The Ugliest Fighter Jet Ever Made - The Boeing F-32
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 มิ.ย. 2024
- Don't forget to help the channel by using SQUARE SPACE
Here: www.squarespace.com/FOUND
Thank you :)
NEW CHANNEL:
• Launched from the bigg...
Discord: / discord
My News Channel: / @aviationstationyt
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @foundandexplained
Patreon:
/ foundandexplained
Dude, no matter how many people call this bird ugly it's intake still smiles like a champ. That level of confidence brings a tear to my eye.
Have ya heard of the BUFF? Still flying, yes that is what a B-52 is called.
Well in the 50s styling was not always the selling point.
The 90s were different, 2022, even more all about about style
Kinda looks like this to me: i.redd.it/6cabd29n23z31.jpg
Exactly, what was missing is an actual painted open jaw with fangs on each side.
its not ugly but the whole intake looks poorly designed and tacked on
@@oditeomnes 😍🥺😩
😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️😶🌫️
Actually looks good from the angle that you chose for the screenshot
it gives me f-8 vibes
Looks like it was drawn by a child.
It's the render of a redesign with horizontal tail. The actual X-32 with just delta wing was ugly.
Looks like my neighbors honda back in 2003.
F-86 vibes
I've always loved the F-32 purely because it looks like a super futuristic F-8 Crusader/A-7 Corsair, and those are both in my top five favorite aircraft of all time.
Reminiscent of the F-100 intake
The 21st century SLUF.
We should have stuck with the F-32 for the non-VTOL planes. Its economies of scale would have the plane costing WAY less than the current F-35A today and massively increased manufacturing rate. This matters if/when we get drawn into a war with Russia or China.
@@mrbigberd it also could have made for a good export plane for countries who didn't have the scratch for F-35s. As much as I do also love the battle penguin, the F-32 is just so much more unique and cool imo
I realized not long ago that the F-32's intake is a bit like that of the A-7. Neither a pretty nor a fast plane, it nevertheless did its job.
The A7 Corsair wasn’t exactly pretty either, but was still a capable intruder.
You're right, the F16 has that whale mouth also. I think the cold war era designs were just 'normal' for their time. But moving beyond, they don't like as fierce, sexy and aerodynamic as the dual intakes.
Yea, but side by side for aesthetics, the "SLUF" gets the 🏆!
When I first saw concept drawing of this plane I told me; "Me, no American Military Would EVER fly this OOOGLY _____, but RUSSIA, that's THEIR type of plane, OOOGLY"
But if the nose radome was extended around 12-16", rake engine intake back around 12",s, sweep and heighten vertical fins, MAIN GEAR doors to cover struts while extended, .....🤷🏿♂
My opinion.
Yeah once I saw this, I thought of the A-7.
@@YF-12 For me it was the F-86 Sabre, the grandaddy of all modern US jet fighters. Amazing how people consider the X-32 ugly but admire the Sabre for its beauty when both aircraft essentially have giant intakes for the front. I guess the Sabre just grew on people due to its long history. Had the X-32 gone into production it was just a matter of time before people got used to the looks.
The prototype certainly looked funny, the proposed production version shown in the animations, didn't look bad to me at all. Almost like a fifth gen F-86. I do believe the F-35 was the right choice for sure. It was the better of the two in terms of performance, especially in VTOL.
the prototype does look funny as did the YF-22 not as goofy but still not good. in my head i think the x-32 production design looks like an A7 and a f-16Xl mixed together with a little stealth.
I agree the proposed version in the animation looks alright, kinda reminds me of a Corsair. The demo version looks odd.
I agree not that bad it actually looks like it might be better like Northrop plane F23 we always pick wrong cause of lobbiest
Doesn’t matter, the 32 was more practical for missions
The prototype itself looks like a giant duck 🤣
The fact that the design you made is better than the real life one is insane
Its actually not
Thats kinda expected, the F-22 looked slightly different than the YF-22, I wouldnt doubt the YF-23 or the X-32 would differ similarly had they been accepted
Fighter jet design is not an art competition. If my plane is "ugly" but shoots down the other guy's plane, I'll take the "ugly" plane every time.
@@sciencecompliance235 yes you are right, I didn't mean anything about that, I just said that the Found And Explained model in the intro is better than the one irl
That design was proposed once again by Northrop as a Navy variant.
The X-32 always reminded me of one of two things, a modern F86 or a whale shark. Ever since I thought about I can't unsee it now.
I like the goofy look of the X-32 and love the sleeker 3D model version. The F-32 looked like a reimagined F-86 Sabre.
For real it uses a lot of original jet design cues
The award for the goofiest looking aircraft goes to the F104
agreed. i honestly like the design better than the f-35
first thing i thought and i love it for it
my thoughts exactly it reminded me of a later gen F-86 D crossed with the F-35
The production concept actually looks pretty good at certain angles. It looks like a stealthy Sabre.
looks ugly in real life watch the test video then youll come to know what real ugliness looks like
Thank you! I couldn't put my finger on it, but you nailed it!
Exactly! A new F-86. This "production" variant is IMHO Far better looking than the overpriced overweight hovering abortion that has been forced upon our Royal Navy ;)
Exactly. From side it looks pretty cool
fuselage like a stealthy sabre
wings like a stealthy cougar
I actually don't hate the way the X-32 looks. Especially the version you rendered. Really not a bad looking jet, especially in silouette or in planform.
Such a neat bird! I got to see one up close at Patuxent River NAS in Lexington Park Maryland, they have a museum and one is one their flight line.
I actually kinda like how it looks a bit different than your typical fighter. It looks unlike any other modern fighter and it has a sort of scifi look to it
It's like a chibi fighter. Cute lol.
The fact you said kinda just makes it worse. Even its greatest champion can only muster “kinda” for its praise 😂
An ugly ass sci-fi look
Looks like a modernized f-86 sabre
If I recall correctly, the Boeing X-32 / F-32 STOVL's issue with ingesting hot air during vertical flight operations was also an issue faced by the Harrier Jump Jet.
Not like the X-32. The chin air intake became its Achilles heel and would have ultimately needed a complete redesign due to the hot exhaust ingestion. They removed the air intake cowling at one point so as they could demonstrate the X-32's STOVL abilities. It failed. X-32 used a similar vertical thrust design as the Harrier which delivered engine thrust and its resulting exhaust as its only means of vertical lift. The X-35, on the other hand, used a lift fan which was driven by a shaft attached to the jet engine for vertical lift for the entire front half of the aircraft - in other words, cold air. This cold air could be ingested in to air intakes without any adverse effects such as stalling the engine like the X-32 would do. And that was the end of the X-32.
Hot air problem is inherit with any VTOL that used lift jets.
F-35 lift fan design is just superior next step compare to previous lift jet. No problem with hot air suck back to the nozzle as lift fan cold air cancel out any hot air from the nozzle that might come to the intake. Also used much less fuel to lift the jet as lift fan is more efficient than jet engine.
@@DOSFS The lift fan did how ever also bring some issues. it was larger and more complex which lead to design compromises for the A and C but looking just at the F-35B variant as a STOVL/VTOL the design is far superior.
@@DOSFS More efficient in the hover yes, but the dead weight of the lift fan reduces efficiency whenever else and robs internal volume of fuel and stores. Also the clutch and gearbox system to drive the lift fan was a master stroke of engineering that almost killed the whole concept if it was even slightly worse.
The lift jets are smaller, cheaper, and more economical in the long run, but simply would not be able to hit the same performance targets that a lift fan can, hence the two different design strategies.
@@ias2424 The dead space is more problematic as it reduced fuel storage, electronics storage, and weapon storage.
I love it ! Your 3D model looks like the stealth version of the F-8 Corsair that I always wanted to see 😍
I saw this aircraft at the Museum of the US Air Force storage facility. Yes,it is pretty homely. The Yf-23 on the other hand is gorgeous.
The skies would have looked a lot more interesting if both the F-32 and the YF-23 had went into production.
We’d be saying the same about the F-35 and F-22 in that timeline.
You can't do that because of price. If you have two designs neither company can fully take advantage of cost savings due to economy of scale.
@@wadopotato33 huh... these companies build many different flyers at a time bud. The problem is not that these companies can't build more than one design at a time, the government only needs/wants one at a time for various reasons.
Both were as ugly as sin.
And then, we'd see the MiG 59 Fullband and the Su-85 Checkers instead.
I never once thought this thing was ugly... it was always my favorite of the two in every way. Super compact and futuristic looking like the drone renders of the time. I always thought the Lockheed was incredibly generic looking, like something a child would sketch.
Agreed! I think that stubby, compact, delta wing makes the 32 look really futuristic.
I agree, the performance vs its structure is actually pretty incredible. To call it the ugly ducking is a little much, I would call it a stocky, compact powerhouse. I don't put an aircraft's looks above its other more important features like I don't know? The ability to fly!?
That said, too much interference from outside sources like with the F-32 design requirements can lead to some pretty awful outcomes with any product produced.
Of course, what really matters is whether it blows up the other guy first.
Looks like a devouring shark. Quite frightening actually. But the navy went for a chad instead.
Lol this ugly? You join a competition and you came up with something this ugly? Nah, Boeing just wanted it easy.
when it is made radically different, it usually has a good function. and for me, the function that makes a tool/machine look good
As a kid, I was sitting in my parents 182 brand spanking new Cessna Skylane at Orange County airport. My dad was pilot in command I was 11 years old and over the radio comes. He was a test pilot he did a lot of Bob can’t remember his name movie things, this is such and such in the P 51 mustang requesting tax instructions for takeoff. My dad shut the motor off so let’s get out of the plan we’ve got to see this remember this is 1964 everything came to a stop the sexiest plane I’ve ever seen was the P 51 mustang, he tax it out ran it up headed towards Newport lifted it off about 5 feet up the gear and did a 180 over the top of orange county airport came in with a straight in approach which I’m a pilot also but I was really young, but that was so unbelievable to me. It’s the sexiest plane ever built, but I am an old guy. Thanks wreck.
It’s important to keep in mind that all we ever get to see is the prototype, the F 35 went through two decades of refinements to get where it is today. The final design of the X 32 would’ve been much slicker and Boeing would have almost certainly redesigned the intake as the technology improved over time.
But the budget is very limited to redesign and perform another test
2 decades just to end up being the biggest Pentagon bust in the history of procurement, the f35 was a piece of sh*t 20 years ago and still a piece of sh*t now
F35 that won the contract looks pretty much exactly the same as it did during the tests.
@@yesterdayschunda1760 I think you are missing the point. The reason F-35 was selected is that it had some advantages over its competition (Mostly Design). This is the reason F-35 has not changed much from the start of its development.
@@Aryan-lc4vk Go watch the documentary about when they were competing it is called "Battle of the X planes" You will see that you are wrong.
I just did a deep dive into this last week and had wished you made a video for it! For those commenting it’s not that ugly, this was the “production style/artist rendering”. You’re in for a treat when you see the test footage.
I’ve seen test footage. I personally still think it isn’t that bad
Link to the footage?
That smile is contagious.
I remember watching a nova episode on PBS
Years ago. It was the competition between the x-32 AND x-35. We all now what won but it’s amazing what technology was put into both planes. The x-32 had various problems with VTOL and midair refueling.
That intake would have been handy for keeping airfields free from leaves, rocks, groundcrew, etc.
so a kirby... monica...
"Eagles may soar, but a weasel never gets sucked into a jet engine."
~~Me
🌌🔭
🤔 But the F-32 might give me reason to pause......
Have you never FOD walked sir?! They wouldn't be landing these babies on some unkempt Russia airfield, with uncut grass and random bits of debris laying around. Why design your aircraft around the field, when you can send the slaves out to walk the entire field. Shoulder to shoulder, no talking allowed... and God help you if you miss something. American jets could have an intake that touches the ground, and it wouldn't suck up a thing but some air and a bit of dust.
@@ATBatmanMALS31 I've done one or two, yeah.
,🤣
That redesign looks a ton better. That intake is a lot smaller as the original was laughably huge. I miss the original delta wing though but it is an interesting note about the weapon payload and costs. A cheaper fighter able to deliver more firepower to a location is an interesting dynamic and its a shame we'll probably never see the fighter put to its real paces. Not as sad as the YF-23 but its second in sadness to that.
il est un peu trop francais !!! ca ne devait pas plaire au gongré américain !!! pour le X32 la premier version aile delta , c est dommage car le harrier avait deja eu 20 ans et reprendre son idée avec une aile delta , qui a plus de rigidité pour les armes exterieurs et emporte plus de carburant que des ailes fleches !!! boeing avait colaboré avec les bureaux dassault specialiste de l aile delta, comme pour harrrier , le moteur roll royce pegasus avait derivé de brevets francais !!
I always found the X-32 as an stealth version of the A-7 and F-8... for me it looked cool (ugly, but cool), of course the X-35 design was really cool... Anyway I remember both JSF planes way more when back in the early 2000s I used to play the (Eidos) "Joint Strike Fighter" flight simulator. A really advanced game for its time. Greetings.
That "I'll call now" commercial just unlocked from so deep within my brain.
One thing not mentioned that really pushed the contest in the X-35s favor was that it was able to transition from vertical takeoff to supersonic flight in a single flight, something that had never been done before. The X-32 was unable to do this and had to be configured for each role. I believe there were some design changes that would correct this issue, but it was too late.
What really pushed the decision, was the same as it always is. Who has the most clout in Washington. Boeing, hands down.
@@geraldtrudeau3223 You mean Lockheed?
@@geraldtrudeau3223 Boeing? But Lockheed won the competition
@@albar428 Yeah, my bad. I'm old and sometimes my synapses don't snap.
@@FelipeASaito Yeah, you're right. Oops! Lockheed, Boeing, they both sound so similar to an easy mistake.🙄😜
Its interesting how the YF-23 and the X-32 both focused their designs around lowering costs and they both ended up losing.
yf-35 took the hearts of the military people when in the last test it performed VTOL launch, flight, then VTOL landing. yf-23 didn't
Very true ! good point !
I remember watching [Battle of the X Planes] on cable TV back in the day and loving every moment.
The 3D render looks much better than the prototype. X-32 would've looked cool flying the skies.
I actually find that the final proposed version looks pretty awesome. The overheating issue could have been solved with a lot faster transitions using computer controlled thrust. There really is never any need to hover. Forward movement could be initiated as soon as take off.
Good luck taking off from an assault carrier with "no need to hover"
There's no foreseeable need to hover for long periods of time, perhaps, but you never know what might be necessary decades in the future in some tight situation.
@@deusexaethera VTOL is great for aircraft carriers
@@alack3879 *amphibious assault ships
Aircraft carriers have catapults.
@@myusername3689
Even then catapults take up space so it's still applicable even to the navy
I personally love the chin-intake look. I adore the A-7. I think this thing looks better than the '35, especially the rendering of the updated possible production model.
Saw this at an Oceana airshow back in the 90's. Strange looking plane.
The redesigned intake makes it look like an F-86 Sabre, or hell, even the FJ Fury family of naval jets... truly beautiful IMO
Kind of reminds me to the F-8 Crusader and A-7 Corsair II with that intake, it's maybe not the prettiest design but still looks cool
It also looks like a stealthy version of the f86
Honestly the CGI animations you did of how the final version could have looked like, look awesome! I say resurrect the plane, make it a drone/loyal wingman for the F-35. Honestly the A-10 and B-52 are ugly too, but their ugliness is part of their charm to a lot of people.
well if it looks cool we obviously gotta produce it XD
naaah... just produce it anyways since it is cheaper
how dare you.
@@POPJack1717 D:
Since when B52 are ugly 😡
That's not ugly at all, it looks badass.
There was a Top Gun game for PS2 I think it was called Top Gun: Combat Zones and it had this plane in it. And I grew to really appreciate the look after playing that game.
You make the F-32 look beautiful, awesome job modeling this.
I was lucky enough to have worked on both the X-32 and X-35 back in 1998-99 as a NC programmer of machined parts for a supplier to both Boeing and Lockheed Martin. I programmed some of the largest metal parts on both aircraft. I always thought the X-32 was hideous and X-35 beautiful and was very pleased when the X-35 won since that is my hometown team. I have now worked on the F-35 for the last 20 years and plan to retire on it. The proposed F-32 redesign was so much better looking but came so late in the JSF selection process that it’s fate was already sealed from the hot gas injection problems, not to mention the X-35B’s hat trick of short takeoff, supersonic flight, and vertical landing that had never been done before in the history of flight.
Personally I don't think the F35 looks that special while all the hatches are down and looks goofy when the intake flap is up while in VTOL. Just my opinion. Seems weird that there's a consensus that the intake scoop is ugly when the midsection intake flap on the 35 protrudes so high off the plane and "looks" like it faces the wrong direction for aerodynamic flight. Then again I guess there are advantages to being able to put that thing away and look like a normal bird, which the 32 can't do when it comes to asthetics.
It had a problem Lifting off vertically with the Intake lip installed, it performed well during lift off but didn't handle well without the intake lip removed
I think it looks great. Reminds me of the Mig-17, A-7 Corsair, or F-86 Sabre with that massive front intake.
The Boeing actually looked amazing! And any military that makes a decision based on "beauty or ugliness" of an instrument can be called foolish, and might lose the possibility of having a capable instrument at hand when needed.
While I would agree with your premise, I would also add that whether the US picks the best plane or the second best plane the US aviation industry is so good that your are still guaranteed a pretty good product. It is not like the F-35 isn't a great plane. Would Boeing's have been better?...no idea.
That’s ignorant because the X35 beat the X32. It was faster, more stealthy, and can do both vertical takeoff and landing. The X32 had to have gear doors removed during testing for it to takeoff vertically. Lockheed Martin put the nail in the coffin when they took off vertically, transitioned mid air and went super sonic, and then came back and landed vertically in the same flight.
That looks like an Advanced F86 sabre! I really don't know why people call this ugly, it's literally beautiful, plus the futuristic design and the nose intake makes it more cool!
It looks like it’s gurning
I don't think the F-32 is ugly. It actually looks like a decent aircraft design and a sort of spiritual successor to the F-86 which I can always get behind. Its the X-32 that everyone calls ugly because of the very strange belly shape and that intake being as ridiculously huge as it was, along with the angle. It just looked entirely ungainly and clumsily designed.
Lol at that Sears commercial. That thing was on every movie I taped on vhs
It's like a chubby Su-75.
Although I have to say it looks so weird it's cool again. Just like the YF-23
Edit: a cool suggestion for a future video would be the FB-22 and F-22B
The FB-22 would have been a delta wing aircraft similar in purpose to the F-15E and Su-34. And according to the design from some games it would have looked amazing. The F-22B was the supposed 2-Seater variant, however that never happened. Which is also why the J-20 is the first two-seater 5th generation aircraft. As there have been photos of a two seater variant dubbed J-20S or J-20B by the media.
Well, it's public knowledge right now that the Su-75 took design cues from cancelled US DoD plans & applied it to real-world military use.
The YF-23 has and always will be THE coolest fighter jet ever made!!
Except the X-32 actually flew
Are you really trying to compare the YF23 to this monstrosity? The 23 is quite possibly the coolest, most advanced jet ever flown.
@@BlyGuy "Most advanced jet ever flown" you know that this thing is from the 90s and that aircraft like the future NGAD and B-21 are approaching or are already in flight testing?
I love this thing, I call it the "pog jet"
Man, that commercial brought me right back to the 90s!
you can see the same air craft in the back round of top gun maverick in the air craft carrier scene right before takeoff on the catapult.
Hes not ugly, hes just a happy lil guy 😤
Society really hatin on happy people 🙄
It looks like they taped an F-22 to the hull of a speed boat
Brilliant
Ohhh shhiiit 🤣
Dude the artwork on this channel is superb... #🤘
Great work!
I think it looks amazing, you can see where a lot of jet designs get inspiration for drag coefficient management etc from birds of prey, like the f32 profile looks like a peregrine falcon like the B-2.
The XF-32 has captured my attention since I was a kid. It’s final design definitely looks way more defined, more fighter-esque and less like a testbed.
I remember my dad calling the 32 “The Swallow” and the 35 “The Martin” (both referring to the same family of bird, but a clever play on words). If the name wasn’t already taken the Nighthawk/Nightjar would make an absolutely fitting name, being stealth and with that still large air intake.
That little smile is heartwarming
The biggest problem with the F-32 is that too many design compromises were made for STOVL abilities. While the A and C models wouldn't have come equipped to land vertically, the engine placement was baked into the design whether wanted or not. Engines are mounted at the back for a reason, and that's something Lockheed got right by allowing the A and C to benefit from the space occupied by the lift fan. The long tunnel behind the F-32 engine made the design wider and heavier than it had to be.
The F8 crusader with its front intake was one of the best fighter planes out there at the time. It’s little buddy, the corsair, did its role very well for being sub sonic.
F-32 really went and said “😀”
The updated version of the X32 was much better looking. If it still had the upper hand in the weapons and cost departments it might have been a viable option.
The 3D rendering of the Production model actually looks pretty good, looks very futuristic but the air intake reminds me less of Monica and more of the P-40.
Love how goofy it looks, like it looks so weird... Su-75 is basically the same thing but it slimmed down the chubby, nothing against cubby things, just the F-32 got it... well... chubby...
"Beauty is only skin-deep. Ugly goes right to the bone."
Actually looks like a futuristic f-86 sabre
Or like a stealthy Crusader
@@DefinitelyNotEmma I can see that
The X-32 is just one happy boy. He was happy to just have a chance.
Kinda reminds me of the A7 Corsair ll and the F8 Crusader with the air intake right below the cockpit
not gonna lie, from the way you show it in these animations, it looks fire. It also looks like its head game is INSANEEE
It's such a cool plane. Looks great from every angle, except from the front.. and from that direction it's hilarious. I love it.
omg i remember that SEARS commercial. that's insane how long it's been.
The FINAL redesigned version of the x32 actually looks pretty cool. I bet this thing would have been much less expensive to develop and manufacture than the F35. However, the F35 is what we have and it works. Keep it.
Ngl I think this one looks better than the F-35… Not only is it at least a bit more unique looking than any other 5th gen we see, but it’s got that Sci-Fi vibe to it like I would not be shocked to see this flying around in a Halo or Elite game…
Willing to bet it’s not just me
Tbh, the X-32 is still my favourite experimental plane. Truth be told though, another major contributing factor as to why the X-32 failed is because the wings also did not generate enough lift to carry a full payload especially with the delta wing configuration. The wing added too much weight and, even though it did take off in the tests, it barely did. They had to come up with a 2nd design that had elevators just to help shave off some weight and, even then, it was still not enough. It's really ill-fated but I love my ugly duckling just the same.
I think this plane got a bad rap. They took the cost requirements to heart. Anyone who knows Lockheed Martin's reputation could've predicted the x-35 going massively over budget. Lockheed wanted to win the contract, customer requirements be damned.
@@RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts Aye. To Lockheed's credit, they did make amazing aircraft that are truly marvels. But it will never be contained within a set budget that the client can work with. It's like asking them to design a survival knife and they give you a 33 function multitool with a built in soap dispenser. Cool but never fitting the $5 budget you told them to work with.
@@RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts had it gone to Boeing, the program would've gotten more shit. They could barely cobble together the KC-46 which is already based on an existing civilian plane. Imagine if they actually have to build a complex aircraft like a fighter from scratch.
While I do agree renders of the "final" F32 version look really neat (it looks like a space fighter from above), as per best experimental plane, YF-23 would like a word with you.
@@RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts How is it customer requirements be damned if they made a better performing plane?
Not ugly, it shared a lot of design commonalities with the Vought F8 Crusader and A7 Corsair II. It would have been a great plane in time.
The final version actually looked awesome. Where did you get the videos and the models from by the way?
It’s also good we didn’t choose this as the JSF because it looks me it could only fit a smaller radar that would reduce range detection capabilities compared to the F-35.
They both would have used the either radar. The radar competition, and engine competition were separate from the airframe competition. The X-32 tested the AN/APG-79 radar, while the X-35 (now F-35) tested the AN/APG-81 radar. The AN/APG-81 radar was selected, and then greatly refined. Modern P/AESA radars don't have to have a huge antenna to be powerful. There's no moving dish inside the radome in modern radars. It's more about how technologically advanced they are, how much computing power you attach to them, and how much power you can feed them. That said, the ducted engine design of the X-32 would make the weight of the forward fuselage more a design challenge.
@@kathrynck you are not quite right. The radar antenna diameter does not constrain power; it limits beam width. Radar beams are diffraction limited, and cannot focus to a cone angle less than ~λ/D. For a fixed peak power, a bigger array provides higher power density and better angular resolution.
@@appa609 Well, size does matter, but not as much as it used to. The F-35's radar doesn't have all that large of an array really, and it's shockingly powerful for it's size. The APG-79 which the X-32 tested is pretty powerful though. It's used in the Super Hornet now. And the super hornet needed a big boost in radar range & resolution to fill the shoes left by the F-14.
The animation sequences can only make you wonder how awesome of a fighter aircraft it would have been. It is highly reminiscent of the F86 Saber with its visually dominant engine intake. The actual fighter livery looks good on it too.
The updated design looks amazing
i love it . With the intake under the nose like an f8 crusader!
OMG, that Sears commercial! Completely forgot about it! Thx for making me feel old! LOL
IIRC, the Super Hornet has radar blockers in the air intakes and entered service around the same time as the public unveiling of the JSF prototypes, so saying the technology didn’t exist is incorrect
As an extension of the discussion on the hot air ingestion, the cold air generated underneath the fuselage from lift fan on the F-35 also acts as a shield to prevent exhaust from circulating to the front to be ingested by the air intakes
Personally, while the X/F-32 is ugly looking, it does have potential for good looks as the proposed Su-75 Checkmate borrows a lot of the looks from it IMO
I remember back when I first saw the F-32 and my first thought was "How on Earth could its designers ever let a prototype plane THAT ugly see the light of day and NOT know it was doomed from the start?"
I thought the same thing , I also knew that the F23 was going to loose against the F22 when they decided that it didn't need vector thrust , the person that made that decision should of been fired .
In war, having good looks is the last thing you need
The F-8 Crusader is my reply.
@@ADobbin1 The F-8 was beautiful.
WHY THE PRODUCTION VARIANT ACCTUALLY LOOK GOOD THO 🔥
Holy shit, I just assumed this was animation done by the US Military to show off the plane. But then why would they make an animation for a 20 year old prototype that never saw any missions? This animation and model quality is seriously impressive my dude!
Hey there, love your videos! I need to point out a few errors in your script. First off, the X-32 did not use vectored thrust for vertical takeoff, it used it for maneuverability and was far more maneuverable than the X-35. In fact, the X-32 had a lifting segment much more reminiscent of the Harrier, where it had two vertical lift ducts/nozzles hidden under doors on the belly of the fuselage. These nozzles could move fore and aft independently for maneuvering, but the aircraft also had bleed air driven thrusters in the wings and tail.
The ultimate reason it failed was NOT hot air ingestion, and not a radar cross section issue. The issue is that the aircraft could not take off vertically, reach super sonic cruise, and land vertically in one flight. This is because the Intake required for super-cruise would not work for vertical take off demonstrations, due to the engine over heating, and having to run at higher N2 (core RPM). The higher throttle/N2 setting was due to the intake "choking" the high bypass fan, which provides most of the thrust. These were easy issues to fix, and Boeing wasn't allowed to fix them, despite a controversial development phase with ever changing goal posts. You can see this in your own video where the hovering demonstrations used a completely different intake. It did suffer from some hot air ingestion as well, but this was all oart of the makeshift intake design. In fact, I believe Boeing already had a fix, and asked for a few weeks or months to implement it. Other than the one critical hover - super cruise - hover test, the X-32 outperformed the X-35 in almost every way, and was very realistically the better option. (Remember, this was old Boeing before their demise. Arguably, the loss of the JSF program could have kicked off the downturn, in addition to many corporate changes happening in the early 2000's, such as their relocation from Seattle to Chicago.)
The X-35 demonstrator and the F-35 production variants share almost no parts, and almost nothing beyond design concepts is remotely similar. They don't have the same dimensions in any axis, not even the same engine.
And let's not forget that Lockheed "won" because they got their cost overrun waived, something which originally was a kill criteria.
Yeah, they already had a cost overrun in the demonstrator phase.
Edit: Another obvious script mistake is that he attributes the B variant to the Navy instead of the Marines.
Frankly it the STOVL requirement that has caused the most problems, they should've just gone for USAF/USN aircraft program creating one airframe and then cresting a Marines Jumpjet program with high avionics commonality but a different airframe.
Its like a modern F8 or A7, both of which I think look amazing, that final version does really look a lot better. Its a pity we didn't get the F23 and F32 they'd be such a cool combo.
I am sure they continued development, with thrust vectoring and microprocessing today the recycled plans would work very well. It most likely can stop on a dime and hover in mid air, turned into a drone etc.
I think it looks great in your renders! Shame we couldn't see it produced.
Waiting for the NATF-22 and the Lockheed Boeing AFX.
Nice vid! I def think one of the major factors even though it is irrelevant is the aesthetics of the plane even though if they modified the tail and from above painted in that RAM black made it look pretty cool it def came down to the fact the x-35 looked more like a sexier fighter similar to how the F-22 looked a lot simpler and conventional compared to the yf-23 even though that aircraft was also beautiful it just didn’t fit the design language the military is used to next to the much more conventional design of the F-22 I know looks aren’t everything but they def count more than people admit and that’s in all things in life
Definitely does matter.
As a Veteran, presentation is extremely import.
I think the delta wing design in particular was really cool. This would've made a great fighter imo
I think this design still has much potential. If they design a variant sans VTOL capability, lengthen the wings a bit, the added space could afford it more space within it for even greater weapons/fuel loadouts. I believe it would make for an amazing Marine multi-role fighter. Using the lessons learned from the F-16 VISTA programme, the thrust vector capability of the F-22 could make it a better performer than the current F-35 models. Plant F-32's on all our Marine bases to augment/compliment our Navy patrol areas. Despite the issues with the prototype, this is still a well-thought of design.
poor boy, the x32 was just happy to be there D:
I could give a crap about how "pretty" a war fighting machine is - what's important is how well it works. My issue with the F-32 design would be the giant foreign object scoop on the front, which also happens to be the feature everyone gripes about the look of. I only would care about how impractical it seems to be.
Foreign objects would be just as likely to get into the F-35's scoops.
just as likely as the f-16 tho right?
Foreign radars
I remember watching a documentary back in like 2002 about the devolpment of these two jets.
It just looks so damn happy with that smile. Some may call it ugly, but i find it somewhat endearing!
The render one looks awesome 👌
I have seen some amazingly good looking renderings of the final production version. The F32 that flew was an early proof of concept demonstrator.
Or as some people at Boeing call it: The Oogie Boogie."
Look at it from the front and you'll know why.
You may call it ugly but it has the smile of a fresh water fish and I love it.
Yes!! The Production model of the X-32 looked TREMENDOUSLY BETTER then the test models! It's almost night & day! The intakes became angular & compact, wings more contemporary