in mid-air for a successful landing operation! The concept of the X32 was hence vindicated!

[@383mazda]

Just saw this at the USAF museum, it's even uglier in person, lol. You can see the fan blades in the intake, not sure how stealthy that would be...

[@jammiedodger7040]

The Lockheed Martin life fan was actually designed by Rolls-Royce.

[@MrFukyootoob]

The x32 was "like" a harrier jet, the x35 was vetter than a harrier

[@camilorodriguez5602]

fish the x-32 succeded, it would be a nice tribute to the a7 corsair II and f8u/f8e

[@DJEDzTV]

I like this happy smiling airplane..

[@WhoIsTheEdman]

To be honest, I'm glad to find out that it *wasn't* just that it was ugly. If it had trouble doing all three things that were foundational requirements of the competition then it shouldn't have been the winner, regardless of aesthetics. I hadn't ever researched the competition and felt a kind of worry that maybe a better jet lost a contract because it looked like a weird sky-beluga. But no, it was that it looked like a weird sky-beluga and also it was a worse performer, too.

[@MavHunter20XX]

Now only if the F35 computers didn't disagree with the pilots.

[@stcredzero]

Because it looks like an F-16 had a baby with an obese robot shark!

[@shadowspiritgaming4929]

4:28 missed opportunity to call it the "Chintake"

[@DirkLarien]

The plane just didn't take the whole thing seriously and laughed all the time. But seen from above it does look pretty neat. I wonder what would happen if they were to move the intakes up.

[@CallsignJoNay]

To be fair, the proposed production variant F-32 looked a lot better than the X-32.

[@Jager1967]

It couldn't be the fact the design of the aircraft is fuggily as hell.

[@pajeetkumar1645]

Noooo saar its not UGLY its beautiful and cute, just what you want in an aircraft.

[@King_Dusty_Of_Pookytopia]

30ft longer and no vertical tails and you got yourself a 6th generation fighter.

[@pullingweeds]

The X32 looks like it wants to be friends. The F22 looks like it wants to and will kill you.

[@fredtedstedman]

always loved this plane , I have built 2 models of it ! seemed like a much simpler solution than F-35.........aah well .

[@proteusnz99]

XF-32 didn’t look like a fighter, it looks like a FOD problem trying to find somewhere to happen, a runway vacuum cleaner. The F-35 is far too complex, far too many parts to go wrong. For example, if deployed on the basis of Short take-off/Vertical landing and either the aft swivelling nozzle or the front lift fan suffers battle damage does the pilot have any options other than ejection?

[@srinitaaigaura]

Well, the X32 was a sign of things to come at Boeing. If Boeing had won the JSF Program would have been scrapped 15 years ago.

[@W1ckedRcL]

The MOST relevant reason for its failure is that it looked terrible. It had several other failures and problems but it looked like a wide mouth bass compared to the F35.

[@drsaufproblem]

But it looks so happy

[@StruggleGaming]

If you see the X32 and have to ask why it failed. I welcome you to open your eyes and look again.

[@larrybremer4930]

I am convinced Boeing lost to Lockheed due to three main factors. 1. The Optics (X-32 was just so weird and chubby while the Lockheed jet looked like a fighter) 2. Because Boeing had to remove parts for STOVL/VTOL demonstrations while Lockheed jet did not. 3. X-32 was not anywhere near a final production form (was going to use the same wing but get a full flying tail and slight stretch) while Lockheed aircraft was very nearly a release to serial production by comparison (removing a lot of program risk for the DOD).

[@andrewcox4386]

Plus the lift fan was far, far superior to direct lift for the STOVL design.

[@larrybremer4930]

@@andrewcox4386 Honestly No, the way the Pegasus engine used a huge compressor section so that its power was available for forward flight too meant its lift fan (Compressor/cold section) was not just dead weight in non vertical flight. The lift fan was the right choice for the F-35 to fit the necessary form factor, but its not the "best" solution. Boeing solution was actually closer to the Harriers Pegasus engine that ducted compressor bleed air which means its not hauling nearly as much dead weight. I would still say Boeing had the better overall plan but really bobbled the execution. You could also say that the engine really let it down too, it still needed a lot of development so you can also say Boeing got bit for taking on too much program risk. Lockheed used an engine that was already proven and had the manufacturer mod it to extract a whole lot of shaft power to run the fan so it was much lower program risk and that is really why their prototype basically beat the pants of Boeing's. In the end the DOD got what it asked for, so it's all good.

[@andrewcox4386]

@larrybremer4930 Direct lift is limited to the thrust of the engine so the engine is over-sized for just about everything else. Also the lifting points are concentrated where the engine is. The lift fan takes power off the low pressure spool and converts it far more efficiently to lift and can be well forward of the engine giving more vertical thrust and a longer base which allows more variability in the CofG. The X32 engine produced 28klb of thrust without afterburner and most of this is concentrated at a single position for hovering. Yes you can use afterburner or PCB but that has big implications for ground/deck erosion. The X35 engine was rated for 18klb with a further 18klb from the lift fan split fore and aft. The Harrier has tight CofG limits and limitations on payload it can bring back for the hover. It was probably the best solution for the 1960s but it is not an ideal solution. I had the chance to talk with people working on both lift systems at the time and both teams knew that if the lift fan worked it was the far superior option. Direct lift was low risk but limited the aircraft capability.

[@larrybremer4930]

@@andrewcox4386 I agree with your points, but I think we both agree that it was engineering compromises in either solution. I admitted the lift fam was the better choice for X-35. By that I mean the sum of the compromises that are always present in building an aircraft (and military aircraft in particular). The Pegasus engine and its derivatives are ancient in terms of engine design today. I think a new engine using similar principles was still a worthy investigation. Maybe (probably) it could not have delivered the same potential thrust as the lift fan for vertical flight, but a lift fan delivers nothing but penalties once your flying horizontally while by comparison a large compressor, high bypass engine can offer you huge range and power gains for less internal volume and mass. All I meant to convey is Boeing did not have a bad idea, its design went a deferent direction, with different choices.

[@SoloRenegade]

1) it was Ugly! 2) it failed its hover test when it ingested hot air

[@PopeRocket]

Had a friend who worked for B0eing at the time. He was hilariously ass-blasted their design didnt get picked.

[@mijreed]

Where the hell would they put the radar on that aircraft?

[@GlobalPenguin2012]

Calling it Monica is so appropriate for the plane with such a huge air intake under the nose cockpit. Lol

[@verbold1979]

Weapons must look scary! That plane is designed by manga cartoon enthusiast. 😂

[@MrGriff305]

A successful military exists 100% as a deterrent to enemy aggression. The X-32 looks a fat duck begging to be hunted. Sorry, but in life, respectable looks will always matter.

[@dennisthone8910]

Boeing did not need a contract to survive. That is how many contracts got awarded as it as it was policy to keep was many contractors as possible in business.

[@kevinking5406]

Monica!

[@TD402dd]

The engineers at Lockheed never design the easy way. Having the front fan driven off the engine by shaft was why Lockheed has s skunk works.

[@jiggsborah7041]

Anything that looks light THAT isn't going anywhere. Couldn't they get the Tomcat guys at least

[@KYoss68]

It's not at all because it looked like a pelican.

[@jimgreen4504]

Should have called it a chuck-wills-widow.

[@krzysztofdeoniziak5618]

I don't understand people who say it is an ugly plane. Different? Sure! Ugly? absolutely not. But often these are the people who claim the mig21 is a nice design, and it's a rocket with a pilot.

[@foobarf8766]

Interesting that it lost despite manufacturing advantages, time will only tell if F35 maintenance becomes a thing

[@stephensowell9578]

That nickname story may have hurt the X-32 chances if it is true.

[@ThePirateParrot]

Honestly should have built both. It's not like the us didn't have the money. Lockheed took the us dod to the cleaners for both the f22 and f35.

[@BenderIsGreat_34]

If it looks right, it flies right. In this case, it didn't look right

[@FloridaManMatty]

It’s absolute BULLSHIT that various departments in DOD can come along and demand changes in spec AFTER contracts have been awarded. The USN should have damn well known what its requirements were when they submitted their wish list to DOD. The X-32 was not the best plane in this competition. The powers that be actually got this one right all around, unlike most of these fly-offs. The X-35 was just the better airplane. That said, Boeing did some amazing things with their X-32s that were really just a little too ahead of their time. The day will come (very likely with NGAD) when we see a lot of major components being molded and printed. Their wing was amazing. It was just too “new”. Now that the technology and manufacturing processes have matured, we stand to see some amazing stuff in the coming years.

[@NineInchTyrone]

Gotta LOOK cool

[@dominicalvin]

the enemy won't see it as a threat .... it wont be a good deterrent ........

[@PetesGuide]

At 2:09 all of those shilouettes are of the Boeing. I’m starting to doubt you said anything accurate in this video.

[@Philipwars]

How about you go find all the prototypes mentioned here , use your head bro , it's just there as a symbol of airplane , that's why is silhouette

[@Philipwars]

Boring talk

[@mr6johnclark]

To her Pilots... They called her "Monica"

[@mikejames4648]

It failed for one reason, that this video completely ignores to make Boeing's entrant look better. It could not take off, fly supersonic, and land vertically. It could do one, or the other, depending on the set up, but not both. That's what killed it.

[@prjndigo]

It is important to note that the F-16 never competed against the F-18 in any program. The F-18 is based on what was learned from the myriad of design shortcomings and flaws from the YF-17 *which was a completely different aircraft both dimensionally and scientifically* that used roughly the same overall layout if you've had 7 beers and only saw 8 seconds of it on TV.

[@3dguy839]

X32 kinda looks like the Weeble Wobble airplane I used toplaywith back in early 1970s Weebles wobble but they fall down And the plane definitely won't fly

[@factChecker01]

The Lockheed airplane performed better and was well ahead in its test program. Better performance plus less risk = win