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

I am also sure this thing is a rocket. That comes into my mind every time I put my eyes on it:

chevrolet-_corvette_c1-1958-c3223-043.jpg
 
yasotay said:
The old saying about "if a plane looks good, it will fly good," comes to mind.
Click to expand...

Too true yasotay. I hope that it will have a long service life with the USAF, and I also hope that it will not be long before we see the first export customer.
 
My money is on seeing these in the Thunderbirds eventually, since the F-35 looks like a whale at airshows
 
TomS said:
Desertfox said:
My money is on seeing these in the Thunderbirds eventually, since the F-35 looks like a whale at airshows
Click to expand...

Seems inevitable, honestly. It's going to be cheaper to fly than either F-16 or F-35, and the F-35 would mean abandoning the popular back seat publicity flights.
Click to expand...

I would think that the T-7A would suite the Thunderbirds a lot better than the F-35 even though the F-35 has the main advantage of being the main frontline fighter, TomS is right that the T-7A would be cheaper to fly and maintain in the long term.
 
yasotay said:
Given the supposed cost per flight hour differential, I would vote for T-7A for the Tbirds before F-35.
Click to expand...
In Thunderbird's service, the F-35's stealth coatings, thermal management systems and lots of electronics would probably taken off so I'd think that the unit price and operating costs would be reduced.
 
I just don't see how either team could go without 2-seaters. Maybe a high-low mix in their future, but that brings its own complications.

I think if you want better performance than T-7A, cross your fingers that the light interceptor version happens and gets an upgrade to F414.
 
Given that almost all the airforces of the world have long since shifted away from using front line fighter aircraft for their display/ aerobatic teams then a planned future for the US airforces Thunderbirds display teams based on the T-7 would appear to make a lot of sense.

Any transition doesn’t have to be rushed (the F-16s being used should last a while more, possible could swap in more used F-16s as an interim step - also a while before any T-7s become available) but the T-7 class of trainer, when available, would clearly offer approx. equivalent air show performance as a F-16 or F-35 but at a more efficient price/ cost point.

In a future of ever-stretched defence budgets and needing to concentrate spending on where it matters most, potentially out-moded traditions like “the Thunderbirds have only ever flown front line fighters” need to be interrogated and evolve.
 
Moose said:
I just don't see how either team could go without 2-seaters. Maybe a high-low mix in their future, but that brings its own complications.

I think if you want better performance than T-7A, cross your fingers that the light interceptor version happens and gets an upgrade to F414.
Click to expand...

kaiserd said:
In a future of ever-stretched defence budgets and needing to concentrate spending on where it matters most, potentially out-moded traditions like “the Thunderbirds have only ever flown front line fighters” need to be interrogated and evolve.
Click to expand...

The T-Birds flew T-38s for 8 years. I've never heard that those shows were somehow unsatisfactory, though they did change to be less vertical, more horizontal, to play into the Talon's strengths. They'd probably have kept flying T-38s for a while longer if not for the 1982 crash. (The Blue Angels kept flying A-4s until 1986 -- 12 years total)

If the Navy adopts the T-7B for aggressor flying, I'd be shocked if they don't use them for demonstration as well, eventually. They're going to want those Super Hornet airframes back in the fleet at some point.
 
Moose said:
I just don't see how either team could go without 2-seaters. Maybe a high-low mix in their future, but that brings its own complications.

I think if you want better performance than T-7A, cross your fingers that the light interceptor version happens and gets an upgrade to F414.
Click to expand...

I was surprised that Boeing did not use an upgraded variant of the F-414 engine to begin with for the T-7A and have it as a supersonic advanced jet trainer to begin with, let's hope that in the not too distant future Boeing rectifies that issue and designs a T-7B.
 
FighterJock said:
I was surprised that Boeing did not use an upgraded variant of the F-414 engine to begin with for the T-7A and have it as a supersonic advanced jet trainer to begin with, let's hope that in the not too distant future Boeing rectifies that issue and designs a T-7B.
Click to expand...

Comes down to there not being enough performance incentive in the contract to justify the more expensive F414 (up front and on fuel) when there were pretty serious incentives to keep CPFH as low as possible.

T-7B is discussed a bit above and seems to be a pretty minimal tweak to suit Navy (non-carrier) requirements.

F414 probably won't show up unless/until they build the currently notional FT-7 (AT-7, TF-7? Who knows with the nomenclature office these days?)
 
Do we believe the weight of the T-7A?

It's one of the bigger AJTs out there, and yet it's given as 3,250 kg empty - less than an M345, or just over half the empty weight of the T-50.

Looking at the many photos of the aircraft 'in build' do we believe the thing is really all-metal? The back end in particular has a 'compositish' look to it.
 
It's all metal. It's also novative in many aspects, like the digital one that allows more efficient building techniques with less material.
Saab was very proud of their new assembly method that reduces drastically the number of fasteners.

Last but not least, the instrumentless and radarless cockpit and nose section help greatly in taming down the front section weight, hence that of the entire plane. Think that when a cockpit and nose are heavy, being usually the tip of a long perch mounted like mass, it's all the airframe that needs to be structurally reinforced to cope with accelerations induced strains. The rear surfaces need also to be dimensioned large enough to raise the nose and trim it without excessive drag. Etc.. Etc...

Boeing_T-7A-pilot.jpg
 
TomcatViP said:
It's all metal. It's also novative in many aspects, like the digital one that allows more efficient building techniques with less material.
Saab was very proud of their new assembly method that reduces drastically the number of fasteners.

Last but not least, the instrumentless and radarless cockpit and nose section help greatly in taming down the front section weight, hence that of the entire plane. Think that when a cockpit and nose are heavy, being usually the tip of a long perch mounted like mass, it's all the airframe that needs to be structurally reinforced to cope with accelerations induced strains. The rear surfaces need also to be dimensioned large enough to raise the nose and trim it without excessive drag. Etc.. Etc...

Boeing_T-7A-pilot.jpg
Click to expand...

Smart looking cockpit. Gone are the old fashioned steam gauge instruments, and in with the digital screens.
 
Jackonicko said:
Do we believe the weight of the T-7A?
Click to expand...
No we don't. Well I don't for sure.
AFAIK, no official empty weight has been released. But some sources seemed to reason it's the T-38 replacement so surely the successor must be in the same weight class.
I think the T-7 is closer to 6 tons (the T-50 is about 6.5 tons).
 
Boeing recently said it would pay the Air Force $285 million for charges related to the plane’s late-stage development and production. The Air Force directed a request for details on the fines to Boeing; the company declined to answer.
Click to expand...

I don't think it works that way. Or is this a new development? Is the AF doing a "clawback" of progress payments by refusing to liquidate them?

Fines?
 
red admiral said:
So along with Boeing's internal write offs I make that Boeing has so far lost about $1.1-1.2bn on this $9.1bn contract...
Click to expand...
I wonder if they'll make any profits off the T-X program at this point. Can't imagine their profit margins to be high enough already, if they've undercut LM/KAI by that much. Guess foreign sales would be saving grace.

Also, I think it's clear at this point who should be contracted for the ATT and UJTS.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Once again, Boeing's management seems to have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory...
Click to expand...

This was always about them underbidding and taking a fairly noticeable charge on the program at some point. That would now appear to be larger than they probably anticipated what they agreed to in terms of the fixed price contract was never feasible.
 
So I suppose that Boeing and SAAB are looking to make a profit on export orders for the T-7A?
 
So given current losses on the programme, UPC of $19.3 which is assumed to be at cost, Boeing will need to sell the following numbers at what % markup to even break even:

10% 621
25% 248
50% 124

* This analysis is wrong for a number of reasons but illustrates the level of challenge for Boeing
 
I suspect that export will be slow till they are able to multi-role the platform. Not many countries in need of a discreet supersonic trainer. So Australia, Japan, Canada, and maybe Finland (?) would be my thought.
 
yasotay said:
I suspect that export will be slow till they are able to multi-role the platform. Not many countries in need of a discreet supersonic trainer. So Australia, Japan, Canada, and maybe Finland (?) would be my thought.
Click to expand...

I am surprised that SAAB and Boeing did not include a multi-role capability from the start to make the T-7A more attractive to potential foreign buyers.
 
FighterJock said:
yasotay said:
I suspect that export will be slow till they are able to multi-role the platform. Not many countries in need of a discreet supersonic trainer. So Australia, Japan, Canada, and maybe Finland (?) would be my thought.
Click to expand...

I am surprised that SAAB and Boeing did not include a multi-role capability from the start to make the T-7A more attractive to potential foreign buyers.
Click to expand...
 
flateric said:
FighterJock said:
yasotay said:
I suspect that export will be slow till they are able to multi-role the platform. Not many countries in need of a discreet supersonic trainer. So Australia, Japan, Canada, and maybe Finland (?) would be my thought.
Click to expand...

I am surprised that SAAB and Boeing did not include a multi-role capability from the start to make the T-7A more attractive to potential foreign buyers.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thanks flateric.
 
Until recently, T-7A's top speed was a bit of a mystery. Now, a couple of sources have numbers.

www.key.aero

An in-depth look at USAF's upcoming T-7A Red Hawk advanced trainer

The USAF’s new advanced training aircraft, the T-7A Red Hawk, honours one of its most distinguished squadrons. Tom Kaminski provides a timely update of the type’s upcoming arrival in service
www.key.aero www.key.aero

www.defensenews.com

US Air Force’s AdAir fighter training needs a road map

AdAir has had a sluggish start within the Air Force while the service struggles with major internal issues.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

Mach 1.06? With >1.35:1 T/W? Dayum! The joke about the Supermarine Scimitar used to be that "only the British could build an airplane with that much thrust and still have it be subsonic" but the Big B seems to have outdone them.

This might be a group error. Or it might be a pure testing and warranty limit (keep engine compressor-exit temps down to extend engine life) given that T-X did not require supersonic speed. Or it might have to do with the curious blunt leading edge and (apparently) fixed slots.

However, if this is a real restriction, it could be a crimp on AdAir/LIFT/light-fighter sales, or adding the capabilities needed for a concept like Reforge.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom