I am tainted I worked for Lockheed back then, but the Navy changed so many things and it was huge changes. When you walked into the old Skunkworks in Burbank there was a sign showing Kelly Johnson's 10 rules for designing and building aircraft ( sign was moved to Palmdale with the move of the Skunkworks), but there was a 11th rule , it was at the bottom of the sign and simple looked like this 11........, Everybody knew the rule, never deal with the Navy they don't know what they want. The F35 proved that rule once again.

Remember when Boeing was ran by engineers instead of accountants? When Boeing merged with M-D, accountants and MBA's started to run the company. Bottom dollar seems to be the mantra.

Would love to see a similar interview from a YF-23 pilot. While I’m pretty confidant we got it right in the X-32 vs X-35 competition, I’m not so sure about th YF-22 vs YF-23.

'Boeing demonstrated more robust manufacturing capabilities' see this is where my experiance actually trumps the test pilots. I have very personal experiences with BOTH companies and I can tell you for a fact that one of the major reasons why Lockheed win the contract was because Lockheed promised and demonstrated better production ability. The Boeing design was centered around state of the art manufacturing that was design around the goal of making the aircraft cheaper to make instead of Lockheed's pov of taking demonstrated manufacturing and upgrading it to make advanced parts cheaply. The opposite. Boeing had a notoriously bad time trying to create the main wing monocoque body as they really wanted it to be in one piece. This would lower assembly costs and expedite production. Lockheed was setting up to use standard and demonstrated use of parts that worked en masses via normal Autoclaves. Boeing's gigantic ass wing for the X32 however would've been the most complicated piece ever cured at that time and the defect rate was ENORMOUS. Now without getting into details, I can tell you that any defect of a rather small margin is a huge problem. Be it voids, de-lamination, whatever it maybe: the defect don't have to be bad enough to ruin safety of flight requirements to be a big issue. The flight performance for military requirements is all at risk because the very materials used in the construction of both of these aircraft contributes MASSIVELY to the Stealth requirements. To put it bluntly, Boeing was ambitious about one thing and one thing only, innovating for cheap production. The performance of their product isn't always at the type. I worked at Boeing. I can promise that (though the guys at Phantom Works are damned good, at least they care). Boeing tried to make the win by saying 'look we can actually make it cheap' and it cost them. Lockheed was literally producing the F-22 using systems that would translate well into the F-35s needs - stealth focused composites and materials that are readily manufactured at a low failure rate. Lockheed simply had better planning over all. A lot of that really leans on the experience with the F-16s still in production, repressing those tools to keep costs low as well as leveraging advantages gained from F-22 production, and matching that with an aircraft that was more conventional and this fit the factory setting way better than the X-32 ever did. A hard disagree on that comment from the Pilot on that one. Boeing did not demonstrate better production capabilities, for sure. I've seen both. I can vouch for both. Lockheed's 'low risk high reward' was definitely better suited on production.

It seems like you could have done a 1 hour interview with Rowdy and still only scratched the surface of the insights and anecdotes he had from his time as the chief X-32 test pilot. A very interesting and engaging guest. One thing I’d be interesting in learning about are the lessons gleaned from the extremely complicated and drawn out software development process and how much it contributed to the cost of the F-35 program. Another obstacle that stood out in my mind during its development were the two years lost to the weight reduction program. It would be interesting to know how Lockheed tackled that problem.

It was nice to hear the "other side" of the story. I was in my 20s when my uncle was an engineer at Skunkworks and worked on X-35; I was lucky enough to have a jacket with X-35 patches that he passed on to me. Thanks for the great video!

I was a F/A-18 A-D Plane Captain at VX-23 from 2000-2003 and was witness to to STOVL testing for both the X-35 and X-32. From an outsiders perspective, the X-35 had it in the bag the entire time, and showed up to PAX as a complete aircraft. The X-32 did it's STOVL test without the front intake "fairing" and if I remember right had other parts removed also. Add to that the darn thing looked like a pelican from the front, which wouldn't make anyone think that it was some bad ass fighter.

I’ll never forget this experience…in 2004, I was driving near Edwards on Highway 58 with my girlfriend when we heard a loud bang. She asked “what was that?” I told her it was probably a sonic boom, they test all kinds of crazy stuff out here. Several minutes later, she was excitedly pointing to the sky directly above us, asking “what is THAT??” I look up out my windshield, and flying right down the road (downwind leg?) directly above us in broad daylight was a plane I had never seen before. It was a delta wing design, obviously stealth, and light grey. I scoured the internet for days when I got home trying to figure out what I saw. Couldn’t figure it out. Two years later, I was watching PBS when “Battle of the X-Planes” came on. When I saw the X-32, I immediately recognized it as the plane we saw over Highway 58. The x-plane competition concluded a couple years before we saw the X-32. Not sure why it was still flying in 2004, but it was very cool to see.

I had the privilege of serving with Mr Yates in VF-74. His aviation intelligence, articulation, and presentation haven’t changed. Wonderful to see him again. I was his PC numerous times ashore, and on the boat. Later, I maintained his logbook in Operations. All the best to him! “Petty Officer Loop” 🇺🇸✈️👍

I was waiting for mention of the elephant in the room which Rowdy eventually eloquently nailed with the term aesthetics. lol

Very interesting. I was an Air Force pilot and worked the F-35 program for 15 years as a civilian. Some interesting information but mostly what I had heard about why the X-35/F-35 was chosen. And now with Boeing's current track record for the 737 Max and Starliner, I think the government may have dodged a bullet of sorts because they are having some major internal issues which may have been starting even back then.

Not to take away anything from the guys and gals who fly the military jets on a daily basis -- but what a pleasure herein to listen as a test pilot (of an x-plane!) has a detailed sit-down conversation about his all experiences. I especially appreciated the talk about rooting for one's plane and how important the design aesthetics are to final decisions. Thanks, Mooch!

There is actually a pretty detailed briefing that was provided by the acquisition program manager on this program. I believe that he limited the requirements specifically to ensure that each team would provide their best possible design instead of a design that was predefined by the government. Honestly, I wish the fed would do that kind of objective based procurement more often!

That was a fantastic episode! Thanks!

Really cool to get an understanding of that whole process! Appreciate the content, I always look forward to your new videos

Invaluable interview. Thanks for putting this out there for all of us to see.

Your interviews are excellent. Well planned, solid prep of questions, thorough/quality guest answers. Very nicely executed. I also liked the brief discussion of test pilot school - I’ve always been fascinated by it and wondered about its mechanics..

Fantastic as always Mooch 👍. Your vids are always a highlight of my week.

This is amazing, awesome interview with Mr Yates! Fantastic channel, thank you for your hard work!

Man you just put out Fantastic offerings! These are great, insightful videos. Thank you for taking the time to create the content!

This stuff is fascinating to me. My brother in law's father was the high AOA and spin test pilot for the F-18 program and was the first person to "spin test" the F-15, though that one was ununtentional. IIRC he also worked on the F-4 program. Sadly we lost him a couple of years ago. He was a great story teller and a very funny man. His son was also a naval aviator, and a good one, but sadly was part of the class that was caught in the tailhook scandal. I can say that for as long as he has been married to my sister he has been nothing but the most honorable, loving, and faithful husband and father. I always thought it was a shame that he started his career with that sort of albatross around his neck. He's a great guy, a great pilot, and should have had a very long and fruitful career. As it happened he left the Navy to develop milsim computer games before getting involved with cyber-security, a field I worked in for a short time before leaving to dedicate time to my music career which has served me pretty well so far. Thanks for all your content. I watch every video. My dream as a kid was to fly for the Navy but my eyesight disqualified me and at the time the Navy didn't allow corrective surgery as an acceptable workaround for the vision problem. Anyway, thank you, keep up the good work!

Awesome episode Ward. A few years ago, I was lucky enough to attend a lecture by someone who was involved in development of the F-35. Unfortunately I can't remember their name. It was immensely interesting. They weren't too kind to the Boeing X-32 regarding its appearance. Definitely great to hear from someone who has flown it though, and can offer a more informed perspective.

Such a great conversation - nice work, Ward.

Episodes like this are exactly why I watch your channel and enthusiastically await new episodes when you post them. Keep up the most excellent work, Ward. Also, I got my first copy of the Punk trilogy in the mail and can't put it down!

These guys were overflying my house in Southern Maryland as this program came online. Cheers you all a beer from the front yard. Great work!

This was a really informative and fun discussion. Anyone on either side of the JSF competition would enjoy it.

Real interesting episode, with a very eqloquent and knowledgable guest. Thank you Ward.

Wow, that was a great episode! This topic is something that practically all military aircraft aficionados' have wondered about. Just the fact that you discussed it is cool but the fact that you discussed it with one of the actual test pilots involved in the competition is beyond cool and provided insight on the subject that you couldn't get anywhere else. Bravo sir, great job.

Great video. We (at Kaiser Electronics) were rooting for the F-35 since we had the contract for the head down and helmet displays. Subsequently lost the head down units in a competition against L3 when it became practical to use liquid crystal display technology to achieve the 20"x8" display surface found in the flight test birds which used projection technology. The HMD contract never changed hands as Kaiser Electronics was swallowed up by Rockwell Collins (now part of Raytheon). Fascinating program in any event.

It was too cheerful for the Military Industrial complex.

Ward, I very much enjoy your programs. Unprecedented access to pilots to hear their reviews, listen to the stories of flight pilots, ground crews, engineers and manufactures. Your past as a pilot, aironotics teacher, politicl commentator and such left you having friends, former coworkers in places of power no other KZfaqr has. I wish you continued success.

Asking all the right questions, Ward. Thanks.

Wonderful interview with Rowdy. He's a very interesting test pilot. You both had my undivided attention. I hope to hear the details someday of the handling characteristics between the two A/C. Tnx again Mooch for these great videos.

Very interesting and well done - as usual - Thanks

I remember that Competition! Very cool to hear Rowdy's experience and opinion on the plane! Thanks.

Mooch, another excellent video! This one was very insightful.

Mooch , Rowdy , hats off to both of you, I lived on Beale AFB north of Travis, lived there when the Black Bird was assigned there . Went to Travis few times for medical issues, and my father brought to my attention that every street was named after a test pilot that lost their life testing aircraft. To be selected to be a test pilot your a special breed, you think Rowdy would have liked to be a test pilot during the time when Chuck Yeager, when sound barriers were being broke , and so many different designs of aircraft were coming out. Would yourself and Rowdy if given a chance, would you gentlemen like to fly and ride as a Reo in the SR 71 , apologize for dragging this comment out, I'm a 64 old aviation nut that always wanted to fly in a milatary aircraft hugging the deck inbtween mountain . ( salute you both ). 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

One of your best videos so far… Bravo. While watching this I definitely had a déjà vu moment recalling the fly off between the YF 17/FA 18 and the YF 16. In this case the joint strike fighter concept did not work out and of course the Navy picked the YF 17 which in the end bore very little resemblance to the final product of the FA 18. Got to be part of the Hornet program at VX5 China Lake. Rowdy was a great guest ! Have him back at some point.

Outstanding interview - superbly produced. Great content!

New subscriber here! Really enjoying your content. I was talking to my dad (retired Commander, flew A3s and A4s) the other day, mentioned I was watching some KZfaq videos from a retired Tomcat RIO... "You mean Ward Carroll?" it just adds a new depth to the conversations we can have. I was the rebel son (I went Army) and challenged my parents greatly as an adolescent. I appreciate them now as a grown up and a parent. Thanks for giving us more stuff to talk about.

I remember Rowdy from the USS Saratoga during the '85-'86 (Terrorist Busters) cruise. I worked AirOps/CATCC (Air Traffic Control) while aboard and he was always on his game and well respected. BZ! Great interview!.... ;)

Hi there, I am new to your channel, I write articles on aircraft for a website and I have covered the X-32 and F-35. This interview is really interesting! Thank you for doing this interview. I really appreciate this video. Interesting insight!

Thank you, Rowdy, for coming on the show!

love this show, Mooch. I am an old Tomcat AM and get a lot of joy watching your show......keep it going

Ward, very interesting. I was working in the UK aerospace industry during this time, and worked on The production of F-35’s.

I was on the F35 program from 2004-2011 as a Naval Engineer DOD type. I was never so disappointed in a program in my 30 years as a scientist. The contract was executed under the new rules we used to expedite a program as in JDAM or JSOW. It was a huge mistake. It gave Lockheed power that it should have never had under a regular contract. Things like doing the first flight WITHOUT a functional GPS. In this day and age how the hell do you have a first flight without GPS? Raytheon was developing the GPS because they had won the MAGR upgrade program in 2000 from Rockwell Collins . Raytheon operated much like Lockheed, probably why they were super late delivering a GPS for the aircraft. I went to a contractor ONLY meeting at Edwards AFB about lessons learned from the F22 program. It’s a huge powwow where the F22 guys who had pretty much got their program in production, could give the young F35 program wisdom and lessons on where they went wrong and how NOT to repeat those same mistakes, and what were their major successes. Only 2 civilians were in that meeting and we were not to say anything so that Lockheed F22 guys could talk unfettered to the Lockheed F35 guys. ( I don’t think they ever knew we were there) I can tell you the F35 Lockheed guys learned ABSOLUTELY nothing from their elders in the F22 program. The F 35 not only repeated the F22 mistakes but made them bigger and then invented their own mistakes leading to longer delays and cost overruns. I remember that every time we were in a meeting with Lockheed and they explained why we had MORE delays and needed more money, that had they remembered what the F22 guys said 3 years ago they wouldn’t have YET ANOTHER delay and cost overrun. Even when we’d point stuff out Lockheed would either completely ignore the Navy DOD guys or “ forget” that we’d told them about the issue. I’d never worked with a contractor who was completely oblivious to what the DOD was saying about the product we were purchasing. It’s as if Lockheed was doing the program alone with no supervision. Here’s an example of what I thought was poor engineering and not thinking the problem through- ( I’m hugely generalizing here) Lockheed talked in SLOCs or Software Lines of Code. They were going to need so many SLOCs to complete the Nav system in the aircraft for hands off landing on a carrier in IMC conditions. I kept bringing up the point that they hadn’t identified the CPU or decided if they’d design a PLCC or something else. They didn’t know how many bits or bytes wide that CPU was. So how could they accurately predict the amount of software they had to write to solve the issue or feature. The amount of software determines the amount of time they’d need to complete that block on the process. Luckily I got on a portion of the program where I got to do some flight test on something British Aerospace was doing out of Nashua NH. They were a breath of fresh air. Total team players and completely professional in every aspect of their part. AND they remembered that WE were the customers!! Something I hadn’t felt in several years. I had actually got to the point that I thought the program should have just been cut. It was A TON of money for a piloted aircraft when it was obvious that unmanned aircraft were the future. In hindsight I think I was right.

Great interview, Ward! I love your new Channel theme music!

This was a fantastic interview. Hope to see some more just like it about current and even deeper past fighters bombers and mutiroll aircraft. Love it

Excellent, Ward. No where else can you find content like this. Extremely valuable to the general public. 👏

PBS had a good show on the competition between the X32 vs X35 back in early 2000's, may have been on NOVA. The X35 test pilot was Greg Fenton who went to be CO of the George Washington and recently retired.

Another great video Mooch. I hope that all is well with you and yours.

Wow! What an interview. I have watched the JSF documentary so many times now. Im obsessed. This is a fantastic find. Excellent interview and really well done.

I was stationed at NAS Patuxent River VQ-4 detachment, and I felt pretty privileged to see both the x-35 & x-32 test flights.

He's being pretty charitable attributing naivety to the actual cost of the program when contractors and the pentagon both have a history of low balling the cost of programs, knowing full well they will be too big to kill once the truth hits.

Great job Ward! Rowdy is a great interview…a super representative of the flight test community

Excellent video and truly interesting to hear from the test pilot for the X-32. I recall that one of the problems with the Delta wing was delaminating issues during production, a factor to switching to the more convention design. Again, well done content and thank you.

Something he didn't commented, was that after the start of the program, the USN basically doubled the required internal bomb load of the JSF, from two 1000lb Mk.83s to two 2000lb Mk.84s. Together with a reduction in the required landing speeds, they simply torpedoed the Boeing proposal. On the Lockheed proposal, it caused the humongous large wing for the low approach speed target, with the bulges in the belly to accommodate the larger bombs, leading to the infamous escalation of weight and loss of performance, snowballing to the known problems that persists to this day.

Good interview. It may not be love at first sight perhaps, but I assume that you automatically will start to love the plane that takes you home safely each and every time. 🍀

Thanks "Mooch" and "Rowdy" an interesting and informative discussion!

Thanks for sharing this behind the scenes look into aircraft development and procurement

Great interview! As an A7E driver I learned to love and admire ugly! I never met anyone in that community that would disagree. Yes, I would have loved a burner to play with but in the end effective mission accomplishment is all that matters. When it came to fused bombs on target the A7 would flat get the job done in its day. Whether the flyoff chose the most effective option is debated but any selection that made esoteric criteria over mission effectiveness would be astoundingly foolish.

Having been working for Pratt&Whitney and being on this program on the engine side and also we engine mechanics were split in half. Half on the Boeing side and half on the Lockheed side I was on the Lockheed side we called the Boeing A/C the Pelican or the Guppy. Cool program to work on,

Dang! VERY educational, as always. Thank you. For everything.

Great interview. Thanks to both of you.

The $35 million number was a goal that was developed when the program was called the Joint Air to Surface Technologies program or JAST. It was not supposed to be limited to a manned aircraft but everybody knew it was going to airplane. Everybody I knew at the NAVAIR cost division (AIR 524) who was supporting the program said that the cost goal was unrealistic and the best case would be about $75 million.

I was working for Boeing in So. Cal. at the time of the competition. On a business trip to the Seattle area. While there, I was shown a fairly large-scale model of the X-32 aircraft. I turned to my boss who was accompanying me and stated: "there is no way in h#$$ this aircraft is going to win". My boss asked me why I said that? I told him that I was in the AF for 20 years and spent the last 5 years at Nellis AFB in and around fighter pilots daily. If there are any pilots on the selection committee, they will not select the X-32. It is too darn ugly of an aircraft for any self-respecting fighter to been seen flying in regardless of performance capabilities. Although, you can't tell from this video and pictures of the X-32 it really is an ugly looking aircraft.

Nice insights, I hope he does more interviews in the future about other topics.

Awesome info! Love hearing the behind the scenes stuff! Thx👍

Interesting and informative brief. When I retired from the Navy among other things I became a consultant to Boeing for the X32 regarding their milspec development. It was mid 90's and when I saw the X32 design my first reaction was it was ugly and knowing military thinking I said to them that IMHO they will never select an ugly airplane. Boeing of course rejected that thought since they were too far along to do anything about it. They were convinced that their design would meet more of the overall objectives than the LockMart design. There were 3 variants that the program wanted and they were supposed to minimize design change between them and they were certain theirs could do that far better and cheaper than the Lock Mart version. Although Rowdy said form matches function it really is that in a good design form always follows function. The other issue driving the Boeing decision was cost. The Air Force (the govt program management was primarily AF at the time) was demanding that the overall final cost of the airplane was 25million, less the engine. I having been intensely involved in the F14 program management knew that was completely and utterly impossible. I went to the govt program and tried to convince them that they were misleading everyone about future costs. They completely laughed it off and said I had no idea what I was talking about and that they had done extensive should cost analysis to prove me wrong. I knew at that point that they were intentionally lying in order to keep the program alive. I have felt that the AF will lie to save a program, something I never saw in the Navy. I was Navy head of engineering for the Sparrow missile program and was forced to argue with the AF AMRAAM program when they were selling the program around the Pentagon. It was supposed to be a 5 inch launch and leave boost sustain missile weighing no more than 300 lbs and cost less than a Sparrow. The Sparrow G&C sections cost 80k in those days (1980) and missile like the AF was telling the world they would build was in fact impossible to be built for any price let alone for 80k. It shows why government programs fail.....not always in performance measures but in the other two important program measures cost and schedule. The F35 program spent around 40 billion dollars and 20 years in development and I think the fly away costs for the airplane is in the 250 million range. Just imagine what the hourly cost of operating the airplane is, I suggest it is staggering and will never be admitted to by current program management. If one spends 40M developing an airplane one should expect it to work, which the F35 is lacking. And remember the govt paid for the entire design so all they are supposed to be charged for in production is the actual cost of production. That makes the 250 million fly away cost even more egregious. When an airline buys a Boeing airliner its development cost are rolled into the price so individual the airplane naturally cost more, but that is not how govt programs work. So bottom line, the original concept of one airplane for everyone's needs developed by a joint program office is the foundational problem that has eventually led to where we are today. You can find other issues but that is the original sin. Joint programs of this scale dont work and yes you can find joint programs that are functioning but at what cost and at what capability level. Truth is the F14 could have been evolved at a fraction of the F35 cost and would have yielded a far more capable fighter today for the Navy and for the next 30 years. And the people who made those very poor decisions are long gone and innocent of all the lies they told.

I fell in love with the X-32 look while playing Eidos’s JSF flight sim game back in ‘98. It’s odd look won me over.

Thanks for that interview. Really interesting. Rowdy seems like a great guy.

Great interview. Enjoyed every minute

Interesting. At least now I know what the F-18s were doing at Edwards. 😎 As Rowdy described the curriculum at TPS, I was thinking to myself for all but the actual stick time it sounds as if we were doing the same job. (The commute from Lancaster to Edwards usually took me about 45 minutes; 20 minutes of which was on base. I put an average of 110 miles per day on my truck.) After I left the government I worked on the F-35 Program for awhile. I imagine if the X-32 is comparable, it must've been a sweet ride.

I like seeing some of the books I’ve read behind Rowdy. Airframe has to be my favorite read.

I'm so impressed being a part of this conversation. Thank you gentlemen, thank you.

Wonderful video Mooch and Rowdy.....thank you for the insight to these Aircraft.....Cheers, Paul

BTW, the term that Lockheed Aero Engineers used for the aircraft aesthetics is swoop. While the X-35 did not peg the swoop meter, it for sure handily beat the X-32 in that department. I imagine Boeing could have developed a paint scheme that might have helped in that area (sort of like the red, white, and Blue YF-16 color scheme did for the F-16). Factors such as these help make major competitions such as this the gut check that they are where not just billions of dollars are on the line, but the national security (at least in part) may be as well.

TPS is an experience. It’s a two-year program stuffed into eleven months. And report writing is critical.

Absolutely love these been there , done that, first person interviews!

Outstanding interview.

"Honey, we're going to live in Lancaster for a year" "What can you do there?" "Well, on Thursdays we can always catch Alexander Longrifle at the Desert Inn"

The X-32 looks like a Guppy. That was my first thought. Excellent interview. Thank you.

Great interview and info Ward, many thanks!

EXCELLENT & VERY INFORMATIVE INTERVIEW! Thank you brother! HOOAH!

21:30 sounds like the key issue(s) regarding which was chosen. And yeah, the X32 was just ugg-lee! The fighting pelican wasn't going to instill fear. But, early in this, the picture of the more conventional design actually looked pretty good.

When I read the X32 required removal of landing gear doors for vertical lift test, it was doomed. Thinking if they fused a GE 404 or 110 to an A7 with composite frame and digital flight controls, you get a long loiter and short field take off. And a dry cool place place for maintenance to take a nap. Corsair maintainers know what I'm talk about.

Really enjoy these interviews and war stories. I could listen to them all day.

This was a great show, thanks for the insight!

X-32 looked like a spacecraft. I love it.

Agree with your assessments especially the looks department. At the time of this competition I worked at Boeing and the general opinion at the time among those of us Boeing workers was the F32 was butt-ugly. That intake reminded us all too much of numerous photographs of Phil Condit’s, CEO at the time, hanging open mouth poses. He looked like he was doing his best Fred Simpson impersonation. Many of us quietly rooted for Lockheed’s F35.

Thanks Ward. That was very interesting. My involvement with product development was with software so listening to this version of the process was very different and absolutely fascinating. .

1st class Ward...great to get the background on all this.

The F-35s nickname is Fat Amy. I'm guessing if the X-32 had been chosen its nickname would have been Deep Throat.

I remember I always found the X32 to be a more “science fiction” looking airplane. Fantastic interview! 👏👏👏👏👏

Good interview. I remember watching that competition very closely. When the XF-35 did that vertical take off, super sonic, vertical landing demo.. I figured that cinched it. Also very interesting to hear that aesthetics really do have some impact. Still hard for me to wrap my head around that.

Ward. I recently viewed one of your videos and you mentioned the testing / development of the 117. I think I heard you mention that it was under test in 1980 - 81. During my assignment with the Army in Alaska, I was assigned to 1st Bn, 43 ADA at Fort Richardson. All of our batteries were called up by CINCNORAD. We were asked to do all we could to locate a aircraft that was coming up the channel from Cordova towards Anchorage. They even gave us angels and we could not maintain a lock, but did have occasional paints of the aircraft. This exercise was in 1977. We learned 4 months later that it was an aircraft that became known as the stealth to us.

Although it sounds weird, i like the x-32 much more than the x-35; it reminds me of navy planes like the A7 Corsair or even the A6 Intruder, which I love.

The JSF program was impossible. Especially by requiring STOVL. Making the Navy the lead agency for an aircraft. Then allowing the USAF to modify the basic aircraft for it’s use was do-able.

That was a very fun and interesting video. Gives me insight into my father’s work in the Ryan drones from 64 to 74 or so.

Great video Ward!