Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

If Boeing were to put the x 32 into production what would they have to do to make it flyable? How much would it cost them to build it and what upgrades would be needed to make it a true gen 5 aircraft. I'm going to guess it would piss off LM.

F-16.net Sponsor

That is not even the final version of the proposed F-32.

Notice the redesign of the wing and tail surfaces.

Hi warwolf1,

You started this thread for me? Thanks! Please post the extended one with rear elevator at 47ft long. That is the prototype that Boeing didn't get to finish. At least having the photo here will remind everyone so that they will not forget this futuristic aircraft like YF-23. X-32B will not be revive as it is using the old jumpjet Harrier style nozzle that is inferior than the F-35's V/STOL taken from YAK-141.

More likely is the CTOL variant for the US Air Force should the F-35A becomes too costly. The design even with the shortie 45ft twin tail no elevator, it still outperforms F-35 in terms on turn rate and speed. Having the air intake below the nose radome resembles futuristic hybrid F-8 + F-16. If US Congress doesn't want it at all, maybe Boeing would want to consider building it for export with or without stealth materials. If the package price is right and the actual performance is good, there are friendlies that would want to buy it.

The lift fan of the F-35 was NOT taken from the Yak-141 as the Yak used separate jet lift engines (eg not connected with a shaft).

The small nose also means a smaller radar growth room.

Quote:

it still outperforms F-35 in terms on turn rate and speed

Kind of hard to prove since the final shape never flew and the one that did was having power to weight problems.

there is little reason to think it would be much different in cost than the F-35

warwolf1 wrote:

if Boeing put the x 32 into production what would they have to do to make it flyable. how much would it cost them to build it and what upgrades would be needed to make it a true gen 5 aircraft.[/img] im going to guess it would piss off LM.

In order to put the X-32 into production you would have to redesign the whole airplane as their were too many technical flaws in the prototype to make it a viable fighter. The next thing you would have to do is blind fold all the pilots that fly it so they don't get nauseous when they lay eyes on the airplane.

jayraptor wrote:

Hi warwolf1,

You started this thread for me? Thanks! Please post the extended one with rear elevator at 47ft long. That is the prototype that Boeing didn't get to finish. At least having the photo here will remind everyone so that they will not forget this futuristic aircraft like YF-23. X-32B will not be revive as it is using the old jumpjet Harrier style nozzle that is inferior than the F-35's V/STOL taken from the Convair 200 (and others).

Fixed it for ya.

I would be surprised if it "outperforms F-35 in terms on turn rate and speed".
Looks to me, it's even fatter than F-35, which often reminds me that they are also successors to A-6/F-117/A-10 etc., good striker aircraft.

Couple of items:
1) the X-32 was not a privately funded project - so the results of the project belong to the buyer - not Boeing. It is not clear clear to me how much of a theoretical X-32B would be fully under Boeing's control should they choose to privately finance that follow on project.
2) The X-32B was proposed based entirely on the JSF requirements list. Due to that 'genetic' origin it represents a very high level of performance overlap with the F-35. Conclusion - there isn't enough to differentiate the X-32B and accept the risks associated with building the supply chain, support, assembly lines and bringing in buyer (government) project review teams and establishing all those oversight processes. With certainty, those governments who made large investments in the F-35 to move it to production ready, would be disinclined to re-do that again unless the resulting aircraft represented an enormous leap in capability (which it doesn't). From rumors - it may have some areas where it was marginally better in some flight regimes than the F-35, but overall it was not better. Even for the marginal improvements, X-32B that would have to re-prove that given the airframe changes.

Overall Conclusion: For something based on the X-32 to come to life, a new set of requirements would have to exist for some government entity with the money and time to push the project to completion. It is very likely that the airframe proposal would change to better meet that new requirement set. So we won't likely ever see an F-32B that looks like the drawings proposed in the JSF competition.

I remember the guys on AV week doing an analysis on the F-32. Slower cruise and top speed due to the larger frontal area on the jet turbine.

Also if it follows the F-35 designation it would not have a F-32B, due to the compressor stall issues in hover. Impressive flames in the video... Anyone have the link?

warwolf1 wrote:

the x 32 has better war load though.
20 mm M61A2 cannon, or 27 mm Mauser BK-27 cannon
Internal: 6 AMRAAM air-air missiles or 2 AMRAAM air-air missiles and 2 x 2,000 lb (900 kg) class guided bombs
External: Approx. 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of full range of external stores including guided weapons, anti-radiation missile, air-to-surface weapons, auxiliary fuel tanks.

if i was a pilot i know what i would want,plenty of weapons and easy and comfortable to fly.Boeing does have better export value than LM.

How is that a better war load? The F-35 will be able to carry 6 AMRAAMs internal or 2+ 2x2000lb bombs, and 15k+ externally.

X-32 JSF transitions into Vertical (hover) mode

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0P0ckhQg2g
__________________________

X-32 JSF first vertical (hover) landing FLAMES at END

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16EdXpk2SkU
__________________

X-32 JSF hover tests at Pax River

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb-OEyOtb2Q

Where is this about X-32 out-performing X-35 coming from? Last I heard, 35 outperformed 32 in all parameters.

And no, no company would never be "pissed off" at a competing company investing in development/production of a product that they won't ever sell.

Here's a photo of the full scale mockup of the production design...

Last edited by jayraptor on Aug 24, 2012 - 02:59 PM; edited 2 times in total

boff180, thanks for the photo. The pilot, is he real or mannequin?

spazsinbad,
The fire and serious leakage on lower fuselage occurred after Boeing/Northrop attempted to extend the length for the V/STOL X-32B thinking that they have enough time before the evaluation day. Reason being that they wanted to solve the Harrier style jump jet flaws giving more space in between the nozzle. It was at the very last minute, they found out there's no time and quickly re-fit everything back to original or else, they will have no aircraft to show. This is how and why they lost to X-35, winner takes all for USAF/USMC/USN.

THe CTOL X-32 actually beats the X-35 in everything from lighter weight, speed, maneuverability and agility. It was reported on the news that followed up with JSF development since day 1 it was revealed to public with real aircrafts until the result in somewhere early Y2K's. The X-32 was more favorable not until the evaluation day. X-35 was chosen mainly because it has better V/STOL and refused to give time to Boeing/Northrop to finish their extended variant X-32B. Case close.

However, in ATF competition, the 1 of 2 YF-22 prototype crashed killing the test pilot whereas YF-23 didn't have any issue though? Wonder why were the judges 1 sided? X-32A performed well in everything better than X-35. It was only the X-32B has the Harrier jumpjet issue and only experienced leakage when they try to refit everything back to original after attempt to extend, yet the judges didn't allow them time to finish to get best result. So LM is allowed time to fix the defects and flaws that caused the YF-22 to crash costing the life of a pilot. while Boeing/Northrop is denied extra time to perfect their X-32B?

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

Making the X-32 fly-worthy