The reason the X-32 wasn’t chosen was because it couldn’t meet all of the mission requirements. Period. It DID NOT meet the STOVL requirements, it suffered from hot gas reingestion (That means the intake sucks back in the hot lift thrust which drops the thrust enough to cause the engine to stop producing much thrust). It also never landed at full up weight. The X-35 did.

The X-32 did have alot of interesting and innovative design features. But ultimately, it failed. Now part of it was because Lockheed had an advantage thoughout the entire competition. Originally, the JSF program was just a demonstrator/design study program to see how well a shaft driven lift fan system would perform against a “bleed air” driven lift fan system (Northrop was directed to work on that version). Most engineers expected the shaft driven system to perform the best, but it was just a design study. However, about halfway through, the government decided to make it a production contract instead of just a demonstrator. This left Northrop scrambling to try and find a lift concept that would work, since they knew the air driven lift fan system was a bust. So they went to a lift/main engine system like the Yak series aircraft, because they knew they couldn’t catch up to Lockheed on the shaft driven system. Then Boeing worked their way into the competetion with their direct lift system. Northrop lost out in the design study competetion based on their propulsion system for the STOVL variant.

As for the Boeing vs Lockheed systems, most expected Lockheed to win if the shaft driven system worked. If it didn’t, then it would have been Boeings by default. There were some early gearbox problems, but those were worked out. So it was basically Lockheeds to lose.

I liked the Boeing design for the one piece wing. Looks wise, it reminded me of the 50’s Saunders Roe designs. Portly, yet cool. Also, I should point out that I think the classified stealthy STOVL/VTOL aircraft refered to as “Senior Citizen”, Advanced Tactical Transport may also use a shaft driven lift system. But that’s just based on rumor and some design studies carried out by the USAF.

Anyway, usually when new technology is developed by government funds, the knowledge is then passed on to all participants to use when a “construction” requirement comes up. That didn’t happen this time. So basically, the government was favoring Lockheed, since the technology wasn’t developed using only private funds.

Having said that, it doesn’t mean Lockheed would have lost. I’m just pointing out some of what went on, which I think was a result of Lockheeds political lobbying prowess more than anything alse (As with the ATF competition as well).

It would be highly unfeasible, because it’s range was far too short (No wing tanks) to be effective, they would probably be quite limited in terms of being able to attach weapons to it and I’m not sure how much room the FCS took up, but they would then also have to make room for the weapons sytem, since, IIRC, the FCS system was where the guns used to be in the F-5.

Reasons such as this is precisely the reason aircraft such as the X-29 are simply considered demonstrators, as opposed to the S-37 which was more prototype than demonstrator. The same goes for the X-31. Their purpose, western demonstrators, are simply to demonstrate the feasibility of a new technology, devoid of how they would be applied to fulfill a specific mission. In fact, more often than not, we prefer to modify existing aircraft to a minimum to a prove a technology if we have to, like the STOL F-15 and the F-16 with the modified JSF inlet which respectively flew before the ATF and JSF did.

My Guess is the PAK-FA will look similar to the T-50 drawing. A conventionally tailed aircraft has control advantages over a canard design, so I doubt they will use a canard, unless it is a three surface design like the Su-35. Many countries are using canards to make a smaller aircraft for the given mission, which lowers airframe cost. However, large airframes tend to be better than small ones, in terms of the lifetime service, because it allows more growth potential.

Also, by it’s very nature, the PAK-FA has to be large, if it is going to take on the Raptor. It’s simply a function of the mission statement. Partly due to the need for an internal missle bay, which isn’t just for stealth, but lowers overall drag compared to an aircraft with external stores, but increases weight. The size is also dictated by the fuel fraction required for the supercruise mission.

FYI,
The first pick is a picture of “kitbashing.” Anyone who has built model airplanes should be familiar with the concept of combining two model kits to make something new. That first pic is just a kitbash between a Mirage 2000 forward fuselage (I am assuming 1/48) and an F-111 from the rear cockpit bulkhead back (I am assuming 1/72 scale). The canards could have been scratch built or off of a drop tank, etc.

The “Stealth” bomber pic is probably just a picture by a graphic artist describing a Chinese Bomber Program. I remember all of the “artists concpets” of the B-2 that came out before anything about the B-2 was known, except that it was reportedly a flying wing.

Of course, it could “really” just be Chinese dis-information for the gullible. Apparently it’s been quite successful…lol ; )

Not to mention, it isn’t just another Jug, it’s a Razorback. I think you need this plane, OD. Good luck! 🙂

From the Dreamland Resort forum, regarding the honoring of test pilots of former and current classified programs…

The Flight Test Historical Foundation’s “Gathering of Eagles” banquet honored six participants in three once classified programs that took place at Groom Lake: HAVE BLUE, TACIT BLUE, and Bird of Prey. It also provided a limited glimpse into as yet unrevealed black programs.

The guest list included a large number of former Groom Lake personnel (military and civilian). There were pilots, engineers, technicians, program managers, and two former base commanders (one of whom is currently involved with range support for the area).

Honorees included Keith Beswick (M/D-21 LCO, HAVE BLUE FTE, and Lockheed director of flight test for U-2, SR-71, F-117A, F-22, and “several other classified programs.”), Rudy Haug (primary pilot for Bird of Prey), Ken Dyson (Red Hats and HAVE BLUE pilot), **** Thomas (primary pilot for TACIT BLUE), Doug Benjamin (USAF pilot for Bird of Prey and “flew on and commanded a variety of classified programs”), and Dan Vanderhorst (“lead pilot on seven classified aircraft to date,” presumably including TACIT BLUE).

In his career, Vanderhorst has conducted many of his flights in “one-of-a-kind technology demonstrator aircraft.” He has flown such milestone missions as first flight with modified landing gear, first flight with internal bays installed, first in-flight opening of weapon bay doors, and initial weapon separation tests. His biography notes cryptically that “he holds the altitude record in this aircraft.”

“Since Vanderhorst has made his career in the cockpit of so many classified aircraft, there is not much we can say about him, on the record. In letters of recommendation, it is noted by his superior officers that his work has been outstanding and will probably never be recognized by the public.”

He was unable to attend the “Gathering of Eagles” because he is currently working on a classified program.

That was just a design study. Design studies are done all the time when new technolgies present themselves to try and determine how much, if any, performance gains can be made by applying the new technology.