In my opinion, this would have made a much better choice for the joint strike fighter. Far less expensive, far simpler. We wouldn't be in the mess we're in with the F-35 now. And it's better-looking.
We needed a modern version of the A-6 for a strike fighter. A dump truck, not a Ferrari. What a mess.
I'm sure Boeing would have found a way to make a soup sandwich of it and milk it for a few billion in over-runs too.
That Boeing design just flat fell short on too many areas. It was simpler, yes, but it was also nearly entirely wrong... or poorly thought out. I'm not Lockheed fan-boy, but when there are only two choices and one is just a total WTF moment, the other will win.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...lane-found-in-the-Sahara-Desert-in-Egypt.html Kitty Hawk found in teh desert Hay Ewe
Why not just update the F-4 with increased payload and some stealth trickery? It'd be the best of both worlds.
When did Boeing make their last production single seat fighter? P-26? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-26_Peashooter NFE
The X-32 had vertical landing capability and stealth characteristics. Perfect dumptruck of a strike fighter.
What exactly was wrong with it? I would much prefer the lift arrangement...more like the proven Harrier. They had flying prototypes that proved to be satisfactory.
Which would have been great if the specs were just for a Harrier replacement. But it was for an "everything with an F or A prefix designator" replacement. In that the X-32 had no chance.
There is a great NOVA episode called the battle of the x planes. Im sure you can wathc the video on the PBS website. Gunner45
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QiYykW268qQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>