Key Points and Summary – The Boeing X-32 is famous for being one of the “ugliest” fighter jets ever designed, often compared to a flying fish with its gaping chin-mounted air intake.
-It was Boeing’s entry in the massive Joint Strike Fighter competition but ultimately lost to the X-35 prototype, which became the F-35 Lightning II.
-While its looks were certainly unconventional, the author argues its failure wasn’t about aesthetics.
-The X-32 was plagued by significant performance issues, most notably an overheating and unreliable vertical landing (STOVL) system, making the rival X-35 the clear and superior choice.
The Boeing X-32 Was Not Pretty
Take a look at the Boeing X-32 to see just how ugly an airplane can be.
We love speed and performance when highlighting fighter jets around the world. Outright maneuverability and dogfighting agility are top of mind when we analyze a warplane. But sometimes aesthetics just jump out at you—whether an airplane is easy on the eyes or a sight that is less than beautiful.
Let’s take a closer look at the Boeing X-32, a fighter that is just plain “ugly.” The jet was a technology demonstrator entry that lost out to the Lockheed Martin X-35 during the Joint Strike Fighter competition. This winning model later became the F-35 Lightning II.
Beauty Sometimes Takes a Back Seat to Performance Requirements
Fighter design is tricky. Sometimes, sleek looks just can’t overcome the laws of physics and aerodynamics. The X-32 was intended for advanced maneuvers and combat ability, but the final design just wasn’t pretty.
Is This a Flying Bass?
The X-32’s air intake is an aesthetic problem. The front of the airplane resembles a large bass fish, its mouth hanging open. This makes it into a stubby-looking warplane. It wasn’t sleek-looking and appeared cut off squarely without a rounded nose that you would expect on fast fighter jets.
The fuselage is also broad, low-set, and chunky. This creates an unpleasant mental image. The X-32 has a delta-wing that is good for performance but not aesthetically pleasing.
The Joint Strike Fighter Competition
Boeing made two prototypes: the X-32A and X-32B for the Joint Strike Fighter program. These have carried out more than 140 test flights. They had a decent, if not incredible, speed of MACH 1.6. The design only enabled them to carry six air-to-air missiles. The prototypes had chin inlets that made the airplane more agile. Unfortunately, they weighed at least 50,000 pounds (heavier than the X-35), which negatively impacted speed and maneuverability. Lockheed made just one demonstrator.
Fly, Wage War, Turn Around, and Fly Again
Boeing thought that the X-32s would be cheaper to produce and have easier maintenance requirements. They wanted the X-32 to turn around fast after a mission, conduct an after-action review, and then take to the skies again quickly. This is a trait that the Israeli F-35I and Sweden’s JAS 39 Gripen have, and it is a massive advantage in combat. Plus, with simpler maintenance, ground crews wouldn’t have to be trained as much, and the eventual active-duty airplane would require less money to keep in the air.
The X-32 would have “direct vertical thrust” with a single Pratt & Whitney JSF F119-PW-614 engine that should have given the airplane enviable climbing ability and a high thrust-to-weight ratio. The powerplant enabled a large weapons payload of 15,000 pounds.
The X-32 was meant to have short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) capability. That was a Department of Defense requirement. However, when executing STOVL, the engine would overheat, which posed a problem for the final evaluation. There was more maintenance than needed on the STOVL thrusters, requiring additional dollars per flight hour. So much for the lighter maintenance needs that I outlined above.
It Tried to Mimic the Super Hornet
The Boeing entry also did not undergo complicated testing for high-G maneuvers at maximum speed. However, the X-32 did not have bad handling, and test pilots were able to put the airplane through its paces during various evaluation flights. The X-32 could best be compared to the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet.
The Lockheed entry looked much better than the X-32. The X-35 had a more traditional appearance. There was no question about which airplane would win a beauty contest.
Boeing was stung after not being chosen. Did designers and engineers have regrets about the looks of the X-32? That is difficult to determine. Sometimes designers want to make an unforgettable impression on the test and evaluation personnel. The X-32 was supposed to deliver on performance, but the STOVL problems persisted.
Looks are not everything, of course. Lockheed’s model was graded higher for its overall lack of deal-killing issues. On the other hand, the X-32 was meant to be manufactured cheaply in less time. The one-piece carbon fiber delta-wing was going to be easier to mass-produce. This would have been an advantage since the F-35 had so many cost overruns and schedule slips while in development. But it was not to be.
The X-32 also billed itself as fuel-efficient, which would improve range, speed, and agility, and be another way to cut costs. The lower drag of the delta-wing enabled the X-32 to carry 20,000 pounds of fuel.
It turned out that the airplane’s ugly chin was meant to improve the STOVL feature, but that was its downfall. It needed to be better than the AV-8B Harrier II, but the X-32 failed in this respect. Yes, it was nothing glamorous, but that wasn’t the main reason the X-32 was passed over. The X-35 did a better job at vertical take-off and landing. The lack of high speed for the X-32 would have been a deal-breaker for me, too.
We Visited the X-32 Stealth Fighter
You can still see both prototypes up close and personal. The X-32A is on display at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. The X-32B is on display at the Patuxent River Naval Air Museum. With a visit, you can then determine just how ugly these two prototypes are.
We visited the plane out in Dayton over two days last month, and the picture above was taken during that visit. You decide.
About the Author: Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
Military Affairs
China’s Stealth Air Force Has 1 Mission
