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

US and Japan will jointly develop the next gen trainer jet to replace JASDF's ageing T-4. It is unknown at this moment whether it will be a completely new aircraft, but the article implies that it may be a derivative of the T-7.

It has been revealed that the governments of Japan and the United States are coordinating by jointly developing a successor to the Japan Air Self-Defense Force fighter pilot training aircraft 'T4'. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is visiting the United States as a state guest, and aims to reach an agreement at the summit with President Biden scheduled for April 10 in Washington and specify it in the document. This is the first joint development of a training aircraft between the US and Japan. In addition to reducing production costs, the purpose is to strengthen linkages by using common aircraft from the training stage between the JASDF and the US Air Force. Several U.S.-Japan officials confirmed this announcement on the 23rd.

Joint development is expected to improve 'interoperability', where the Self-Defense Forces and the U.S. military carry out operations in conjunction. With the evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) and communication technology, the aspects of air combat are becoming more complex, and the skills required from pilots are becoming more sophisticated. Confucius is currently operating F35s and F15s procured from the United States, but plans to make them common from the pilot training stage, which will lead to coping with the problem. Japan and the United States are seeking to strengthen cooperation in the field of aviation equipment, with their sights set on the development of unmanned aerial vehicles to support next-generation fighter jets, and an agreement on joint research on AI technology for unmanned aerial vehicles in December last year.

The purpose is also to increase mass production effectiveness and lower production costs. As fighter jets become more sophisticated, raising the specifications of trainer aircraft can easily lead to an increase in development and production costs. As for T4, a long period of time has elapsed since the start of deployment, and there have been concerns that parts manufacturers may not be able to maintain production lines. By being operated by Japan and the United States, production volume increases, leading to stabilization of prices and supply.
Click to expand...
news.yahoo.co.jp

空自の次期練習機、初の日米共同開発へ　ブルーインパルス機後継（毎日新聞） - Yahoo!ニュース

日米両政府が、航空自衛隊の戦闘機パイロット用の練習機「T4」の後継機を共同開発することで調整していることが分かった。岸田文雄首相が国賓待遇で訪米し、4月10日にワシントンで予定されているバイデン大
news.yahoo.co.jp news.yahoo.co.jp
 
"Confucius is currently operating F35s"

That's quite an image.

Anyone have a guess what this is supposed to say?
 
GTX said:
www.twz.com

Japan Wants T-7 Red Hawk As Its Next Trainer: Report

Reports indicate that Japan wants the T-7 as its next trainer to increase cooperation with the United States and reduce costs.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...

So I wonder if the JASDF will acquire T-7s straight from Boeing's production line or will they go for the extra time and expense of setting up a production line in Japan and produce the T-7 under licence?
 
www.airandspaceforces.com

Why USAF's New T-7 Trainer Won't Start Production for 2 More Years

T-7 trainer jet ejection system delays are on the mend but a production decision will slip to early 2025, the Air Force said.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

Seems like the new working group for the new clean-sheet Japanese-American advanced trainer might also be a contingency plan for Pentagon as well.
 
The T-7's problems aren't anything that millions of dollars and years can't fix. The issue is mostly the timeline, different nations need new trainers right now, the delays are going to kill sales more than anything else.

It's a very pretty aircraft anyway.
 
GTX said:
That's crazy. If the T-7 isn't working out, the next best option would be the T-50A
Click to expand...

Do you seriously think that dropping the T-7 in favor of the T-50 now would actually get to a manufacturing start before 2025?
 
Things were looking good for the T-7 it was going through various climate tests, and now the T-7 won't start production for another two years. What has gone wrong at Boeing? Is this yet another example of bad management?
 
TomS said:
Do you seriously think that dropping the T-7 in favor of the T-50 now would actually get to a manufacturing start before 2025?
Click to expand...
Probably not though they do already have the line in Korea. My point wasn't so much this though but rather that going with a "new clean-sheet Japanese-American advanced trainer" is ridiculous and will take even longer.
 
FighterJock said:
Things were looking good for the T-7 it was going through various climate tests, and now the T-7 won't start production for another two years. What has gone wrong at Boeing? Is this yet another example of bad management?
Click to expand...
I'd have to assume general dysfunction at Boeing has some impact. Although I'm sure the usual layers of DoD red tape involving everything certified takes forever. Plus, the lingering effects of COVID on the supply chain, although I'm starting to feel that particular point is mostly an excuse by this time. The whole ejection seat issue is probably related to the desire to allow a greater range of pilot sizes which caused the same sort of challenges on the F-35 as well.
 
NMaude said:
Does the T-7 use the ACES II seat or a Martin-Baker design?
Click to expand...
ACES 5. The 5 is designed to be less maintenance intensive, to reduce spinal injuries during an ejection, and accommodate a wider range of pilot weights (higher and lower) competed to the II. Unfortunately, they ran into issues and it took a lot of time to get sorted
 
Well if they're having problems with the ACES 5 then they should switch to the same Martin-Baker seat used in the F-35.
 
Moose said:
The damage has already happened, switching at this point would only incur further delays.
Click to expand...

Good point however I don't know why they didn't go for the JSF's MB seat instead as it would ease the logistics of maintaining also it might still appear in the proposed T-7B USN variant as the USN has had a preference for MB ejection-seats since the late 1950s.
 
Canada is to recapitalize its entire trainers fleet (helo, piston & Turboprop) for US$ 8bn but without a single jet. Just like France, their intend is to do it all with PC-21, something the French even start walking away.

www.airforce-technology.com

Canada signs $11.2bn recapitalisation for entire Air Force training fleet - Airforce Technology

Canada will also recapitalise its logistics vehicles fleet to the amount of $2.58bn, purchasing 1500 vehicles.
www.airforce-technology.com www.airforce-technology.com

05-24-ct-155-hawk-2-lg.jpg

A species into extinction
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
According to Boeing's recently released 2024 2Q quarterly report, estimated production costs for the T-7A Red Hawk program have led to a reach-forward loss increasing from $275 million in 2023 to $647 million as of June 30, 2024. In the first quarter of 2024, this loss grew by $94 million due to further cost increases. By the end of June 2024, the loss had risen by an additional $278 million, primarily due to higher-than-expected costs for technical and support requirements, as well as flight test inefficiencies and delays. As of June 30, 2024, the company had about $258 million in capitalized precontract costs and $451 million in potential termination liabilities for future production lots, with a risk of further losses. I'm curious how the new CEO will address this program issue.
 
GTX said:
It will probably depend upon planned numbers.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

A quick wikidive says the JASDF has ~198 T-4s to replace, which is about the same production scale as the F-15J, F-4EJ, and F-104J, all of which were built under license and/or knockdown kits.

Assuming that Japan does a 1:1 replacement effort, I think it's safe to say they will license production.
 
New T-7 arrive at Edward

www.linkedin.com

412th Test Wing, Edwards Air Force Base on LinkedIn: #usaf #afotec #afmc

Safely landed and ready for test! Another Boeing T-7A Red Hawk and a BTX prototype have arrived at Edwards. The aircraft will enhance the ongoing flight test…
www.linkedin.com www.linkedin.com

T-7 No embedded stairs.jpg

But did the Swede did it again?!*
Notice the lack of recessed ladders to deplane, for an aircraft that would spend a significant part of its service life deployed away from the squadron's airfield, forcing the instructor pilot to make his way down to the front cockpit like a rope walker (that looks awfully precarious to do such multiple times a day)?!
See also how the brackets to secure the canopy locked position will invariably be damaged/bent by pilots using them to secure their footing.

Notice also the spin chute on the BTX.

EDIT:
Adding two pictures below that display where recessed ladders could be positioned but hold apparently none:

70627_t7a_gallery_new3_960x600_232919.jpg

Boeing-T-7A-assembly-800x534.jpg


*It was the same mistake that came originally with the Gripen. (You can trace back my comment at the time via google).
 
Last edited:
t-7a-red-hawk-and-btx-1-prototype-aircraft-arrived-at-v0-cam6ilg39akd1.jpeg


www.dvidshub.net

VIDEO: Additional T-7A and BTX-1 Aircraft Arrive at Edwards AFB

An additional T-7A Red Hawk and BTX-1 prototype aircraft arrived at Edwards AFB on August 21, 2024, to enhance the overall T-7A flight test program. 416th FLTS Commander Lt Col. Charles Brantigan and T-7A Integrated Test Force Director Lt Col. Jonathan Aronoff accompanied Boeing test pilots in...
www.dvidshub.net www.dvidshub.net
 
@TomS ; I posted those two images because both planes are at here at the same distance relatively to the static camera but at half the a/c length from each others (the closest I could get). If we look only at the V-tail, the T-7 one are definitively higher than those on the BTX.
 
TomcatViP said:
@TomS ; I posted those two images because both planes are at here at the same distance relatively to the static camera but at half the a/c length from each others (the closest I could get). If we look only at the V-tail, the T-7 one are definitively higher than those on the BTX.
Click to expand...
Look at the ground markings. The "smaller" plane is in the middle of the Y lines, the nosewheel of the "larger" is the the merge of the Y lines to the taxiway centerline. That's a good 100-200ft closer!
 
@Scott Kenny : if you look at the taxiway markings, you can better estimate distances with the path line junction at the center of both images. It is undoubtedly that both planes are not 100ft apart. Look at the BTX front shadow and that of the rear extreme of the T-7 one.
Then watch the video to estimate grossly their speed and see if 100ft could have been covered b/w the two screenshots.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
But did the Swede did it again?!*
Notice the lack of recessed ladders to deplane, for an aircraft that would spend a significant part of its service life deployed away from the squadron's airfield, forcing the instructor pilot to make his way down to the front cockpit like a rope walker (that looks awfully precarious to do such multiple times a day)?!
Click to expand...

Probably safe to say it doesn't have an integrated ladder because the USAF didn't require one. If they wanted one, T-7 would have one.
Also, I would think as a trainer the aircraft will spend most of their life at the same airfield. Where would they deploy to? The ladder they used at Edwards doesn't look like a T-7 specific piece, so if the crew have to egress at another airfield, any ladder lying around could be used.
 
eagle said:
Probably safe to say it doesn't have an integrated ladder because the USAF didn't require one.
Click to expand...
Both the USAF and the Royal Swedish Air Force have always had to deal with a fearsome enemy, the beancounters! Their 'logic' often defies the very concept of sanity, much less operational realities (not to mention the lives that depend on little things like mission critical systems).
 
eagle said:
Probably safe to say it doesn't have an integrated ladder because the USAF didn't require one. If they wanted one, T-7 would have one.
Also, I would think as a trainer the aircraft will spend most of their life at the same airfield. Where would they deploy to? The ladder they used at Edwards doesn't look like a T-7 specific piece, so if the crew have to egress at another airfield, any ladder lying around could be used.
Click to expand...
Same reason it has a manual canopy.
 
Does anyone know when -7001 and 7003 first flew? Or what has become of -7004 and -7005 - which were to have been at Edwards by now?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom