T-X Trainer - Boeing T-7A Red Hawk

NCQ said:
NMaude said:
mkellytx said:
The exception is the MB seats in the T-38 which replaced the old 1950’s seat.
Click to expand...

The F-35 is also equipped with MB seats.
Click to expand...
That's mostly a result of the British involvement in the JSF program as I understand it.
Click to expand...

Partly but also keep in mind that the USN (And by extension the USMC since it's subordinate to the USN) have a preference for MB seats dating back to the 1950s.
 
Not again, and it is the ejection seat that is causing the trouble, not good news that production won’t start until 2027.
 
@FighterJock That’s not what it says. 1st production aircraft will be delivered in Dec 2025, with IOC in 2027.
Production will have to start in 2024 or even earlier, with final assembly AFAIK scheduled for the first half of 2025.
 
H_K said:
@FighterJock That’s not what it says. 1st production aircraft will be delivered in Dec 2025, with IOC in 2027.
Production will have to start in 2024 or even earlier, with final assembly AFAIK scheduled for the first half of 2025.
Click to expand...

Thanks H_K, I had read the article wrong.
 
FighterJock said:
Not again, and it is the ejection seat that is causing the trouble, not good news that production won’t start until 2027.
Click to expand...
The problem is with expanding the - ejection seat - envelope to include Society of Automotive Engineers 5th percentile women (108 pounds and standing 60 inches/5 feet tall). These tiny humans simply cannot survive the same ejection forces as mid-sized men. Remember that mid-sized men still often suffer injuries during ejections.
 
www.thedrive.com

T-7A Delays Compound Pilot Shortage, Expose Digital Engineering Pitfalls

Boeing's T-7 Red Hawk delays aren't just a pilot production issue, they are also a reality check on 'transformational' digital engineering.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

Looks like the digital design concept is not flawless. But in the long run it's better for Boeing to iron out and perfect this technology on a trainer than on a sixth gen fighter. It would also have big applications for their 737 replacement down the line.

Does anyone feel that maybe the Lockheed T-50 should have been selected instead ?
 
www.thedefensepost.com

South Korea Plans to Double FA-50 Fighting Eagle Aircraft Production

South Korea plans to increase its manufacturing capacity for the FA-50 Fighting Eagle by building two additional production lines in 2024.
www.thedefensepost.com www.thedefensepost.com

KAI is ramping up production of the FA-50, and the company told investors that it sees a chance that the USAF would buy its trainers, at least as a stopgap, due to the T-7 delays.

alberchico said:
Looks like the digital design concept is not flawless. But in the long run it's better for Boeing to iron out and perfect this technology on a trainer than on a sixth gen fighter.
Click to expand...

What was so different about Boeing's "e-planes"? Is it just marketing nonsense? CAD and VR have been commercially available for decades. ANSYS and OpenFOAM have been around since the 90s. A jet trainer shouldn't be this difficult to develop or manufacture, especially for a company like Boeing.
 
Too true alberchico. Looking back I too would have much preferred the Lockheed T-50 to have won the contest instead.
 
The Lockheed aircraft would have been required to use the same seat, and it's the seat which is causing the delays. This is not the airframe or overall system's failure, it's the seat.
 
I would have thought that the best idea would be to remove the existing seat and put in a new one, I don't get it how the seat could be the cause of all the delays of the T-7.
 
FighterJock said:
I would have thought that the best idea would be to remove the existing seat and put in a new one, I don't get it how the seat could be the cause of all the delays of the T-7.
Click to expand...

Because they are pushing the limits of ejection seat performance to get one that can handle 95th-percentile male and female pilots. The original T-50 seat can't do that either.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
Too true alberchico. Looking back I too would have much preferred the Lockheed T-50 to have won the contest instead.
Click to expand...
That's the one I was rooting for. I mean what are the odds that Boeing of all people would be more likely to produce a clean-sheet design on time and on budget than LM, whose design had been in production for years?
 
riggerrob said:
FighterJock said:
Not again, and it is the ejection seat that is causing the trouble, not good news that production won’t start until 2027.
Click to expand...
The problem is with expanding the - ejection seat - envelope to include Society of Automotive Engineers 5th percentile women (108 pounds and standing 60 inches/5 feet tall). These tiny humans simply cannot survive the same ejection forces as mid-sized men. Remember that mid-sized men still often suffer injuries during ejections.
Click to expand...
It would be much easier if they no longer had to account for 95% men.

In any case, it's not the forces, per se, it's the acceleration. The seat needs a certain performance to get the human in it far enough away from the aircraft (or ground) for the parachute to deploy and slow the human to low enough speeds before they hit the ground. The rocket's thrust and burn time is set by what's needed for that 95th man, which means the accelerations will be too great for non-oversized humans.

One could, I suppose, (and perhaps they do) design the ejection seat's launch system to adjust thrust to meet the required acceleration profile. It would only take money and time.
 
The USAF should stick with the Martin-Baker seats used in the prototypes.
 
Whopper said:
KAI is ramping up production of the FA-50, and the company told investors that it sees a chance that the USAF would buy its trainers, at least as a stopgap, due to the T-7 delays.
Click to expand...
They are aiming for the ATT and UJTS programs, not a stop-gap. If anything, a stop-gap acquisition of small amount of T-50s, should the T-7 get even more delayed, are only possible if the USAF commits to an acquisition of larger fleet of T-50 in the future, which again is only possible via ATT.
 
NMaude said:
The USAF should stick with the Martin-Baker seats used in the prototypes.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, those seats don't meet the requirements either. The only seat that currently meets the requirements is the seat in the F-35 and the new US18E that will coming with the Block 70 F-16's.
 
flateric said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

GAO: Boeing Unlikely to Meet Revised T-7 Schedule

The GAO predicts more delays for the T-7A trainer, and urges the Air Force to build a realistic schedule that accounts for concurrency.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, the FA-50 is right on track, it's a pity the USA didn't choose this aircraft for the Air force next generation trainer.
www.thedefensepost.com

South Korea Plans to Double FA-50 Fighting Eagle Aircraft Production

South Korea plans to increase its manufacturing capacity for the FA-50 Fighting Eagle by building two additional production lines in 2024.
www.thedefensepost.com www.thedefensepost.com
 
pedrospe said:
flateric said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

GAO: Boeing Unlikely to Meet Revised T-7 Schedule

The GAO predicts more delays for the T-7A trainer, and urges the Air Force to build a realistic schedule that accounts for concurrency.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, the FA-50 is right on track, it's a pity the USA didn't choose this aircraft for the Air force next generation trainer.
www.thedefensepost.com

South Korea Plans to Double FA-50 Fighting Eagle Aircraft Production

South Korea plans to increase its manufacturing capacity for the FA-50 Fighting Eagle by building two additional production lines in 2024.
www.thedefensepost.com www.thedefensepost.com
Click to expand...
If the chairforce had chosen the FA-50 they'd have stuffed the exact same ejection seat into it, and experienced exactly the same problems they're having right now.....
 
MihoshiK said:
pedrospe said:
flateric said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

GAO: Boeing Unlikely to Meet Revised T-7 Schedule

The GAO predicts more delays for the T-7A trainer, and urges the Air Force to build a realistic schedule that accounts for concurrency.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, the FA-50 is right on track, it's a pity the USA didn't choose this aircraft for the Air force next generation trainer.
www.thedefensepost.com

South Korea Plans to Double FA-50 Fighting Eagle Aircraft Production

South Korea plans to increase its manufacturing capacity for the FA-50 Fighting Eagle by building two additional production lines in 2024.
www.thedefensepost.com www.thedefensepost.com
Click to expand...
If the chairforce had chosen the FA-50 they'd have stuffed the exact same ejection seat into it, and experienced exactly the same problems they're having right now.....
Click to expand...
Except that
1. The T-7A’s issues are not just limited to the ejection system
2. The issues with the T-7A’s ejection system are not just related to the ACES 5 ejection seat but are connected to Boeing’s choice of a Canopy Destruct design over the Canopy Jettison design of the T-50A

If one reads the above articles on the GAO report it seems clear that the USAF selecting ACES 5 is minor aspect of Boeing’s failures for the T-X program.
 
pedrospe said:
Meanwhile, the FA-50 is right on track, it's a pity the USA didn't choose this aircraft for the Air force next generation trainer.
www.thedefensepost.com

South Korea Plans to Double FA-50 Fighting Eagle Aircraft Production

South Korea plans to increase its manufacturing capacity for the FA-50 Fighting Eagle by building two additional production lines in 2024.
www.thedefensepost.com www.thedefensepost.com
Click to expand...
LM/KAI had their chance and lost to Boeing. No point playing "the grass is greener" style what if scenarios.
 
FighterJock said:
There is nothing wrong with the T-7A it is the ejection seat, if LM/KAI had won instead of Boeing they would have had the exactly the same issue that Boeing are now having.
Click to expand...

"The Air Force and Boeing also disagree over how close the T-7′s flight control software is to being finished, GAO said."

"...the Air Force’s own software experts said five or six more revisions to the software will be needed to fix problems with the trainer’s flight control"

"Each iteration could take six more months, Air Force experts told GAO, which could delay the completion of the software by more than two years "
 
it’s worth noting that flight control software can vary considerably between production standard models and initial rollout versions of an aircraft. The ejection seat issue has been dodging the T-7a for the last little while now., though seems that it will be resolved relatively soon. When you consider from that from initial design to the first flight took a little over three years, that’s pretty impressive. Even if as far as a development schedule, current delays put it more on par with the slogging pace that is more typical.
 
Last edited:
Kiltonge said:
FighterJock said:
There is nothing wrong with the T-7A it is the ejection seat, if LM/KAI had won instead of Boeing they would have had the exactly the same issue that Boeing are now having.
Click to expand...

"The Air Force and Boeing also disagree over how close the T-7′s flight control software is to being finished, GAO said."

"...the Air Force’s own software experts said five or six more revisions to the software will be needed to fix problems with the trainer’s flight control"

"Each iteration could take six more months, Air Force experts told GAO, which could delay the completion of the software by more than two years "
Click to expand...
What is it with Boeing and software these days, need we mention the Starliner here. By the way people mentioning that the T-7 is still on a fast schedule, again I mention the Starliner. I know they are different parts of Boeing but does it speak to a more general issue.
 
Flyaway said:
Kiltonge said:
FighterJock said:
There is nothing wrong with the T-7A it is the ejection seat, if LM/KAI had won instead of Boeing they would have had the exactly the same issue that Boeing are now having.
Click to expand...

"The Air Force and Boeing also disagree over how close the T-7′s flight control software is to being finished, GAO said."

"...the Air Force’s own software experts said five or six more revisions to the software will be needed to fix problems with the trainer’s flight control"

"Each iteration could take six more months, Air Force experts told GAO, which could delay the completion of the software by more than two years "
Click to expand...
What is it with Boeing and software these days, need we mention the Starliner here. By the way people mentioning that the T-7 is still on a fast schedule, again I mention the Starliner. I know they are different parts of Boeing but does it speak to a more general issue.
Click to expand...
The Starliner and T-7 actually fall under the purview of Boeing defense and space or BDS. So at least at a high-level, they are managed by at least the same team of corporate decision makers.
 
Last edited:
Oh dear, I did not know that. Let’s wait and see if Boeing can get both problems sorted out.
 
FighterJock said:
There is nothing wrong with the T-7A it is the ejection seat, if LM/KAI had won instead of Boeing they would have had the exactly the same issue that Boeing are now having.
Click to expand...
To add to what's given, if you read the GAO report you'll see that the escape system problems are three-fold :

Two are related to the canopy fracturing system, which the T-50A wouldn't have had at all.
The other is the decceleration problem that occurs when the parachute deploye, which happens too rapidly and is dangerous when it comes to pilots with small body. This is the only problem the T-50A would have shared with T-7A in current state.

Also apart from the flight software problem mentioned by others and the escape system problem, there's the problem of inadequate program management. Overall Boeing didn't manage this program the best way they could, even accounting for the delays caused by the ejection seat itself (then again, even if the ACES decceleration problem wasn't there, their own choice of the canopy fracturing system design would have caused delays concerning the commenct of EMD flight tests, so they've got no excuse). Most importantly they still haven't submitted critical sustainment data which is also important to keep the EMD flight test prototypes afloat. So they are compounding issues regarding the flight test delays themselves.

Significant portion of these developmental issues wouldn't have been present with the T-50A.

GTX said:
LM/KAI had their chance and lost to Boeing. No point playing "the grass is greener" style what if scenarios.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of point of considering the what if scenario. For one when a company undercuts the program budget by 10 billions and aims to deliver clean sheet design on a very tight schedule which they've agreed with while having demonstrated very questionable corporate management strategies in recent times points to something very notable going forward. Also everything right now point to proving that acquiring a pre-existing, advanced-enough design would have cut the bill without most of these hassles, since we are talking about a non-combat system.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
FighterJock said:
There is nothing wrong with the T-7A it is the ejection seat, if LM/KAI had won instead of Boeing they would have had the exactly the same issue that Boeing are now having.
Click to expand...
To add to what's given, if you read the GAO report you'll see that the escape system problems are three-fold :

Two are related to the canopy fracturing system, which the T-50A wouldn't have had at all.
The other is the decceleration problem that occurs when the parachute deploye, which happens too rapidly and is dangerous when it comes to pilots with small body. This is the only problem the T-50A would have shared with T-7A in current state.

Also apart from the flight software problem mentioned by others and the escape system problem, there's the problem of inadequate program management. Overall Boeing didn't manage this program the best way they could, even accounting for the delays caused by the ejection seat itself (then again, even if the ACES decceleration problem wasn't there, their own choice of the canopy fracturing system design would have caused delays concerning the commenct of EMD flight tests, so they've got no excuse). Most importantly they still haven't submitted critical sustainment data which is also important to keep the EMD flight test prototypes afloat. So they are compounding issues regarding the flight test delays themselves.

Significant portion of these developmental issues wouldn't have been present with the T-50A.

GTX said:
LM/KAI had their chance and lost to Boeing. No point playing "the grass is greener" style what if scenarios.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of point of considering the what if scenario. For one when a company undercuts the program budget by 10 billions and aims to deliver clean sheet design on a very tight schedule which they've agreed with while having demonstrated very questionable corporate management strategies in recent times points to something very notable going forward. Also everything right now point to proving that acquiring a pre-existing, advanced-enough design would have cut the bill without most of these hassles, since we are talking about a non-combat system.
Click to expand...

You actually don't know that that would have been the only problem the T-50 would have had, because the version the USAF was getting was quite a bit different from what is flying now. Many of the systems were different, the cockpit was different, etc. The T-50 that is flying now is only a shell of what the USAF would have been getting.
 
The T-50 would have certainly faced the same problem adapting its ejection system for the lower end of pilot size and weight.
I don't understand why it's so hard for some to get that the requirements for pilots morphology are new. It's even probable that all aircraft will face the same problems: F-35, F-16, 15, 22, B-21 or even NGAD.

You don't train petites in a T-7 to assign them a desk behind a typewriter...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom