In the past, the Boeing X-32 and Lockheed Martin X-35 engaged in a fierce competition for the coveted title of the next Joint Strike Fighter. Ultimately, history recorded Boeing’s defeat, with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 emerging as the chosen aircraft. Nevertheless, the intense rivalry between the X-32 and X-35 potentially contributed to enhancing the design and performance of the formidable F-35 Lightning II.
In times past, the Boeing X-32 and Lockheed Martin X-35 engaged in a fierce competition for the coveted role of the next Joint Strike Fighter. History documents Boeing’s defeat, conceding victory to the Lockheed Martin F-35. Nevertheless, the spirited rivalry between these two aircraft may have played a pivotal role in refining the design and enhancing the performance of the F-35 Lightning II.
Should Boeing X-32 Have Made Two Prototypes?
Boeing presented two demonstrators, namely the X-32A and the X-32B, both taking flight in 2000 and 2001 through an extensive series of over 140 test flights. These demonstrations showcased impressive capabilities, including a top speed of MACH 1.6, in-flight refueling proficiency, and operations involving a side weapons bay capable of housing six air-to-air missiles. Initially sporting a delta wing, the X-32 transitioned to a planned conventional wing design for the final F-32, although this modification, existing only on paper and in mock-ups, later proved to be a setback for the Boeing demonstrators in the competition.
Despite the challenges, Boeing had its opportunity to shine.
Enhancements were made to the nose design and cockpit canopy, contributing to the overall improvements in the Boeing X-32. The X-32B demonstrated proficiency in short take-off and vertical landing capabilities, catering to specific operational needs, while the X-32A showcased conventional take-off and landing capabilities and displayed attributes relevant to carrier approach flights for naval applications. Notably, both prototypes featured a “chin inlet” design aimed at improving speed and providing increased airflow to the turbine, ultimately enhancing maneuverability at high angles of attack. The X-32 prototypes presented to the Department of Defense early in the process signaled Boeing’s readiness for production, emphasizing the model’s potential for streamlined manufacturing due to its less complex design.
Lockheed Had Only One Prototype
In contrast, the lone Lockheed Martin demonstrator possessed the versatility to execute both conventional take-off and landing as well as vertical take-off and landing—an essential capability for the competitive landscape between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. While Boeing assured that the final F-32 would be engineered to perform both types of take-offs and landings, Lockheed Martin’s X-35 held a strategic advantage by already demonstrating proficiency in dual take-off and landing capabilities. This aspect played a pivotal role in the dynamics of the competition between the two aerospace giants.
Weighing in at 50,000 pounds, both the X-32A and X-32B faced concerns within the Department of Defense (DOD) regarding their thrust capabilities in comparison to the X-35. Boeing encountered delays in finalizing the wing design, contributing to a perceived lag in the competition. The DOD expressed apprehensions about the efficiency of utilizing two prototypes for Boeing, in contrast to Lockheed Martin’s singular X-35 demonstrator, which added a layer of complexity to Boeing’s approach.
Boeing Went Out Quietly After the Loss
In the end, Boeing experienced defeat in the competition, refraining from legal action against the Department of Defense (DOD) for perceived unfair competition and accepting the decision with limited resistance. The defense contractor acknowledged redirecting the research and development insights gained from the X-32A and X-32B towards enhancing the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet program. Additionally, the stealth attributes derived from the X-32 models played a role in the development of the X-45A Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle demonstrator concept.