I don't think its ugly, for the record.
To: whyilovetexas111
That air intake, YIKES.
I'll take the X-36 ANY DAY:
2 posted on
07/22/2025 9:31:52 AM PDT by
CivilWarBrewing
(Get off my back for my usage of CAPS, especially you snowflake males! MAN UP!)
To: whyilovetexas111
Despite its superb handling qualities, which one test pilot compared to an F/A-18, the X-32’s downfall was its flawed and complex Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) design. Every single war ever has shown that "complex" is never an advantage on the battlefield.
But it seems weapons are often designed for success in Northern Virginia MIC board rooms or the halls of Congress.
3 posted on
07/22/2025 9:32:00 AM PDT by
PGR88
To: whyilovetexas111
The people who had to make the decision did
5 posted on
07/22/2025 9:39:38 AM PDT by
3RIVRS
To: whyilovetexas111
First time I saw this during the competition I knew it wouldn’t be chosen. It was just too damn stupid looking.
To: whyilovetexas111
No, not ugly. In fact, it looks happy!
7 posted on
07/22/2025 10:02:54 AM PDT by
Alas Babylon!
(Repeal the Patriot Act; Abolish the DHS; reform FBI top to bottom!)
To: whyilovetexas111
The front view reminds me of a whale shark swimming through the water while gulping tons of algae. ;-)
To: whyilovetexas111
V/STOL is so very asinine for a fighter aircraft, especially stealth.
But is EXTREMELY good for MIC and Congress.
22 posted on
07/22/2025 3:11:35 PM PDT by
A strike
(unfortunately PDJT is continuing the UKUS v Russia war)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson