Here's Why the Pentagon Didn't Pick the X-32

[@TorToroPorco]

It seems like you could have done a 1 hour interview with Rowdy and still only scratched the surface of the insights and anecdotes he had from his time as the chief X-32 test pilot. A very interesting and engaging guest. One thing I’d be interesting in learning about are the lessons gleaned from the extremely complicated and drawn out software development process and how much it contributed to the cost of the F-35 program. Another obstacle that stood out in my mind during its development were the two years lost to the weight reduction program. It would be interesting to know how Lockheed tackled that problem.

[@howardpayne4128]

I understand that the requirements where changed 3 times during the development of the aircraft. Another factor was the new project management software, which did not work as well as expected, plus the huge hack by the Chinese. All in all factors that slowed everything down a lot.

[@jtjames79]

Boeing is terrible at software. Like appallingly bad.

[@edburns9204]

¹0

[@edburns9204]

pO@!

[@blurry_craft]

one the sake of hour he's gonna reveal tic tac sh1t dude so this channel could ve been taken down play save gets bail 😂

[@bthestigman9667]

I am tainted I worked for Lockheed back then, but the Navy changed so many things and it was huge changes. When you walked into the old Skunkworks in Burbank there was a sign showing Kelly Johnson's 10 rules for designing and building aircraft ( sign was moved to Palmdale with the move of the Skunkworks), but there was a 11th rule , it was at the bottom of the sign and simple looked like this 11........, Everybody knew the rule, never deal with the Navy they don't know what they want. The F35 proved that rule once again.

[@ThirdLawPair]

I'm curious, what is it about the Navy that leads to these issues?

[@jrodstech]

Navy is notorious for changes. I believe it's because the Navy does so many things they aren't just boats, they also have a aircraft. They are trying to get so many thing packed into a single plane with only so much space on a carrier. If they could get a single jet that could complete 90% of their missions it would be a game changer.

[@ThirdLawPair]

@@jrodstech That makes a lot of sense. Notwithstanding the changes made by the Navy, the extra weight to make the F-35C landing gear carrier capable drastically increased the development cost.

[@Triple_J.1]

This statement is corroborated in "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich. The man who followed Kelly Johnson as the head of that division. "Never deal with the NAVY" and his experience was designing the first stealth fighter/bomber. They also designed stealth submarines, destroyers, and fleet defense missile platforms. The navy said no to everything. Because (apparently) there is no prestige to stoke the ego for an Admiral of a fleet you cant detect, or even know about.

[@goofball1804]

@@jrodstech wasn’t the F-14 Tomcat a dogfighter, interceptor, bomber, attack aircraft, long range air-to-air fighter, and a heavy weapons platform? If they just followed through with ST-22 (Super Tomcat 22) we wouldn’t have this problem.

[@dasmin0710]

It was nice to hear the "other side" of the story. I was in my 20s when my uncle was an engineer at Skunkworks and worked on X-35; I was lucky enough to have a jacket with X-35 patches that he passed on to me. Thanks for the great video!

[@ISpinUWin]

Funny - I have a similar story. My dad worked on radar for the X-32 with Raytheon and he passed down a jacket to me that has X-32 patches. ;)

[@finnmacdiarmid3250]

@@ISpinUWin Y’all need to go arm wrestle at a bar, loser fronts a beer contract with the winner. Bring the jackets of course

[@ISpinUWin]

@@finnmacdiarmid3250 😂

[@davidmorton2630]

In my opinion and I’m from England. The skunkworks produced the greatest and most iconic aircraft of all time. The F14 Tomcat. I wish that the Ministry of Defence had purchased F14’s The British Navy and The R.A.F. We have purchased the F35 lightning from U.S. but it’s nothing like the F22 Raptor. The F22 Raptor is way better than the SU-57.

[@davidhull6359]

@@davidmorton2630 Ummm, the Ironworks...?

[@archangel1221]

Would love to see a similar interview from a YF-23 pilot. While I’m pretty confidant we got it right in the X-32 vs X-35 competition, I’m not so sure about th YF-22 vs YF-23.

[@matthayward7889]

100% agree!

[@mitchjames9350]

The YF23 was clearly the better plane and Northrop engineers had future proofed it with the ability to add thrust vectoring and it being upgradable over time. Hopefully Japan picks it up to develop there plane.

[@georgethompson1460]

@@mitchjames9350 Japans making the Tempest alongside Italy and Britain.

[@mitchjames9350]

@@georgethompson1460 are you sure as there is talks of them working with the UK and US government.

[@Triple_J.1]

@@mitchjames9350 how was the YF-23 "clearly the better plane"? It lost in a head to head competition judged by the worlds foremost expert pilots, commanders, and tacticians. All of whom possed information about the capabilities of these two jets that you will never in your lifetime have similar access to. No, it was clearly not the better aircraft. The YF-22 was faster, climbed better, was more maneuverable, had better transonic maneuvering ability, better avionics, better systems integration, better everything except slightly larger RCS from certain undisclosed angles.

[@shannonwittman950]

Not to take away anything from the guys and gals who fly the military jets on a daily basis -- but what a pleasure herein to listen as a test pilot (of an x-plane!) has a detailed sit-down conversation about his all experiences. I especially appreciated the talk about rooting for one's plane and how important the design aesthetics are to final decisions. Thanks, Mooch!

[@yodaisgod2]

Remember when Boeing was ran by engineers instead of accountants? When Boeing merged with M-D, accountants and MBA's started to run the company. Bottom dollar seems to be the mantra.

[@terryboyer1342]

yodaisgod2 Yep. I've heard many inside people say that it was more M-D taking over Boeing. Boeing execs just sat back and let them have their way.

[@Veldtian1]

Chicago School of Economics rationalism wrecks everything that depends on technical creativity and imagination in order to thrive.

[@dougrobinson8602]

@@terryboyer1342 I've heard that most of the original Boeing engineers went to the military side, while the MD guys stayed commercial. I don't know how true that statement is, but it does seem somewhat plausible.

[@terryboyer1342]

@@dougrobinson8602 Could be. Boeing sure seems to have gone downhill since then the merger.

[@johnwiles4391]

@@Veldtian1 This sounds like an interesting and believable take on economics theory. I'm certainly no expert though I'd say I fall in more with the Chicago School than the Keynesians, whose ideas were tenable only at a time when the economy was pregnant with so many technological possibilities that great public spending actually could produce good results. Perhaps the Chicago School stubbornly overestimates its ability to measure things much as the behaviorist school of psychologists did. If you know of any links to articles that explore this idea, I'd love to see them.

[@buckshot704]

I had the privilege of serving with Mr Yates in VF-74. His aviation intelligence, articulation, and presentation haven’t changed. Wonderful to see him again. I was his PC numerous times ashore, and on the boat. Later, I maintained his logbook in Operations. All the best to him! “Petty Officer Loop” 🇺🇸✈️👍

[@davidalexander8649]

Hello sir, was is PC . ?

[@buckshot704]

@@davidalexander8649 Plane Captain

[@mickf9258]

Nice to hear first-hand that Mr Yates is an officer and a gentleman. I have met many aircrew who think of themselves as steely-eyed killers and anyone who isn't in their club isn't worthy of their time.

[@buckshot704]

@@mickf9258 Mr Yates was always approachable and professional. 👍

[@chrispetty8587]

He wasn’t in the squadron when I was there.

[@pandeliriumstudio]

I remember Rowdy from the USS Saratoga during the '85-'86 (Terrorist Busters) cruise. I worked AirOps/CATCC (Air Traffic Control) while aboard and he was always on his game and well respected. BZ! Great interview!.... ;)

[@baomao7243]

Your interviews are excellent. Well planned, solid prep of questions, thorough/quality guest answers. Very nicely executed. I also liked the brief discussion of test pilot school - I’ve always been fascinated by it and wondered about its mechanics..

[@Nomad_za]

Hi there, I am new to your channel, I write articles on aircraft for a website and I have covered the X-32 and F-35. This interview is really interesting! Thank you for doing this interview. I really appreciate this video. Interesting insight!

[@WardCarroll]

Thank you, Cameron!

[@gameaddict2744]

There is actually a pretty detailed briefing that was provided by the acquisition program manager on this program. I believe that he limited the requirements specifically to ensure that each team would provide their best possible design instead of a design that was predefined by the government. Honestly, I wish the fed would do that kind of objective based procurement more often!

[@moonasha]

the military is finally learning that huge lists of requirements are bad for innovation. Like with the latest NGSW program, to replace the ar-15 family of rifles in the military, the only requirement was based on the ammunition I believe. As such we've seen 3 radically different weapons that innovate in their own way. Even when these projects fail the competition, they often provide useful technology

[@ashleyhamman]

If you are talking about the same ~2 hour interview an air force guy did on KZbin, I think that was the YF-22 and 23, not the 32 and 35, still provides some context to how this program may have been run though.

[@jt1765]

@@ashleyhamman kzbin.info/www/bejne/lX64fGVqZtqNfq8

[@LRRPFco52]

That was ATF, not JSF.

[@Mortlupo]

@@moonasha What they're learning to do is keep politics out of the design process so they can actually get what they asked for in the first place instead of politicians using the process to cancel the project for their competitor.

[@markminyen1482]

love this show, Mooch. I am an old Tomcat AM and get a lot of joy watching your show......keep it going

[@Nurhaal]

'Boeing demonstrated more robust manufacturing capabilities' see this is where my experiance actually trumps the test pilots. I have very personal experiences with BOTH companies and I can tell you for a fact that one of the major reasons why Lockheed win the contract was because Lockheed promised and demonstrated better production ability. The Boeing design was centered around state of the art manufacturing that was design around the goal of making the aircraft cheaper to make instead of Lockheed's pov of taking demonstrated manufacturing and upgrading it to make advanced parts cheaply. The opposite. Boeing had a notoriously bad time trying to create the main wing monocoque body as they really wanted it to be in one piece. This would lower assembly costs and expedite production. Lockheed was setting up to use standard and demonstrated use of parts that worked en masses via normal Autoclaves. Boeing's gigantic ass wing for the X32 however would've been the most complicated piece ever cured at that time and the defect rate was ENORMOUS. Now without getting into details, I can tell you that any defect of a rather small margin is a huge problem. Be it voids, de-lamination, whatever it maybe: the defect don't have to be bad enough to ruin safety of flight requirements to be a big issue. The flight performance for military requirements is all at risk because the very materials used in the construction of both of these aircraft contributes MASSIVELY to the Stealth requirements. To put it bluntly, Boeing was ambitious about one thing and one thing only, innovating for cheap production. The performance of their product isn't always at the type. I worked at Boeing. I can promise that (though the guys at Phantom Works are damned good, at least they care). Boeing tried to make the win by saying 'look we can actually make it cheap' and it cost them. Lockheed was literally producing the F-22 using systems that would translate well into the F-35s needs - stealth focused composites and materials that are readily manufactured at a low failure rate. Lockheed simply had better planning over all. A lot of that really leans on the experience with the F-16s still in production, repressing those tools to keep costs low as well as leveraging advantages gained from F-22 production, and matching that with an aircraft that was more conventional and this fit the factory setting way better than the X-32 ever did. A hard disagree on that comment from the Pilot on that one. Boeing did not demonstrate better production capabilities, for sure. I've seen both. I can vouch for both. Lockheed's 'low risk high reward' was definitely better suited on production.

[@trezapoioiuy]

Yeah, that's the thing, now everyone sees the delays with F35 and many think in hindsight X32 would have been better, but I seriously doubt it would have been any different. Boeing is probably even more notorious than LM when it comes to delays and stuff like that.

[@Matt-yg8ub]

Keep in mind that Boeing went on to perfect that technology and it flies today in the civilian world as the 787 Dreamliner. Boeing was pushing the envelope at the time, but they got their shit together And eventually made it work. Meanwhile Lockheed has failed to deliver their far more complex, complicated fighter on time or budget. The JSF Program was intended for a world where the F22 filled the role of air superiority fighter, and the JSF was envisioned in a dedicated air to ground role. Lockheed made the F35 way more maneuverable than it ever actually had to be, trying to sell the Pentagon a flashy cut down F22. Boeing was trying to sell them a cheap, reliable missile bus. Lockheed impressed the Pentagon with the added capability of their design….But it’s a bit like going to the mayor and the city Council and talking about how your super flashy $90,000 Cadillac Escalade can haul the kids to hockey practice in the dead of winter with 18 inches of snow on the ground look how fantastic it is…it’s amazing!! ….And then the rep from Kia points out that their Sedona minivan Does the exact same job reliably for only $40,000, who cares about being able to traverse 18 inches of snow, this is a city street and the city is already paying for a fleet of $290,000 plow trucks to keep the roads clear.

[@Nurhaal]

@@Matt-yg8ub I said I can vouch for both because I've worked for both. I actually worked at Boeing and specifically was with the 787 program. I'm one of the few who had access to the massive autoclaves. It's a good point, they did do it but it's still different. I believe I specifically stated what the defect risks were. Between Lockheed and Boeing, since I've seen both for both programs (even F-35, I work at LM now), there are MASSIVE differences in what goes into the military application vs the civilian one. The civilian application uses composites yes but nothing close to what the F-35s uses. The F-35s composite material is classified for a reason. That material is integral to not just structural kinetic performance but also stealth performance. Boeing itself still has problems with the kinematics variables as they removed the copper mesh material years ago before we had the ok from the FAA, the same layer that would Faraday Cage any lightning hits. We had issues with the extra metal materials adding weight to the aircraft, primarily on the wing. The F-35 doesn't even come close skipping such steps with it's material. In fact it does a lot more, but again the F-35 parts are far smaller and easier to cure than the giant ass single piece wing section Boeing tried with the X-32. Yes, with the 87, we cured entire whole sections of fuselage, but these were relatively simple parts and are primarily just 'skin', not load baring bulkheads. Edit; I'll add due to the statement of what was expected of the JSF program and what was delivered - it's a good analogy yes but again, the companies have different cultures. As I mentioned above Boeing straight up went against the FAA on removing the metal insulators we have in the first layers of composites and the fastener caps when I was there, not just because it was negating performance that was hurting sales (restricting promised performance metrics due to overweight) but it also was expensive. We were using pure copper meshes and straps. Shit ain't cheap. So Boeing showed it's true face by finding ways to cost cut without the market having knowledge. That's what they do. Lockheed is notorious for overspending but at least you get what you paid for. The F-35 wasn't ever required to be super maneuverable, but it is. It had no requirement for super cruise, but it can (at M 1.2 for about 100 miles I believe). It had no requirement for the DAS or EOTS integrated sensor systems, but it has them. It had no requirement to have a 'drone mode' where a ship can be upgraded to a 'loyal wingman' flight AI, but it can fly itself. The X-32 was the Mustang vs the F-35 being a C-8 Corvette. Yeah the need for speed was settled with the Mustang but the Vette got the luxury and ability topped with it, so it's value will last longer. Which is precisely what's happening. The F-22 is now being phased out early. Why? F-35 is literally that good. It's good enough on it's own to fulfill the role while the NGAD is on it's way. If we need missile busses? We got F-15EXs we can buy - which again... we are. Lol. I believe we have on order 82 of those - mostly because it overhauls the airframe which of current, the C models are WELL over McD&D/Boeing recommended flight hours per ship but hey... no one wanted to take the CCP threat serious until recently and now the Air Force is panicking. Maybe if congress took economics 101 and had actually kept the order for at least 700 22s instead 186? We wouldn't be in this predictable crisis. But hey, I'm just a scrub who works in Defense Aerospace. Wtf do I know...

[@Matt-yg8ub]

@@Nurhaal Spoken like someone who works for Lockheed. You typed up a wall of text to obscure the fact that you’re arguing for the quality difference between a civilian application and a military application and you’re repeating over and over and over again how superior the military quality is. Yeah we get that, everybody here knows that. You don’t have to pretend that we’re all idiots or that we’re too stupid to see through what you’re trying to say. The civilian side of Boeing is making use of technology that the military side pioneered 25 years ago….but OBVIOUSLY It’s not exactly the same thing because the military grade technology is still classified. Something else you’re also conveniently ignoring is that the JSF was winner take all. Lockheed won, and got to walk away with most of the technology that Boeing submitted for the program.

[@shrek_2_on_dvd699]

@@Nurhaal well said.

[@SOSchangedme]

I'm so impressed being a part of this conversation. Thank you gentlemen, thank you.

[@paulie19pc]

I was a F/A-18 A-D Plane Captain at VX-23 from 2000-2003 and was witness to to STOVL testing for both the X-35 and X-32. From an outsiders perspective, the X-35 had it in the bag the entire time, and showed up to PAX as a complete aircraft. The X-32 did it's STOVL test without the front intake "fairing" and if I remember right had other parts removed also. Add to that the darn thing looked like a pelican from the front, which wouldn't make anyone think that it was some bad ass fighter.

[@metatechnologist]

This happened because Boeing was chintzy and didn't start with a clean sheet design. As such they were forced to recycling old tech. In other words, it feels like they half-assed it.

[@rodgerhecht3623]

I believe they had to remove the gear doors also.

[@dananichols1816]

I recall that -- a photo of the X-32 with a lot of the forward end missing, clearly in a hover and with the world paying close attention! I was just re-enlisting, after being out for 16 years, and thought that sort of event was for all the marbles -- how in the hell could anyone believe that they'd be taken seriously, especially for a national defense contract of that scope!? Kelly Johnson and the Skunk Works folks would have been stunned, but delighted, at seeing such presumptive arrogance from Boeing.

[@CD-ek3iq]

You are correct

[@matthalo871]

Didn't the X-32 have a pop stall in it's testing like the Harriers and that add to the final decision?

[@robertwright1084]

Very cool video! Love the Marshall and Les Paul in the background, I used to have a JMC 800 back in the day for my metal band, very interesting to hear the information on the X 32, my father was one of the design engineers for the x35 at skunk Works when the project was going, never heard much information about the X 32

[@aaronhrk]

Fantastic as always Mooch 👍. Your vids are always a highlight of my week.

[@fattuspattus]

Awesome episode Ward. A few years ago, I was lucky enough to attend a lecture by someone who was involved in development of the F-35. Unfortunately I can't remember their name. It was immensely interesting. They weren't too kind to the Boeing X-32 regarding its appearance. Definitely great to hear from someone who has flown it though, and can offer a more informed perspective.

[@Wykked01]

New subscriber here! Really enjoying your content. I was talking to my dad (retired Commander, flew A3s and A4s) the other day, mentioned I was watching some KZbin videos from a retired Tomcat RIO... "You mean Ward Carroll?" it just adds a new depth to the conversations we can have. I was the rebel son (I went Army) and challenged my parents greatly as an adolescent. I appreciate them now as a grown up and a parent. Thanks for giving us more stuff to talk about.

[@stevemills99]

Ward, very interesting. I was working in the UK aerospace industry during this time, and worked on The production of F-35’s.

[@pepperjack6421]

These guys were overflying my house in Southern Maryland as this program came online. Cheers you all a beer from the front yard. Great work!

[@olentangy74]

It is plain that Lockeed came ito the competition much better prepared. That, and the X-32 was just butt ugly head on.

[@47mphill]

One of your best videos so far… Bravo. While watching this I definitely had a déjà vu moment recalling the fly off between the YF 17/FA 18 and the YF 16. In this case the joint strike fighter concept did not work out and of course the Navy picked the YF 17 which in the end bore very little resemblance to the final product of the FA 18. Got to be part of the Hornet program at VX5 China Lake. Rowdy was a great guest ! Have him back at some point.

[@LRRPFco52]

Have you ever heard why the USAF picked the YF-16 over the YF-17? Both were hot rods flown by both test pilot groups, who actually switched over once they got a certain number of hours on the first. They used that to try to eliminate any bias. Once they got basic flight safety, handling, and performance ironed-out at Edwards, they conducted a series of tactical exploitation exercises against MiG-21s out over the Nevada Test & Training Ranges. Before that, everything on paper looked like the YF-17 Cobra was the favorite. It didn't have all the heavy systems of the later navalized F/A-18, so it had superb climb rate, acceleration, and the low speed nose authority that the YF-16 didn't. Once they did the MiG-21 exploit, everything changed. It was extremely difficult to see the YF-16, and in defensive set-up with MiG-21 in perch, the YF-16's radical roll rate facilitated better reversals. Then the logistics angle of sharing the same motor with the new F-15 pretty much sealed the deal. They couldn't talk about the decision factors for obvious reasons, so it was kinda left in the dark as to why USAF chose YF-16 over the Cobra.

[@47mphill]

@@LRRPFco52 thanks for the info but I cant answer as to why the choice.

[@n4nln]

One important factor in the F-16 win was what they now call “sustainment”, ie, maintenance. The F-4 was a maintenance nightmare. There were over 1000 different types of fasteners in in F-4 airframe. That made parts supply and inventory just insane, esp wrenching half way around the world. The F-16 design team made a huge effort to kill that number - they got it down below 20 for almost anything you wanted to try fixing. They also focussed on MTTR - like an engine swap in a few hours instead of a few days. The estimated reduction in maintenance costs were astounding. It also significantly improved the readiness percentage dramatically. These issues were significant contributions to the F-16 success as an export product. Buyers didn’t need to get 2 or 3 to have one ready on the flight line. The F-16 has been upgraded aggressively and it is still highly regarded, enough so that trying to sell the F-35 as a replacement for several F-16s is not easy. New sales of F-16s are curtailed but existing satisfied customers are insisting they be allowed to buy upgrades, lest they reconsider their sourcing options if forced to consider fleet replacement. Ouch.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@n4nln They took the tool head and fastener type approach to the F-16 and whittled it down even more for JSF. JSF has a fraction of the fastener types and an incredibly-low number of tools heads used on the production line. I think it was only 13 tools heads for JSF, and hundreds for F-16. Former F-16 maintainers who now “wrench” the F-35A in USAF complain about not being able to get their hands dirty, the jet maintained itself, I want to go back to the F-16 where I could dig into the plane and trace wire, etc. That’s how it is in operational squadrons at least. F-35A exceeded F-16C and A-10 readiness levels in 2020, and those 2 airframes have been the gold standard in maintainability/readiness/FMC/M rates. F-16C and F-15E FMC/MC rates have been kinda manipulated though, since ECM, HARM, and LITENING FLIR pods on F-16 and FLIR/LANTIRN on F-15E aren’t included in the reports for the aircraft, but are tracked as separate systems that don’t contribute to the official rates. Even with that, where F-35 can’t hide any of its EW, FLIR, etc., it surpassed them all. Block 3 birds are ridiculously-easy to maintain and often just come back from sorties with 0% break-rate, gas-and-go.

[@n4nln]

@@LRRPFco52 Thanks for the debrief with real info. Given the track record of Skunkie’s lads I never doubted that the engineering issues would get sorted. Issues of “wrong requirements” and flawed CONOPS isn’t Lockheed’s fault. The only problem with Skunkie delivering miracles are the price tags.

[@jimmycarter2492]

Mooch , Rowdy , hats off to both of you, I lived on Beale AFB north of Travis, lived there when the Black Bird was assigned there . Went to Travis few times for medical issues, and my father brought to my attention that every street was named after a test pilot that lost their life testing aircraft. To be selected to be a test pilot your a special breed, you think Rowdy would have liked to be a test pilot during the time when Chuck Yeager, when sound barriers were being broke , and so many different designs of aircraft were coming out. Would yourself and Rowdy if given a chance, would you gentlemen like to fly and ride as a Reo in the SR 71 , apologize for dragging this comment out, I'm a 64 old aviation nut that always wanted to fly in a milatary aircraft hugging the deck inbtween mountain . ( salute you both ). 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@2011Rick]

Great video. We (at Kaiser Electronics) were rooting for the F-35 since we had the contract for the head down and helmet displays. Subsequently lost the head down units in a competition against L3 when it became practical to use liquid crystal display technology to achieve the 20"x8" display surface found in the flight test birds which used projection technology. The HMD contract never changed hands as Kaiser Electronics was swallowed up by Rockwell Collins (now part of Raytheon). Fascinating program in any event.

[@jojoGarBerry]

Good comments Rick! I guess I am a legend in my own mine...since I help Kaiser AND L3 secure the Cockpit PWSC panoramic cockpit display contracts.

[@2011Rick]

@@jojoGarBerry Joe, the mover and shaker who put L3 over the goal line was John B. who wouldn't consider changing technologies. Anyway all in the rear view mirror. Hope all is well on your end.

[@szabowabo91]

I’ll never forget this experience…in 2004, I was driving near Edwards on Highway 58 with my girlfriend when we heard a loud bang. She asked “what was that?” I told her it was probably a sonic boom, they test all kinds of crazy stuff out here. Several minutes later, she was excitedly pointing to the sky directly above us, asking “what is THAT??” I look up out my windshield, and flying right down the road (downwind leg?) directly above us in broad daylight was a plane I had never seen before. It was a delta wing design, obviously stealth, and light grey. I scoured the internet for days when I got home trying to figure out what I saw. Couldn’t figure it out. Two years later, I was watching PBS when “Battle of the X-Planes” came on. When I saw the X-32, I immediately recognized it as the plane we saw over Highway 58. The x-plane competition concluded a couple years before we saw the X-32. Not sure why it was still flying in 2004, but it was very cool to see.

[@jamesmmusic5806]

Fascinating!

[@LRRPFco52]

Might have been something else. Look up Red Flag exercises from 2004 and see what foreign units were attending. Typhoons and Rafales have been to RF quite often.

[@warfarenotwarfair5655]

The X-32 landed in Little Rock AFB in the summer of 2003 escorted by two F-18s. We towed it to a hangar and the Navy had no security detail for it so maintainers from all over the base came to look at the thing and touch it. Our Chief Master Sergeant had us lock up the hangar until Security Forces figured out if they were going to guard it or not.

[@warfarenotwarfair5655]

​@@LRRPFco52The X-32 was flying in 2003, I towed it to a hangar.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@warfarenotwarfair5655 I doubt it was flying in 2004 though. Contract award was announced in Oct 2001 to Lockheed. It would be strange for Boeing to keep flying their demonstrator years after the contract award, unless they were using it as some sort of internal testbed.

[@Smokey2-2016_USMC]

Wonderful interview with Rowdy. He's a very interesting test pilot. You both had my undivided attention. I hope to hear the details someday of the handling characteristics between the two A/C. Tnx again Mooch for these great videos.

[@edlee8838]

That was a fantastic episode! Thanks!

[@billbeal7959]

Very interesting. I was an Air Force pilot and worked the F-35 program for 15 years as a civilian. Some interesting information but mostly what I had heard about why the X-35/F-35 was chosen. And now with Boeing's current track record for the 737 Max and Starliner, I think the government may have dodged a bullet of sorts because they are having some major internal issues which may have been starting even back then.

[@sebastien3351]

One thing that prevented the X-32 from being awarded in the competition with the X-35 was, there was NO vertical take-off variant. This meant the USMC would have no version of the JSF. The X-32 only had two variants not three as the Pentagon originally requested.

[@haihengh]

@@sebastien3351 they were asking short take-off vertical landing, not a vertical take-off. the fact that x32 can land vertically, it has the capability to take off vertically too.

[@sebastien3351]

I stand corrected!

[@michaelrunnels7660]

@@haihengh When the X-32/X-35 were being tested at Edwards AFB the X-32 could NOT land vertically because of the high altitude of Edwards AFB at 2,300 feet. Boeing requested and got permission to fly the X-32 to Pawtuxet River (sea level) to demonstrate the vertical landing capabilities of the X-32.

[@brentjohnson5171]

This stuff is fascinating to me. My brother in law's father was the high AOA and spin test pilot for the F-18 program and was the first person to "spin test" the F-15, though that one was ununtentional. IIRC he also worked on the F-4 program. Sadly we lost him a couple of years ago. He was a great story teller and a very funny man. His son was also a naval aviator, and a good one, but sadly was part of the class that was caught in the tailhook scandal. I can say that for as long as he has been married to my sister he has been nothing but the most honorable, loving, and faithful husband and father. I always thought it was a shame that he started his career with that sort of albatross around his neck. He's a great guy, a great pilot, and should have had a very long and fruitful career. As it happened he left the Navy to develop milsim computer games before getting involved with cyber-security, a field I worked in for a short time before leaving to dedicate time to my music career which has served me pretty well so far. Thanks for all your content. I watch every video. My dream as a kid was to fly for the Navy but my eyesight disqualified me and at the time the Navy didn't allow corrective surgery as an acceptable workaround for the vision problem. Anyway, thank you, keep up the good work!

[@majr72]

Having been working for Pratt&Whitney and being on this program on the engine side and also we engine mechanics were split in half. Half on the Boeing side and half on the Lockheed side I was on the Lockheed side we called the Boeing A/C the Pelican or the Guppy. Cool program to work on,

[@peter_a.6651]

Very interesting and well done - as usual - Thanks

[@schecter6l6]

I remember that Competition! Very cool to hear Rowdy's experience and opinion on the plane! Thanks.

[@jondrew55]

This was a really informative and fun discussion. Anyone on either side of the JSF competition would enjoy it.

[@alasdairmunro1953]

Real interesting episode, with a very eqloquent and knowledgable guest. Thank you Ward.

[@dustinlong6591]

I was stationed at NAS Patuxent River VQ-4 detachment, and I felt pretty privileged to see both the x-35 & x-32 test flights.

[@flycoupled]

PBS had a good show on the competition between the X32 vs X35 back in early 2000's, may have been on NOVA. The X35 test pilot was Greg Fenton who went to be CO of the George Washington and recently retired.

[@4jackinthebox]

at the end of the program, the announcer gave the impression that Boeing was the dominant contractor in the UAV arena. it didn't seem that they were all that broken up by losing.

[@clifforddicarlo9178]

Asking all the right questions, Ward. Thanks.

[@joegalambos]

Excellent, Ward. No where else can you find content like this. Extremely valuable to the general public. 👏

[@planebill1]

Great interview! As an A7E driver I learned to love and admire ugly! I never met anyone in that community that would disagree. Yes, I would have loved a burner to play with but in the end effective mission accomplishment is all that matters. When it came to fused bombs on target the A7 would flat get the job done in its day. Whether the flyoff chose the most effective option is debated but any selection that made esoteric criteria over mission effectiveness would be astoundingly foolish.

[@thethirdman225]

Didn’t he say it wasn’t a fly off?

[@jeffrachau4305]

Thank you!

[@leonswan6733]

I am a ex AF jet MEC, I also wondered why the A-7 corsair II all 3 branches AF MC NAVY did not have Augmenters /Afterburners. Why would some engineer and some brass not want that extra thrust when its needed ??? There are aerial refueling tankers. That's like them saying guns was not needed on the F-4 Phantom II in the late 50s.

[@planebill1]

@@leonswan6733 LTV eventually made a prototype YA-7F with a burner but that was at the time the YF-17 was also proposed. The YF-17 was selected and became the FA-18. There was some controversy and lawsuits at the time about which was truly better. I don't know many particulars. Range was better with the YA-7F I believe and air to ground effectiveness was a wash. At least that was the rumor. Not sure about the air to air mission. Perhaps someone else might have more specific info about that. Typically F4s or F14s would accompany A7s/A6's on a strike as fighter cover. Tankers would be part of a mission plan too depending on target range. F4 was particularly needy in the fuel department.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@planebill1 Thanks for commenting. I remember following the A-7F proposals at the time and never could figure out what it wasn’t funded. YA-7F for the USAF was an upgrade over the A-7D. Would have established a more common fleet propulsion logistics chain and given the A-7 more self-protection capability not too far from an F-16 in-practice. A-7’s superb combat radius hasn’t been re-realized until JSF-A and JSF-C brought it back. JSF-B has an impressive radius like an F-16 with 2 tanks, but F-35B doesn’t need EFTs. The program that seems to have screwed over the A-7D was the A-10, which is basically useless for all but 2 or 3 limited mission profiles: Armed escort for US Army rotary wing aviation (fulfilled by AH-64 since 1984), CAS, and Armed Recon ahead of the FLOT. A-7D smoked the A-10 for the Fulda Gap mission profile hands-down, which the A-10 was never built for. A-10 stole hundreds of seats that would have been better in a multirole platform, if not the A-7D. A better force mix would have been either the A-7F, F-16CJ, F-15E, and F-15C, or F-16XL, F-16C, F-15E, and F-15C, with a smaller contingent of A-10s or OV-10s primarily tasked to support expeditionary Army units and SOCOM. There really should have never been an A-10 built to 716 airframes, it at all. It wasn’t until many years and production blocks later that USAF got the A-7D’s superb bombing and NAV capabilities into the F-16C. A-7D was way ahead of its time with the HUD, bombing computer/radar, FLIR, and moving map display. It would have done really well in Desert Storm I believe. There were 2 lone USN A-7E squadrons who participated and did a lot of work in ODS, with 0 losses. They had far greater mission radius/range than the F/A-18 Hornet. Cool thing about the A-7E was being able to employ pretty much all of the A2G munitions in inventory, including the AGM-88 HARM for D-SEAD mission profiles. They fired 152 HARMs in ODS. A-7E missions included D-SEAD, deep interdiction/strike against Iraqi airfields immediately after F-117A sorties on night one. They configured with 3x AGM-88 HARMs and one External Fuel Tank for some, Rockeyes and Mk.82s on others. The A-7 was one of the only aircraft I’m aware of that could configure EFTs asymmetrically like that and it not be an issue. It was a great workhorse that got retired early in-favor of multirole fighters like the F/A-18 and F-16, with direct replacement in active USAF Squadrons with the A-10A. The fly-off between the YA-7F and YA-10A in the early 1970s was rigged, where A-7 pilots were told not to use the bombing computer, and limit themselves to flying a visual re-attack profile on ground targets in a simulated CAS setting, which the A-7 was never designed for. USAF had already been directed from the Pentagon that they were getting A-X, so the A-7’s days were already numbered and the fly-off was a formality. USAF didn’t complain too much because they were getting major funding for LWF, which hadn’t yet flown-off between YF-16 and YF-17.

[@larry5508]

Thanks "Mooch" and "Rowdy" an interesting and informative discussion!

[@johnshepherd8687]

The $35 million number was a goal that was developed when the program was called the Joint Air to Surface Technologies program or JAST. It was not supposed to be limited to a manned aircraft but everybody knew it was going to airplane. Everybody I knew at the NAVAIR cost division (AIR 524) who was supporting the program said that the cost goal was unrealistic and the best case would be about $75 million.

[@thethirdman225]

The report into the loss of a base model F-35A at Elgin last year revealed a unit cost of $176m. It’s in the report.

[@alexmathis8505]

@@thethirdman225 There's something going on there then - because they're down into the ~80m range now for an A model.

[@alexmathis8505]

We also have to remember inflation - hell back in 1998 $40m was equal to $67m today. Boeing is PROJECTING a unit cost of $90m for the 4th gen F-15EX, and F-35A's are around ~$80m (some are thinking into the 70s now). As far as a wartime asset is concerned, the F-15EX is nearly worthless in a contested battle space; not so much aircraft but advanced SAMs, it simply wouldn't be usable and the USAF wouldn't deploy them. That alone makes the cost of an F-35A pretty much pointless anyways, as it's a USABLE first-strike and defensive platform - EX's will be waiting on the ramp for F-35's to clear the path, potentially for days if there are significant airborne threats popping up as well.

[@thethirdman225]

@@alexmathis8505 Source?

[@saynsasaym4636]

@@thethirdman225 I don't have any source to add but I sure as shit wouldn't want to send up an F-15, no matter how upgraded, up against pristine air defenses and stealthy aircraft. It's just a target at that point. I'm sure it's still good for harassment and getting some extra radars out there at very long range, but that implies you're basically using them to draw fire for the F-35...

[@TheMathius78]

Thank you, Rowdy, for coming on the show!

[@bobbyknc]

I fell in love with the X-32 look while playing Eidos’s JSF flight sim game back in ‘98. It’s odd look won me over.

[@grndzro777]

It kind of has that ugly duckling vibe that the A10 gives off.

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Thanks!

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Awesome...Happy Drops to you Mooch.....😃✈👍👀

[@pi.actual]

I was waiting for mention of the elephant in the room which Rowdy eventually eloquently nailed with the term aesthetics. lol

[@LRRPFco52]

He he he he he he he

[@duanedupon4360]

Thanks for a great channel...wonderful to see Rowdy....I did a few safety panels with him while supporting the FAA..please pass on my very best...

[@jimsteinway695]

I was on the F35 program from 2004-2011 as a Naval Engineer DOD type. I was never so disappointed in a program in my 30 years as a scientist. The contract was executed under the new rules we used to expedite a program as in JDAM or JSOW. It was a huge mistake. It gave Lockheed power that it should have never had under a regular contract. Things like doing the first flight WITHOUT a functional GPS. In this day and age how the hell do you have a first flight without GPS? Raytheon was developing the GPS because they had won the MAGR upgrade program in 2000 from Rockwell Collins . Raytheon operated much like Lockheed, probably why they were super late delivering a GPS for the aircraft. I went to a contractor ONLY meeting at Edwards AFB about lessons learned from the F22 program. It’s a huge powwow where the F22 guys who had pretty much got their program in production, could give the young F35 program wisdom and lessons on where they went wrong and how NOT to repeat those same mistakes, and what were their major successes. Only 2 civilians were in that meeting and we were not to say anything so that Lockheed F22 guys could talk unfettered to the Lockheed F35 guys. ( I don’t think they ever knew we were there) I can tell you the F35 Lockheed guys learned ABSOLUTELY nothing from their elders in the F22 program. The F 35 not only repeated the F22 mistakes but made them bigger and then invented their own mistakes leading to longer delays and cost overruns. I remember that every time we were in a meeting with Lockheed and they explained why we had MORE delays and needed more money, that had they remembered what the F22 guys said 3 years ago they wouldn’t have YET ANOTHER delay and cost overrun. Even when we’d point stuff out Lockheed would either completely ignore the Navy DOD guys or “ forget” that we’d told them about the issue. I’d never worked with a contractor who was completely oblivious to what the DOD was saying about the product we were purchasing. It’s as if Lockheed was doing the program alone with no supervision. Here’s an example of what I thought was poor engineering and not thinking the problem through- ( I’m hugely generalizing here) Lockheed talked in SLOCs or Software Lines of Code. They were going to need so many SLOCs to complete the Nav system in the aircraft for hands off landing on a carrier in IMC conditions. I kept bringing up the point that they hadn’t identified the CPU or decided if they’d design a PLCC or something else. They didn’t know how many bits or bytes wide that CPU was. So how could they accurately predict the amount of software they had to write to solve the issue or feature. The amount of software determines the amount of time they’d need to complete that block on the process. Luckily I got on a portion of the program where I got to do some flight test on something British Aerospace was doing out of Nashua NH. They were a breath of fresh air. Total team players and completely professional in every aspect of their part. AND they remembered that WE were the customers!! Something I hadn’t felt in several years. I had actually got to the point that I thought the program should have just been cut. It was A TON of money for a piloted aircraft when it was obvious that unmanned aircraft were the future. In hindsight I think I was right.

[@rinkevichjm]

Easy to predict KSLOC from function points. But they probably had no idea how many function points.

[@LRRPFco52]

List of fighters that made first flights without GPS........all of them. That said, there were a lot of mistakes made with initial production of the overweight early developmental F-35A/B/C off the line in Fort Worth, and they brought in retired F-22 program managers to fix it. One of the things that delayed the initial development was L-M being denied the opportunity to use Carbon Fiber structures more extensively, since Pentagon was dictating arbitrary strategic materials percentages based on legacy models. Part of the eventual fix that delayed the program 18 months was going back to more use of CF structures in the tail booms and tail planes, which also reduced the RCS considerably, cut the weight, and increased the airframe service life. If you step back from some of the minutiae that we all experience in day-to-day struggles of well-funded programs with lots of great ideas with everyone trying to prove how smart and valuable they are, you can look at safety with JSF and see that the numbers can’t be argued with. Contrast with F-16’s first 10 years from 1977-1987: 143 airframes total loss, 71 fatalities. All 3 JSF variants from 2006-present (OCT2021): 2 F-35B crashes, 2 F-35A crashes, 3 write-offs on the ground with early Block 2 birds from fires. 1 fatality in Japanese Self Defense Forces from Controlled Flight into Terrain, 60˚ dive into the ocean from pretty high altitude, pilot unresponsive. It took over 17 years from X-35 to the first F-35B crash, which is a phenomenal job. I would be very proud of having worked on such a program.

[@caiafamaster]

watching here from Brazil, awesome data info about X-32, making history guys!

[@magoid]

Something he didn't commented, was that after the start of the program, the USN basically doubled the required internal bomb load of the JSF, from two 1000lb Mk.83s to two 2000lb Mk.84s. Together with a reduction in the required landing speeds, they simply torpedoed the Boeing proposal. On the Lockheed proposal, it caused the humongous large wing for the low approach speed target, with the bulges in the belly to accommodate the larger bombs, leading to the infamous escalation of weight and loss of performance, snowballing to the known problems that persists to this day.

[@briancavanagh7048]

Not mentioned but I seem to recall was that the Navy changed the requirements along the way. They wanted to bring back to the ship unused ordinance. Maybe they were thinking because of the cost of smart bombs and limited supplies on the carrier at sea, I am not sure. That requirement killed the tailless delta and Boeing needed to add a tail to provide pitch control authority with the new over weight requirement. This is shown in the National Geographic video.

[@briancavanagh7048]

Discussed here Battle of the X planes kzbin.info/www/bejne/gF6ci5mmn7ism68

[@alexmathis8505]

I don't know if that's entirely true - the payload bays are the same on all of them, and we're lucky it happened as it will be able to carry some really cool upcoming weapons which are being miniaturized rapidly these days. Also the wing on the F-35C is hardly "massive" (with wingtips folded, it's span is nearly a foot *shorter* than the F-18 E/F Super Hornet actually). Plus, if you recall, Boeing was forced to perform a COMPLETE re-design of their entire wing/aircraft AFTER design freeze and risked there not even being an X-32 to test by the deadline. I think that decision (or lack of foresight in choosing the wrong wing in the first place) set them back so far, that the ensuing heavy aircraft was just never going to happen - certainly not in STOVL or carrier config. The Lockheed design was better for ALL three requirements, hands-down. Even the F-35A's internal GAU-22/A 25mm cannon was better than the proposed 20mm or 27mm Mauser (with the GAU-22 having THREE TIMES the rate of fire) which would have been on the F-32. I think they got better performance, better internal payload, and (likely, though we may never know) dramatically better stealth performance out of the Lockheed design.

[@Kodos13]

I also believe the Navy wanted internal carriage of the AGM-154 JSOW.

[@thethirdman225]

The price of trying to do it all with one basic design.

[@BrianMcKinny]

Episodes like this are exactly why I watch your channel and enthusiastically await new episodes when you post them. Keep up the most excellent work, Ward. Also, I got my first copy of the Punk trilogy in the mail and can't put it down!

[@jondrew55]

"Honey, we're going to live in Lancaster for a year" "What can you do there?" "Well, on Thursdays we can always catch Alexander Longrifle at the Desert Inn"

[@Hammerli280]

"Honey, we're going to live at Pax River for a year." "What can you do there?" "Get stuck in the miserable traffic."

[@jondrew55]

@@Hammerli280 lol

[@parkburrets4054]

Listened to Chuck Yeager speak with friends at the Desert Inn the night before the 50th anniversary of his first supersonic flight.

[@jondrew55]

@@parkburrets4054 awesome. Wished I’d met him

[@LRRPFco52]

What's there to do in Lancaster? Watch fighters, bombers, recon, maritime patrol aircraft flying around with no concern for noise ordinances or sonic booms! 4-wheeling and shooting in the desert. At least in the 1970s and 80s.

[@thatairplaneguy]

I like seeing some of the books I’ve read behind Rowdy. Airframe has to be my favorite read.

[@robertbaker8306]

Thanks

[@kayakutah]

21:30 sounds like the key issue(s) regarding which was chosen. And yeah, the X32 was just ugg-lee! The fighting pelican wasn't going to instill fear. But, early in this, the picture of the more conventional design actually looked pretty good.

[@Alexander-xk2nb]

I think it looks awesome, like a weird spaceship or something. Definitely wouldn't have scared people though.

[@oscarthomasson8462]

Thanks for sharing this behind the scenes look into aircraft development and procurement

[@terryboyer1342]

The F-35s nickname is Fat Amy. I'm guessing if the X-32 had been chosen its nickname would have been Deep Throat.

[@davidgardner863]

I heard it was nicknamed Monica.

[@theegg-viator4707]

😂

[@paco291]

@@davidgardner863 that is accurate

[@Pau_Pau9]

I heard that intake was so powerful that it could easily sucked in many inattentive seamans.

[@davidgardner863]

@@Pau_Pau9 , I have no doubt it can. My A-7 squadron in the navy had a man killed when he got sucked up an intake.

[@guitarsword1]

Outstanding interview.

[@jedibusiness789]

When I read the X32 required removal of landing gear doors for vertical lift test, it was doomed. Thinking if they fused a GE 404 or 110 to an A7 with composite frame and digital flight controls, you get a long loiter and short field take off. And a dry cool place place for maintenance to take a nap. Corsair maintainers know what I'm talk about.

[@RedRoosterParty]

I was at Edwards in the early 1990s when two A-7s (YA-7F) were tested with F100-PW-220s. I recall an ANG pilot flying one of the planes for an evaluation. On his debrief report under "problems noted" he wrote, "ashtray doesn't work" and "can't remove smile from pilot's face."

[@jedibusiness789]

@@RedRoosterParty ANG's always hit what they aimed at

[@BogeyTheBear]

I dare say it wasn't the gear doors, but the fact they had to remove the diverterless supersonic inlet as well-- probably as insurance against choked flow or inlet collapse when trying to hover.

[@jedibusiness789]

@@BogeyTheBear Agreed to your point. End of the day, as described in the clip, Boeing went with an off the shelf design and Harrier type rotating ducts.

[@massmike11]

I think those are things that would have been fixed during development. Don’t know if it would have made a difference though

[@shrimpflea]

Thanks for that interview. Really interesting. Rowdy seems like a great guy.

[@Hammerli280]

TPS is an experience. It’s a two-year program stuffed into eleven months. And report writing is critical.

[@jamielancaster01]

EXCELLENT & VERY INFORMATIVE INTERVIEW! Thank you brother! HOOAH!

[@skookapalooza2016]

The X-32 looks like a Guppy. That was my first thought. Excellent interview. Thank you.

[@michaeleagan5323]

Ward, big fan. Great video. NOVA: Battle of the X-Planes is one of my favorites novas ever, I bought it. Everything was so amazing, from the concept to the engineering(and mishaps). Just a note, I went to high school with Cmdr? John Brotemarkle, NAVY in KC,MO. Saw his name in the video and had to do three double takes. I said "Thats him,thats what he always wanted to do". Thanks to all of you.

[@brad0822]

Did the XF-32 have thrust vectoring? The exhaust outlet looks very similar to the F-22

[@swordsman1137]

Nope, its does not have thrust vectoring nozzle

[@thethirdman225]

@@swordsman1137 Are you sure about that? The nozzle looks like it had thrust vectoring at the very least.

[@swordsman1137]

@@thethirdman225 most references only mentioning TVC nozzle on VTOL variant. So afaik, it doesn't have TVC.

[@Tuberuser187]

Nice insights, I hope he does more interviews in the future about other topics.

[@FortuneZer0]

It was too cheerful for the Military Industrial complex.

[@zenger74]

You just can't go around bombing people with a big smile on your face... 😉

[@sixstringedthing]

"Maybe the real tactical advantage was the friends we made along the way..." Pixar presents: Planes Taking off Spring '22

[@zigbeegooblesnort125]

Comrade it's the "Military Industrial Complex " that empowers you to make inane comments, drive your Prius to the Starbucks to have your cream topped cappuccino while you read Moa's Little Red Book 🇨🇳.

[@AfroGaz71]

@@zigbeegooblesnort125 Oh look, another paranoid "red under the bed" comment. How you managed to extrapolate a communist from a humourous comment is anybody's guess.🤔

[@justin_y1454]

:D

[@joeottsoulbikes415]

Ward, I very much enjoy your programs. Unprecedented access to pilots to hear their reviews, listen to the stories of flight pilots, ground crews, engineers and manufactures. Your past as a pilot, aironotics teacher, politicl commentator and such left you having friends, former coworkers in places of power no other KZbinr has. I wish you continued success.

[@lazerbeam3928]

I was working for Boeing in So. Cal. at the time of the competition. On a business trip to the Seattle area. While there, I was shown a fairly large-scale model of the X-32 aircraft. I turned to my boss who was accompanying me and stated: "there is no way in h#$$ this aircraft is going to win". My boss asked me why I said that? I told him that I was in the AF for 20 years and spent the last 5 years at Nellis AFB in and around fighter pilots daily. If there are any pilots on the selection committee, they will not select the X-32. It is too darn ugly of an aircraft for any self-respecting fighter to been seen flying in regardless of performance capabilities. Although, you can't tell from this video and pictures of the X-32 it really is an ugly looking aircraft.

[@Reach41]

I worked on the design teams of the YF-23, the F-35, and others, and could not agree more about the appearance of the X-32 being a huge negative. Even the F-35 is on the homely side when compared to jets like the F-14 and F-15, but the X-32 was way too far gone.

[@teakettle100]

Great job Ward! Rowdy is a great interview…a super representative of the flight test community

[@becknader2337]

I remember I always found the X32 to be a more “science fiction” looking airplane. Fantastic interview! 👏👏👏👏👏

[@raysmith1630]

Another great video Mooch. I hope that all is well with you and yours.

[@eranmalloch]

Hey Mooch. Another great video. I always wondered about the X-32. It's such an ugly looking beast (not that I think the F35 is much of a looker either!) that you have to think that maybe it was not that good a plane. Still, it certainly was interesting learning about the program & Rowdy's role in it. I wish he had talked more about what it was like to fly the X-32 though. And, a question to finish with: did he ever get a chance to fly the F-35 (or X-35) back then?

[@WardCarroll]

He never did.

[@spartanx9293]

Eh I think the finished f35a look pretty good especially from the side

[@tkeune]

I got to wonder what that non-linear inlet on the X-32 would do to it's stealth capabilities. Maybe it redirects RADAR RF into the belly of the aircraft but that is not a certainty. I would not be surprised to see the X-32 => F-32 spending big chunks of cash on Stealth.

[@spartanx9293]

@@tkeune when you consider that the F-35 has a lower RCs than the raptor I sincerely doubt it

[@irvinlane6515]

Speaking of ugly birds, check out the "Super Crusader " xf8u-3 with the chin scoop back in my day, 1960s. G. Lane

[@andyaa0wx109]

Ward. I recently viewed one of your videos and you mentioned the testing / development of the 117. I think I heard you mention that it was under test in 1980 - 81. During my assignment with the Army in Alaska, I was assigned to 1st Bn, 43 ADA at Fort Richardson. All of our batteries were called up by CINCNORAD. We were asked to do all we could to locate a aircraft that was coming up the channel from Cordova towards Anchorage. They even gave us angels and we could not maintain a lock, but did have occasional paints of the aircraft. This exercise was in 1977. We learned 4 months later that it was an aircraft that became known as the stealth to us.

[@christianvalentin5344]

How much of the F-35’s delays and cost overrruns were related to software and avionics? Because in the debate between the two designs the overruns of the F-35 are noted. But the F-32 likely would’ve had the same systems, and the delays with them.

[@thethirdman225]

One of the biggest problems has been weight.

[@budm2849]

Many delays were on the Navy, they changed so many systems and parameters that they can take the blame for half the time loss and over 70% of the cost over run

[@thethirdman225]

@@budm2849 In your mind maybe.

[@thomasroutson3046]

Mooch, another excellent video! This one was very insightful.

[@edwardelliott5756]

Agree with your assessments especially the looks department. At the time of this competition I worked at Boeing and the general opinion at the time among those of us Boeing workers was the F32 was butt-ugly. That intake reminded us all too much of numerous photographs of Phil Condit’s, CEO at the time, hanging open mouth poses. He looked like he was doing his best Fred Simpson impersonation. Many of us quietly rooted for Lockheed’s F35.

[@alexmathis8505]

Wow that's crazy, did you know at the time that there were also performance concerns for the STOVL variant, or was it just a looks thing at the time?

[@rodgerwittmann]

Ward, I love your channel and subscribed the first time I saw one of your videos! I almost never write comments on any channel, there just always seem to be so many comments already, but this one deserves the time... I love flying and have a commercial ticket from my younger days... I love both companies Lockheed and Boeing. My father worked for Lockheed in experimental section, for 8-9 years and his youngest brother (my uncle) worked for Boeing as an electrical engineer. And this uncle's youngest son (my cousin) flew off of carriers for the U.S. Navy, and just retired as an American Airlines Capt. My cousin and I talk about aircraft often! It was really interesting to see in your video, that Boeing and people on their X-32 team, especially the chief test pilot, recognized that the X-32 had a problem... Since the first time I ever saw an image, I couldn't believe that it was a Boeing AC... Or that it was anyone's idea of a fighter aircraft... Remember the old F-104 or the F-15 or even the F-14, they were beautiful aircraft that were excellent fighters!!! the X-32 was the UGLIEST FIGHTER I have ever seen anyone propose. Can you imagine trying to sell the Europeans on a big flock of ugly pregnant Guppy "fighters"? Or any other country? The United States Air Force would not be able to recruit pilots!!! I used to Hope and think about for what seemed like an eternity that the X-35 would win the competition!!! Eventually when I first saw a headline about the Defense Department making a decision, I instantly scanned the article for an answer! I was not ever thrilled about how slow the eventual rollout was for all three models, and even though you know costs are going to go up, this was a little extreme, but a friend, an air force pilot was really impressed and said despite everything that seemed limited in it's specs that it would probably win fights because of it's sensors, computing power and standoff weapons! Anyway thanks for this Video Ward, I was very anxious to see what this pilot had to say about the X-32 and he seemed very fair in all his comments!

[@dalek14mc]

I have to correct Rowdy on a few things. 1. The swivel nozzle actually has three swiveling joints, as opposed to two. 2. The Three bearing swivel nozzle was not copied from Russia. It was actually a design from a proposed aircraft, that was reused for the F-35B. The aircraft that Rowdy is referring to is the Yak-141, which Yakolvev allowed Lockheed Martin to study for data since it used a similar system.

[@olentangy74]

Great interview, Ward! I love your new Channel theme music!

[@juanjosefraga9310]

Although it sounds weird, i like the x-32 much more than the x-35; it reminds me of navy planes like the A7 Corsair or even the A6 Intruder, which I love.

[@stevenharder308]

Love the A7 and I see what you mean, but the X-32 is just goofy.

[@shrimpflea]

Yeah I think the final F-32 would have been better looking but the X-32 just looks wrong.

[@mbritton1984]

Man you just put out Fantastic offerings! These are great, insightful videos. Thank you for taking the time to create the content!

[@PDLM1221]

I remember watching the “fly-off” of the two planes and reading that the F32 could not do the STOL landing because of the air and also wanted or they were missing attachments or add one so it could do so , basically it couldn’t do it in its current form. It was the start of fly before buy!

[@Matt-yg8ub]

Boeing had some initial teething problems with the fabrication of the Delta wig and the composite body structure. They eventually solved those problems and the 787 dream liner utilizes the technology today. It’s basically because they were having fabrication issues that they didn’t meet the deadline for the hover test.

[@anderspedersen6750]

Absolutely love these been there , done that, first person interviews!

[@captaincurd2681]

X-32 looked like a spacecraft. I love it.

[@MrAndy9572ac]

Or a fish lol

[@stevenharder308]

Like a toothless space shark

[@captaincurd2681]

@@MrAndy9572ac X-32 also looks like the Great White Pelican bird.

[@exploringtheplanetsn]

Loving that channel ending music, sounds awesome!

[@glennanderson3725]

The solution to correct the requirement to abort a vertical landing killed the X-32. Also, hot air ingestion is an issue with V/STOL. The AV-8B had fences and that deployed to reduce ingestion and form an air cushion like a hovercraft. The shaft driven would have worked well with the McDonnell Douglas entry. MDC was "trapped" trying to get the gas driven fan to work.

[@mig1nc]

I concur. V/STOL is such a radically different flight regime, it should have been something all on its own. I wonder what we would have gotten if V/STOL wasn't a requirement?

[@MisterOso87]

@@mig1nc alas, the cost of good ol government procurement. As an SK, I remember reading up on the LCS and going “man that’s gonna be a shit show”.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@mig1nc VSTOL wasn't a requirement for JSF-B. STOVL was. The B model airframe is substantially different from the A and C, though it shares some major airframe large section modules. The bulkheads of all 3 are different. The A and B models share the vertical stabs, H-stabs, and top-end engine cowling/thermal blanket. A and C share the same canopy, weapons bays. Wings are unique to each. Mid section fuselage are unique to each, though A and C share a lot of commonality there. The big economy of scale is with: * AESA RADAR * Propulsion, though B is obviously unique, still shares a lot of engine components and major modules with the others. * Sensors across the RF, IR, UV, Electro-Optical spectrums * Data links * FLCS EHAs, though the C model has ailerons whereas A and B don't. I have a 731 page book written by each systems lead engineer and some of the test pilots which is a must-read for any AeroE interested in what they did on X-35 & JSF Program development.

[@taylorc2542]

If anything the shaft-powered lift fan on the Lockheed seems like an inelegant solution. The real crime here is trying to make VSTOL work with the other two variants.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@taylorc2542 SDLF is the most elegant solution to STOVL, with the least weigh penalty and maximum application of thrust ahead of the CofG, without creating any thermal ground effect problems like on Harrier, Yak, and the X-32. F-35B uses cold air from the lift fan blown downwards, eliminating that thermal ground effect challenge. The weight of the drive shaft is negligible, and the lift fan is far lighter and less-complex than any forward jet motor design. You should see some of the dual engine ideas proposed and attempted back in the 1960s-1980s with those arrangements. They were monstrous abortions. Then there was the blown-air wing design.

[@WayneBorean]

Oh wow. Just found the channel. Superb interview Mooch. You have a new fan!

[@messmeister92]

I remember watching the documentary (from National Geographic?) years back. Among other things, the X32 had to have pieces removed to do its vertical demonstration. I imagine that didn’t go over well either…

[@kidsafe]

It was a Nova episode on PBS.

[@messmeister92]

@@kidsafe Yes! thank you!

[@AA-xo9uw]

NOVA: Battle of the X-Planes kzbin.info/www/bejne/gF6ci5mmn7ism68

[@kenjackson5685]

1st class Ward...great to get the background on all this.

[@Idahoguy10157]

The JSF program was impossible. Especially by requiring STOVL. Making the Navy the lead agency for an aircraft. Then allowing the USAF to modify the basic aircraft for it’s use was do-able.

[@RogueWraith909]

@@scottross5495 They basically did... the F-35B is vastly different to the other varients.

[@nobstompah4850]

@@scottross5495 you do realize that it was conventional plane *tacked on to a VTOL program*, right? The marines asked for this first. Air Force came later. Navy had to be dragged kicking and screaming from their biplanes.

[@nobstompah4850]

@@scottross5495 You don't understand--the Marines started the entire program that led to this, alongside the Royal Navy (who uses STOVL carriers). Then the Air Force came in, said they'll chip in if they make a conventional takeoff variant and thus came the JSF program.

[@jamodrummer]

Dang! VERY educational, as always. Thank you. For everything.

[@thomasdiaz5116]

Thank you for bringing in such a subject matter expert to share in the design and selection process for the X-32 vs X-35 competition. As a USAF Master Sergeant assigned to the F-22 Combined Test Force, I was privileged to be invited to get a close look at both aircraft. The prevailing opinion at the time was that the X-32 was just too ugly to win what should never have been a beauty pageant. Your insightful questions and Rowdy’s thoughtful responses are a treasure for us airplane geeks.

[@danielvandusen5724]

Wow, that was a great episode! This topic is something that practically all military aircraft aficionados' have wondered about. Just the fact that you discussed it is cool but the fact that you discussed it with one of the actual test pilots involved in the competition is beyond cool and provided insight on the subject that you couldn't get anywhere else. Bravo sir, great job.

[@LRRPFco52]

Great interview. The 3BSD nozzle approach for X-35B came from a Convair design called Convair 200 in the late 1960s. Russians copied that for their Yak-141 later, which was to be a supersonic VTOL fighter. There's another VTOL design that won the USN funding for further development for that program, which was cancelled, some say after being set up for failure because they were supposed to populate smaller carriers. The Convair 200 was the superior design. If you look at the Saab Gripen, it looks almost exactly like the Convair 200.

[@dogsbd]

Bravo. I'm glad someone else is fighting back against the "Lockheed copied the Russians" lie!!!

[@DICE88599]

@@dogsbd but they did

[@dogsbd]

@@DICE88599 No, they did not. Every aspect of the F-35; the lift fan, the 3-bearing swivel duct nozzle, the overall layout of the aircraft pre-existed any Lockheed contact with Yak and/or knowledge of the Yak-41/Yak-141. Pratt & Whitney tested the 3BSD on a JT8D in the mid to late 1960's, including full afterburner tests with the nozzle swiveled 90 degrees. If anyone copied anything it was the Russians who copied the Convair 200 design of the early 1970's and the P&W 3BSD from the 1960's.

[@andywarwick3745]

Wow! What an interview. I have watched the JSF documentary so many times now. Im obsessed. This is a fantastic find. Excellent interview and really well done.

[@pbdye1607]

To this day there are AvGeek memes about the "derpy" look of the X-32.

[@aaronseet2738]

Looks like a ribit toad.

[@4nonym0u5]

@@aaronseet2738 just like I drew it

[@notalexzander2]

Pog plane

[@freedomfalcon]

AHYUK

[@magnatripper7944]

What a pleasure to meet the legend Rowdy Yates on the FOM series. Now I'll have to read 'The Cutting Edge." Apparently NOVA was not in-depth enough. Thank you for a top channel Ward -- Master of the deep interview. Best on KZbin! 👍

[@calvinthomas1642]

The X-32s planform is actually really attractive. Maybe the inlet underbite would help mask the turbine blades from ground based radar but it still looks like it's saying "feed me FOD!"

[@briancavanagh7048]

I believe the intake did expose the turbine fan face that would have been detrimental to the radar cross section. Somewhere floating around in cyberspace is a Boeing patent which describes a baffled and created a grating to protect the turbine face from radar.

[@Atlas531]

100% of...well, everyone disagrees with you. The X-32 was fugly. FUG. Ly.

[@taylorc2542]

Notice how Russia's new Checkmate fighter looks inspired by the X-32 inlet.

[@calvinthomas1642]

@@Atlas531 haha what can I say, I learned to love airplanes in the 90s so I'll probably always have a soft spot for delta wings and canards

[@calvinthomas1642]

Ooh yeah, good eye. It has a bit of Typhoon in there too with the split inlet

[@afterburner94]

Invaluable interview. Thanks for putting this out there for all of us to see.

[@nivlacyevips]

YF-22 vs YF-23 man what a match up, two amazing airframes going head to head in a supercruise, dogfight, absolute performance fly off. X-32 vs X-35…pretty one sided victory for Lockheed. Not nearly as sexy of a competition.

[@notalexzander2]

The X-32 was ugly but beautiful in its own way, like the F-8, A-7, A-6, and A-10.

[@spartanx9293]

@@notalexzander2 The a6 isn't ugly

[@notalexzander2]

@@spartanx9293 yes

[@LRRPFco52]

@@notalexzander2 F-8 was sexy and sleek, built for speed like a hot-rod. The A-7 was built for heavy payload and really long combat radius off the carrier. USAF took the A-7 and matured it far greater than the A-7A and B models with the A-7D. A-7D should have stayed in operational service much longer, rather than be pushed aside by the far-less capable A-10A.

[@notalexzander2]

@@LRRPFco52 the A-10 was slower, but had s bigger gun and more bombs. I do still agree, the A-7D/E should’ve stayed as a light attack aircraft for a while longer