ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
2 August 2006
Reaction score
Yeah, I'm continuing on with the series, only this time with photoshop. My thinking being, since they knew they couldn't compete with LM, wrt the lift fan, I would have argued for greater commonality by making the Naval and Marine version the same and only made them super STOL's. I would have used the lift nozzles to allow it to land in the same or less distance then it uses in a STOL take-off. I know they wouldn't be able to use them off of LHS's then, unless the deck was clear for landing, and it isn't what some of the European nations were looking for, but it would drive the costs down through greater commonality and operationally, I usually see video's of Marine Harriers performing STOL landings, not vertical landings.

Since that design wouldn't be as weight sensitive as it is for the VL version, I could then use the same wing on all three versions and I also moved the cockpit forward for better visibility, a higher fineness ration for better supersonic performance, and, of course, it turns the Bullfrog X-32 into a kick ass looking fighter, IMHO. It's also very similar to one of the earlier X-32 design studies, based on the development charts we've seen of the configuration. I also went with the swept back version of the inlet as shown for the production version.

The USAF variant would be the same, with the exception that it wouldn't have the lift nozzles and it would have a single nose wheel instead of a dual wheel/launch bar nose gear and an internal gun.

As such, they would be;

F-32A USAF variant
F-32B Two seat variant for special missions, such as fast FAC/UCAV control.
F-32C USN/Marine Corps variant.
F-32D Same as "B" except navalized.

Anyway, here's the F-32C. I have the F-32A in the works but I'm working on something else now.


  • F-32C.jpg
    241.2 KB · Views: 536
Very, very nice! You almost make me like this otherwise ungainly design!

Similar threads

Top Bottom