Bring back the X-32 as a low risk option to the F-35?
Tailor it to the down and dirty missions that you don't want to risk the F-35 in such as a real Close Air Support Platform, a real littoral patrol fighter and a real continental defense fighter?
I don't know but ELP Blog takes a look. Check him out here.
X-32 was as flawed as X35, without VSTOL variant both planes would look considerably different
ReplyDeleteYup. The JSF series design is optimized for (compromised by?) STOVL requirements.
DeleteBelieve it or not, the X-35 was the better of the two. Boeing couldn't even decide what kind of wings to put on the X-32. Mixing stealth, air-superiority, STOVL, etc, etc, is a fool's errand. The concept itself is flawed. Let it die.
ReplyDeleteIt would have been better to split the program into two parts:
The first, a stealthy, supersonic multirole replacement for the F-16 and and F-18. Minor differences to allow for sturdier landing gear, etc.
The second, a more rugged, close-air support replacement for the AV-8 and A-10. Consider ditching the STOVL requirement in favor of a much more feasible STOL requirement. Stealthiness and supersonic capability would be a plus, but not a requirement.
Since Boeing is the partner of Saab T-X bid, Boeing could easily do a fighter version of the T-X jet, be it a Gripen T-X or a Gripen derivative with wing-tail set up as I understand it to be. This would T-X fighter jet would also replace the national guard F-16s.
ReplyDeleteThere is no need to bring back the X-32.
If only!
DeleteBoeing and Saab could really corner the low-end fighter market with such a beast.
X-32 is undeveloped, thus it is years behind the F-35 series. The X-32 program however wasn't a total loss - some of its avionics concepts found their way into the Super Hornet. Another point is the design is 20 years old now - better to start a clean sheet design of a bigger aircraft - with 2 engines that can actually fit through AOE hatches and into COD aircraft. AKA F/A-XX.
ReplyDeleteBring back the A-6 Intruders and stop dancing around, proven airframe, manageable cost, and a solid payload. Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history!
ReplyDeleteIf the pentagon cancels the F-35 what happens to the money already spent on it? Is it worth wasting that money?
ReplyDeleteA large amount of money in the F-35 problems is sunk cost on system and software that can just as easily be used in other programs. The airframes themselves are of minimal value in comparison.
DeleteSunk cost. Money already spent should never influence future purchasing decisions. Econ 101.
ReplyDeleteHis F-32 concept has no radar...
ReplyDeleteIt would be deader than a doornail in ANY sales attempt.
ya know you just highlighted one of the frustrating things about blogging and putting ideas out there.
Deleteinstead of looking at the entire concept and trying to determine whether or not its workable or makes sense, people tend to nitpick apart the concept.
thats infuriating.
is the idea worth a looksee if the thing had radar? is the concept good? thats what you should have asked instead of making that comment.
Ok, here goes attempt #2.
DeleteThe biggest issues with the X-32 is that it hasn't been developed since 2001. Originally, it's wing was supposed to be a massive piece of carbon fiber to be cranked out for cheap. Instead, during fabrication, that wing kept bubbling and failing. So Boeing has to use a stop-gap metal one on the X-32. So it has flaws from conception.
ELP's idea is noble; to make a super cheap attack jet. He wants a super simple delta winged jet with no real A2A capability that essentially is ground attack only.
However, his airframe is completely unproven. If he REALLY wants a new attack jet, he should be lobbying for an A-10 production restart. However, the USAF hates the A-10, and most foreign air forces do not want a fighter that the USAF has rejected, or fund an unproven design that may end up being a failure.
Plus, in this day and age, if a jet isn't multirole, it is Dead on Arrival. Even the Super Toucano can do light CAS, pilot training, surveillance, and even some air-interdiction, as along as the other plane is slower.
Even if the concept was sound, no one will buy a single mission attack jet.
An interesting historical side note. LM conned the government in that it had proved weapons bays on the F-22 and this was worth risk-reduction on for the X-35. The X-35 had no weapons bays. Or as later Mr B. test pilot of the AA-1 stated about weapons bays..."holes are heavy". Thus, X-35 went through the competition without the weight penalty of weapons bays. Even if they would later be nothing like F-22 weapons bays. A rigged competition. In any event, today, the JSF JORD is long obsolete.
ReplyDeleteAs a side note. Boeing has more experience in actually building and delivering working aircraft. Something the LM F-35 team can't even see on the horizon.
ReplyDeleteI think you mean McDonald-Douglas, where 90% of Boeing's military experience was purchased :)
DeletePre M-D buyout, Boeing's last fighter was the Peashooter in the 1930s.
I suspect that by removing the STOVL version, this would be a viable fighter programme, an alternative to the F-35 series. And the US really shouldn't put everything into one fighter.
ReplyDelete