Boeing JAST / JSF / X-32 /PWSC F-32 projects

[Boomerang503]

Does anyone know if there are any diagrams showing the weapons bays and what kind of possible loadouts a production -32 could've carried?

 

[flateric]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-jast-jsf-x-32-projects.2121/post-18033

 

[flateric]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/clrny7

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/clrny7/x32_pwsc/

 

[Archibald]

Is that a real mockup from 20 years ago or just Reddit CGI ?

 

[flateric]

Real mockup

 

[Rhinocrates]

Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know

John Keats, 'Ode on a Grecian Urn'

In engineering terms, I like to think, 'If it works, it's beautiful, and if you can't see that, adjust your ideas of beauty.' However this didn't work.

 

[flateric]

AFAIR, port side had representative weapons bay that was opened at some shows where F-32 PWSC mockup (built by Advanced Technologies Inc.) was promoted, like FIA'2000

 

[flateric]

Beast mode

 

[flateric]

Gallery

Note weapons bay doors configuration

 

[VTOLicious]

Gallery

Note weapons bay doors configuration

Hmm, wouldn't the missile eject into the lower door?

 

[SteveO]

I think the AMRAAM stations were rail launchers if I remember correctly?

Mockup bay pics here https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-jast-jsf-x-32-projects.2121/page-4#post-130195

Maybe it ejected the AMRAAM diagonally?

 

[flateric]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdRPXJyoqIk

 

[SteveO]

Actually it looks like the AMRAAM could have been ejected out the lower bay door without opening the upper bay door. The swing out arm would have made internal carriage of Brimstone missiles a lot easier!

I get the feeling I’ve probably said all this before, can’t resist a X-32 topic

 

[VTOLicious]

I think the AMRAAM stations were rail launchers if I remember correctly?

Mockup bay pics here https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-jast-jsf-x-32-projects.2121/page-4#post-130195

Maybe it ejected the AMRAAM diagonally?

Thx for the link! Interesting layout!

As depicted the missile would be ejected straight down. However, the clearance of the fins to the surrounding structure appears also really tight for this AMRAAM to be rail launched.
There may be a secondary mechanism that swings the missile to the side or lowers it before launch (?).

 

[VTOLicious]

Actually it looks like the AMRAAM could have been ejected out the lower bay door without opening the upper bay door.

Ah ok, that makes sense. Thx for the hint!

 

[flateric]

...

 

[njiiaf]

I wonder if they would have chosen the touchscreen + HUD-less combo too.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[flateric]

Actually it looks like the AMRAAM could have been ejected out the lower bay door without opening the upper bay door.

Exactly so

 

[flateric]

on the road to PWSC

 

[raptor82]

...

This HMD prototype looks a lot like a Viper IV (Viper VISTA).

 

[flateric]

Boeing Positions for JSF - Avionics International

Reducing avionics system development risk is key to winning the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) competition. So Boeing is honing its entry by using full mission simulations to provide instant updates, […]

www.aviationtoday.com

 

[flateric]

Boeing JSF :: Rochester Avionic Archives

rochesteravionicarchives.co.uk

 

[flateric]

Auctria

event.auctria.com

 

[flateric]

...

 

[fightingirish]

"Monica is getting a new spray-on tan and lipstick."
During the recent restoration step at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, the Boeing X-32A was given a new paint coating.
Sources:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1730911048553603374

View: https://twitter.com/AFmuseum/status/1730911048553603374?t=toEEZYClhbgwzGD0Ye0Z4w&s=19

Boeing X-32A

This aircraft is on public display in the R&D gallery (May 28, 2024)The Boeing X-32 was a multi-purpose jet fighter in the Joint Strike Fighter contest. It lost to the Lockheed Martin X-35

www.nationalmuseum.af.mil

 

[FighterJock]

Good to see the X-32A gettting a fresh coat of paint and being taken care of at the Airforce museum. I had originally thought that it had gone to the Boneyard to be forgotten.

 

[fightingirish]

"Monica is getting a new spray-on tan and lipstick."
During the recent restoration step at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, the Boeing X-32A was given a new paint coating.
Sources:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1730911048553603374

View: https://twitter.com/AFmuseum/status/1730911048553603374?t=toEEZYClhbgwzGD0Ye0Z4w&s=19

Boeing X-32A

This aircraft is on public display in the R&D gallery (May 28, 2024)The Boeing X-32 was a multi-purpose jet fighter in the Joint Strike Fighter contest. It lost to the Lockheed Martin X-35

www.nationalmuseum.af.mil

Maybe some forum member might personally know the pilot Fred Knox and/or the other people from the test and engineering crew mentioned in this new video.
Video:

View: https://youtu.be/20QyP2lTOAM?si=Yftf3wUSVMY9mvpB

https://youtu.be/20QyP2lTOAM?si=Yftf3wUSVMY9mvpB

Boeing X-32 Decals During Restoration-NMUSAF
The decal application process for the Boeing X-32A restoration is finished, and we're excited to showcase a glimpse of the completed decals. #restoration #avgeek
The Boeing X-32 was a multi-purpose jet fighter in the Joint Strike Fighter contest. It lost to the Lockheed Martin X-35 demonstrator, which was further developed into the F-35 Lightning II. In September 2000 the X-32A made its first flight, and it made a total of 66 flights during four months of testing. The flights demonstrated the aircraft's handling qualities for inflight refueling, weapons bay operations and supersonic flight. The aircraft was moved to the National Museum of the United States Air Force in 2005.

 

[flateric]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1733218603695034660

View: https://twitter.com/AFmuseum/status/1733218603695034660

 

[fightingirish]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1733218603695034660

View: https://twitter.com/AFmuseum/status/1733218603695034660

Here the next batch of pictures showing the restored Boeing X-32A.

Another fantastic restoration is in the books for our top notch team!!! More photos and videos of the Boeing X-32 coming soon.

Source (X fka Twitter):

https://x.com/AFmuseum/status/1733894195318792260?s=20

https://twitter.com/x/status/1733128557348483372

View: https://twitter.com/AFmuseum/status/1733128557348483372
Rollout video and photos of the completed three month restoration and photos prior to the restoration process here at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force in Dayton Ohio.

View: https://youtu.be/Zm5WOEYiTdw?si=Y4bBAxfsJIOXuFKX

Boeing X-32A Video/Photo Shoot (NMUSAF Dec 2023)
The Boeing X-32 was a multi-purpose jet fighter in the Joint Strike Fighter contest. It lost to the Lockheed Martin X-35 demonstrator, which was further developed into the F-35 Lightning II. In September 2000 the X-32A made its first flight, and it made a total of 66 flights during four months of testing. The flights demonstrated the aircraft's handling qualities for inflight refueling, weapons bay operations and supersonic flight. The aircraft was moved to the National Museum of the United States Air Force in 2005.

 

[Elysium]

I dislike the version with the horizontal tail - it reduces the wing volume and area, while increasing the overall deck floorplan of the aircraft. It seems like a compromise detracting from the original vision.

I have a couple of questions about this aircraft:

• How stealthy would it have been? It has pretty much its entire engine face exposed due to how the design works. Could it have had comparable LO characteristics to the 35?
• Did the design gain those horizontal stabilizers because of the carrier landing requirement? Was it necessary? The design had TVC and those giant control surfaces on the back of the wing, did it need h-stabs to do a carrier takeoff and landing?
• Did the production version not have leading edge slats?
• Considering the design needs very little hardware to do VSTOL (just a butterfly valve, a couple of doors and a couple of secondary exhaust ports), would it have been viable to delete the C variant and make the Navy use the VSTOL version

 

[flateric]

"I'm too lazy to read, I want fast answers"

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1785400483625964028

View: https://twitter.com/the_engi_nerd/status/1785400483625964028

 

[Purpletrouble]

I dislike the version with the horizontal tail - it reduces the wing volume and area, while increasing the overall deck floorplan of the aircraft. It seems like a compromise detracting from the original vision.

Except otherwise the aircraft lacks sufficient stability and control… note how F-35 didnt need that kind of re-design because they got it right the first time.

I have a couple of questions about this aircraft:

• How stealthy would it have been? It has pretty much its entire engine face exposed due to how the design works. Could it have had comparable LO characteristics to the 35?

No. It was a joke airplane. Boeing only got as far as they did because no-one had confidence LM could build it to cost/time (which proved prescient) and Boeing had a good reputation for that (well, kinda). The answer is no, because that had fallen by the wayside in an increasingly desperate effort to make the thing work.

• Did the design gain those horizontal stabilizers because of the carrier landing requirement? Was it necessary? The design had TVC and those giant control surfaces on the back of the wing, did it need h-stabs to do a carrier takeoff and landing?
• Did the production version not have leading edge slats?
• Considering the design needs very little hardware to do VSTOL (just a butterfly valve, a couple of doors and a couple of secondary exhaust ports), would it have been viable to delete the C variant and make the Navy use the VSTOL version

What would have happened is the entire thing would have been cancelled because it was so compromised for STOVL, yet couldnt even do STOVL very well. There is no chance the USAF or USN would have allowed this to mess to persist and risk getting horribly compromised A/C aircraft.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I've never heard that the original wing design lacked stability and control. It wasn't ideal for (non-STOVL) carrier operation, but that doesn't mean it flew poorly. Years earlier Lockheed had decided to switch to a more conventional tail layout when a CATOBAR variant became a requirement of the program. Boeing must have thought they could pull it off with the same configuration they started with, but it didn't work out to the Navy's satisfaction, hence the late redesign.

The direct lift method would be great if it worked out, but I think there were trying to do too much with it. JSF had to have VLO stealth (which requires internal weapons carriage), a respectable amount of internal fuel, and far better sensors than put on any Harrier variant. Without some major leap in turbofan performance, I don't think you could realistically have hoped to ever achieve that without that added thrust from a lift-fan or lift-jet.

The MDD design seemed to have been considered the weakest contender in the STOVL area, but if nothing else it would have likely still worked, albeit with all of the issues that comes with having the separate lift-jet.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Except otherwise the aircraft lacks sufficient stability and control… note how F-35 didnt need that kind of re-design because they got it right the first time.

The USN also changed their carrier approach specs after Boeing had frozen the design for the X32 as the big delta under the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF) program.

IIRC, LockMart hadn't frozen their design until after the carrier approach specs changed.

What would have happened is the entire thing would have been cancelled because it was so compromised for STOVL, yet couldnt even do STOVL very well. There is no chance the USAF or USN would have allowed this to mess to persist and risk getting horribly compromised A/C aircraft.

Boeing's design was seen as relatively simple and therefore low risk. Yes, it did need a really big engine for lift (~40klbs dry thrust), since it was balancing on a pair of Harrier nozzles. Yes, it was also pretty chunky because direct lift needs the engine at or ahead of CG so the exhaust nozzles are at CG and the weapons bays more or less on CG.

LockMart's LiftFan needed a lot more development work to get the clutch right. IIRC they used some tech from Top Fuel dragsters to get it to relatively slowly lock up. And even then we've seen some planes lost due to a LiftFan failure-to-engage.

 

[Sundog]

Except otherwise the aircraft lacks sufficient stability and control… note how F-35 didnt need that kind of re-design because they got it right the first time.

No. It was a joke airplane. Boeing only got as far as they did because no-one had confidence LM could build it to cost/time (which proved prescient) and Boeing had a good reputation for that (well, kinda). The answer is no, because that had fallen by the wayside in an increasingly desperate effort to make the thing work.

What would have happened is the entire thing would have been cancelled because it was so compromised for STOVL, yet couldnt even do STOVL very well. There is no chance the USAF or USN would have allowed this to mess to persist and risk getting horribly compromised A/C aircraft.

The redesign of the X-32 didn't have anything to do with problems with stability. It had to do with meeting the Cl required for the carrier approach once their, the Navies, requirements changed. Otherwise, he X-32 was faster and more maneuverable than the X-35. STOVL has always been hard especially for the mission being pushed for JSF. However, Boeing always knew that if LM got the lift fan to work they couldn't compete in the STOVL realm. LM got the lift fan to work and that was that.

 

[Scott Kenny]

However, Boeing always knew that if LM got the lift fan to work they couldn't compete in the STOVL realm. LM got the lift fan to work and that was that.

Really put the nails in the coffin when LM took off vertically, went supersonic, and then landed at Edwards... a freaking repositioning flight.

When Boeing had never demonstrated both supersonic flight and VTOL in the same flight due to the intake lip issue.

 

[Purpletrouble]

Really put the nails in the coffin when LM took off vertically, went supersonic, and then landed at Edwards... a freaking repositioning flight.

When Boeing had never demonstrated both supersonic flight and VTOL in the same flight due to the intake lip issue.

X-32 was a dog of an aircraft from the start, couldn’t do anything well and was never going to work in any of the variants. They only got it to do any V by stripping half the jet off it and a lightweight structure with no life.

Hopelessly flawed concept from the out, but then Boeing knew little and were too arrogant to listen and learn even when they had Macair people available. I can only assume they originally thought the CTOL/CV aspects would be split off to seperate programs and they had something marginally better than a Harrier to replace those, except it wasn’t even that. Speaks to Boeing’s high reputation for cost/time in those days that they got where they did, and LM’s poor one, which vindicated!

Macair’s story was sad, they really lost when earlier they got the gas driven lift fan R&D contract and LM the shaft. Supposedly all open and sharing info at that point but that didn’t really happen and of course LM had started to build experience with the high risk bit. Gas driven a dead end owing to volume reqd as were other concepts. SDLF really is a good solution in terms of thrust/volume and critically HGI, although even then the LF’s orientation had distortion issues hence the later shift to the barn door which is very draggy for a STO.

Hence MDD/BAe/Northrop, who given their experience anyone would otherwise have bet on, pushed into their lift engine solution. It was at least viable in that as with LM/35 it was laid out sensibly, main engine to rear etc. Perhaps if JSF had come apart to seperate projects that would have been a starting point for CV/CTOL, although up against LM’s longstanding ideas for a small F-22 which F-35 inherited much of. Oh and MDD didnt exist soon after anyway.

 

[Scott Kenny]

X-32 was a dog of an aircraft from the start, couldn’t do anything well and was never going to work in any of the variants. They only got it to do any V by stripping half the jet off it and a lightweight structure with no life.

Funny, the X32 had a weapons bay while the X35 didn't.