The prototype of the fifth-generation X-32 fighter has been controversial since its inception. His defeat in the JSF competition was a big blow to Boeing.
Strange plane for a strange program
Recently we talked about why the famous "Black Widow" lost the ATF competition to the YF-22 fighter, which formed the basis of the serial "Raptor". Today we are not talking about such an attractive aircraft, which, nevertheless, will forever remain one of the brightest pages of the world aircraft industry.
In September of this year, a fifth-generation fighter based on the Boeing X-32 prototype could have celebrated its birthday. But it won't. In total, two prototypes were produced: after being defeated in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) competition, the project was closed and never returned to it. As we know, the X-35 fighter developed by Lockheed Martin, later reborn as the F-35 Lightning II, won the competition. When Boeing started developing the X-32, its engineers already had experience working on promising stealth fighters behind their backs, although none of them were eventually launched into series. Here you can recall the A / F-X (A-X) fighter, intended for the US Navy.
The X-32 prototype, which took to the skies for the first time on September 18, 2000, looked more strange than the aforementioned machine. And even kind of funny. The reason for this was not only the huge air intake, but also the overall aerodynamic concept. Boeing based it on a very thick delta wing, where the main supply of the aircraft's fuel was located. The vehicle had a V-shaped tail and large internal armament bays. Both are now familiar phenomena for fifth-generation fighters: this approach, as is known, allows the aircraft to remain stealthy.
The X-32 compartments could accommodate four AMRAAM missiles (according to other sources - six) or two missiles and two JDAM bombs. We see something similar on the F-35, although now they intend to significantly expand its arsenal with the latest miniature bombs SDB (Small Diameter Bomb). A notable design feature of the X-32 was the placement of the Pratt & Whithey SE614 engine, which is an evolution of the F119 at the front of the vehicle. Despite the somewhat strange design, the production aircraft had high maneuverability and could theoretically stand up for itself in close air combat.
Despite all the differences between the X-32 and X-35, there are also significant similarities: weight, dimensions, single-engine concept. It is worth noting that, when criticizing the technical solutions applied on these machines, it is worth paying attention first of all to the requirement of the JSF program itself. Do not forget that the US military wanted to "in one fell swoop" replace not only the F-16, A-10 and F / A-18A / D, but also the "Harriers" vertical take-off and landing, actively operated from universal amphibious assault ships. All this initially left an imprint on the technical requirements for the car, making it hostage to unification. Roughly speaking, the plane could not be too long or too heavy. In part, it is believed that, without the requirements for short take-off and vertical landing, the new fifth-generation American fighter would be conceptually similar to the Chinese J-31 or, possibly, the enlarged Japanese ATD-X.
Reasons for the defeat of the X-32
We come to the most interesting thing: why, in fact, the X-32 plane was left out of work? Let's analyze the main positions in order.
Change of technical specifications. It so happened that the US Department of Defense did not immediately decide what the plane should be able to do. The military changed the terms of reference when the prototypes were already under construction. After the changes made, it was no longer possible to achieve the required flight characteristics with the tailless scheme chosen by Boeing, so in case of its victory the company had to build a "new" aircraft, already with a tail unit. Later, the corresponding layout was presented, but the built machine never took off. In this regard, an interesting look at a hypothetical serial X-32 from an artist named Adam Burch, presented relatively recently. The pictured plane boasts not only the tail unit, but also more "polished" features that make it look like the serial F-35. In general, it turned out to be a rather spectacular car, much more beautiful than the prototype presented.
VTOL scheme. It is possible to disagree with this statement, but some experts believe that Lockheed Martin's vertical / short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft scheme turned out to be more successful. If Boeing decided to build "Harrier number two", then on the X-35 they used the scheme "one lift-sustainer engine + one fan." It is known that from 1991 to 1997 Lockheed Martin collaborated with the Yakovlev Design Bureau. It is believed that in the mid-90s, the Yakovlevites, with the permission of the authorities, sold in the United States all the documentation for the Yak-38 and Yak-141, which were partially similar to the X-35 in terms of vertical takeoff and vertical landing. The X-32 aircraft, as we know, does not have a fan, but it has two additional lift-sustainer nozzles in the middle of the fuselage and jet rudders for the GDP. This approach has its drawbacks, because the need to install lifting nozzles in the center of the aircraft imposes serious technical constraints. Both along the length of the engine and along the length of the fighter itself: the jet stream must be brought out to the nozzle located in the tail. On the other hand, competitors also had difficulties: deadweight in flight in the form of a fan never painted the X-35 and its receiver in the form of the F-35B.
The Lockheed Martin Experience. Everyone knows the developer of the famous F-117 Nighthawk - the first full-fledged stealth. We add that by the time the X-35 first flew behind the engineers at Lockheed Martin there was not only experience working on the F-117, but also tremendous knowledge related specifically to stealth fighters: the Raptor is also the brainchild of this company. In turn, Boeing, by the time work began on the X-32, had no experience in creating "invisible" vehicles, although many of the machines it developed were revolutionary for their time. But even at the very start of JSF, it was clear that we were facing almost the main military program of the next century. It was impossible to entrust it to "just anyone", and this circumstance reduced the chances of success for Boeing.
Conservative military leadership. The victory of the X-35 over the X-32 looks natural also because the United States was unlikely to take much risk by choosing in many ways a very unusual Boeing project. As a result, the military chose a more "conservative" aircraft, which in many respects resembled the F-22 "Raptor", the prototype of which, by the way, had previously gained the upper hand over the YF-23. Not least due to a more traditional layout than the competitor's.
In theory, Boeing's developments could be useful when creating other similar machines, in particular, for foreign customers. However, as can be seen from the example of a number of later projects of the fifth generation fighters, their evolution took a different path. In most cases, the new "five" want to see twin-engine and larger than the X-32. It should be noted that most of the countries do not need an inconspicuous VTOL aircraft at all. In fact, no one has such a huge fleet of universal amphibious assault ships as the United States does. The YF-23, on the other hand, may be reborn as an aircraft that will become the next generation of Japanese fighter aircraft in the future. But for this Northrop Grumman will have to withstand tough competition. With the same Lockheed Martin, which has long kept this issue under special control.
