As the program was already progressing at full speed when a revised United States Navy requirement forced the Boeing team to revise the wing assemblies of their prototypes. The USN sought a revised fighter design with improved agility and broader ordnance capabilities to which Boeing engineers, much to their chagrin, obliged. The X-32 emerged with more conventional swept-back wing assemblies as well as horizontal tailplanes no installed at the rear. This design alteration would go on to prove one of the damning events for the X-32 project. The other issue lay in the Boeing team's decision to produce two separate prototypes to fulfill the conventional take-off and landing and VTOL evaluations. Lockheed, on the other hand, managed to develop a single prototype to showcase both actions which certainly helped its chances of winning.
First flight of the Boeing X-32 prototype occurred on September 18th, 2000 with a successful conventional take-off and landing. The VTOL test then followed through the second prototype on March 29th, 2001. The Pratt & Whitney engine allowed for a top speed of Mach 1.6 (1,200 miles per hour) while range was 1,574 kilometers in the X-32's conventional take-off and landing arrangement. The VTOL version - primarily for use off space-strapped carrier decks - showcased a range of 1,112 kilometers. Flight testing would end in July of 2001.
Proposed armament included an internal 20mm M61A2 series cannon. All principle ordnance would have been shielded within internal weapons bays to either side of the fuselage. This would house a possible mix of air-to-air missiles as well as the latest in guided bombs. The X-32 also could be modified to accept externally-mounted ordnance as optional (this to include plumbing for external fuel tanks increasing operational ranges). The proposed international version of the production X-32 would have featured the 27mm Mauser BK-27 series internal cannon and comparable missiles/guided bombs.
After evaluation of both systems, the Lockheed design was selected as the winner, dooming the X-32. The primary deciding factor ultimately came from Lockheed's use of a "shaft-driven" lift fan as opposed to Boeing's thrust vectoring "direct-lift" system. While more costly and unproven, the Lockheed design initiative prevailed over Boeing's "safer" endeavor. The two X-32 prototypes were then handed down to museums as showpieces while some systems devised during development for the X-32 have gone on to see implementation in Boeing's current stable of US military aircraft - proving that all was not lost.
The X-32A prototype completed 66 flights while the X-32B prototype managed 78 flights.
Content ©MilitaryFactory.com; No Reproduction Permitted.