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

Last edited:
It seems contrary to any logics that what is the very essence of a Naval pilot isn´t anymore properly present in their syllabus. What could go wrong will go wrong. And worst at war.

Rationally, the cost approach does not make sense, 1st, see the above argument. Second if deleting the tailhook is there to allow trainee to use a lighter/cheaper trainer aircraft... Why not having 2 different models? Carrier qualifications are done near Naval bases for safety reasons, in case you have to divert for example. You can have based there your beefed up birds and just buy a regular USAF version for flight training, making sure it can land without flaring etc... The economy of scale would be favorable with the offset of the full syllabus flight hours per trainee on the land only version (less flight hours logged - And a relatively small fleet of carrier capable airframe shared among many squadrons running deck qualifications exercises).

Rationally, I don´t see what would be the real advantages of deleting the hook. Loosing pilots in hanger, because of mission stress or accident in the landing pattern following battle damage would be immensely more costly. IMOHO, I would even say, impounding a cost so heavy to seriously compromise USN success. [exaggerated statement deleted]

What the proponents are offering here is only akin to trading for sacrifice a bicycle (the said so expensive trainer) with a sport car (the X*100M$ fighter jet).
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Rationally, I don´t see what would be the real advantages of deleting the hook. Loosing pilots in hanger, because of mission stress or accident in the landing pattern following battle damage would be immensely more costly. IMOHO, I would even say, impounding a cost so heavy to seriously compromise USN success.
Click to expand...

Eliminating the arrestor-hook seems to be a classic example of bean-counters engaging in short-sighted penny-pinching, hopefully this decision will be reversed in the near future.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
It seems contrary to any logics that what is the very essence of a Naval pilot isn´t anymore properly present in their syllabus. What could go wrong will go wrong. And worst at war.
Click to expand...
Before getting all worked up why don't you read up about Magic Carpet (otherwise known as precision landing mode (PLM)) and see what it actually offers pilots.
TomcatViP said:
Rationally, the cost approach does not make sense, 1st, see the above argument. Second if deleting the tailhook is there to allow trainee to use a lighter/cheaper trainer aircraft... Why not having 2 different models? Carrier qualifications are done near Naval bases for safety reasons, in case you have to divert for example. You can have based there your beefed up birds and just buy a regular USAF version for flight training, making sure it can land without flaring etc... The economy of scale would be favorable with the offset of the full syllabus flight hours per trainee on the land only version (less flight hours logged - And a relatively small fleet of carrier capable airframe shared among many squadrons running deck qualifications exercises).
Click to expand...
Having two different aircraft variants, one of which is more expensive and only there for a supposed minor part of the curriculum is ridiculous and would be costly. If you are really wanting the pilots to 'manually fly' this part of the curriculum, use a modern simulator.
TomcatViP said:
Rationally, I don´t see what would be the real advantages of deleting the hook. Loosing pilots in hanger, because of mission stress or accident in the landing pattern following battle damage would be immensely more costly. IMOHO, I would even say, impounding a cost so heavy to seriously compromise USN success.
Click to expand...
There are savings in both cost and time which translates into more effective use of budget and ability to generate trained pilots. there is no compromise.
 
NMaude said:
Eliminating the arrestor-hook seems to be a classic example of bean-counters engaging in short-sighted penny-pinching, hopefully this decision will be reversed in the near future.
Click to expand...
It's not short sighted. It is smart use of budget and is based upon the real world.
 
At one point, the plan was to field a new advanced trainer to conserve actual flight hours on the Goshawks for carrier landing training. Has that gone out the window in the new solicitation?
 
GTX said:
It's not short sighted. It is smart use of budget and is based upon the real world.
Click to expand...
Agree, for too long a naval aviator has been judged more on his proficiency landing on the boat than his tactical acumen. Magic carpet has changed that and allows them to more properly focus on the TTPs of fighter employment.
 
Ozair said:
Agree, for too long a naval aviator has been judged more on his proficiency landing on the boat than his tactical acumen. Magic carpet has changed that and allows them to more properly focus on the TTPs of fighter employment.
Click to expand...
You do know that the single most dangerous/stressful part of a naval aviator's flight was landing on the carrier, right?

Land a little short on an air force base or naval air station and you might annoy the plane captain for hurting the tires.

Land a little short on a carrier and you're dead from the Ramp Strike and the plane is destroyed. If you're unlucky, you take out a couple other planes on deck and maybe some crew as well.

And you MUST land on the carrier after every flight.

So yeah, the Naval Aviator was judged almost exclusively on his ability to NOT KILL HIMSELF while landing.
 
Boeing/SAAB T-7A Red Hawk prototypes

N381TX (MSN 00001/BTX-1) First flight 20 December 2016. To Edwards 21 August 2024.

N382TX (MSN 00002/BTX-2) First flight 23rd February 2017 (+ or - one day)



EMD aircraft (Registered 17 December 2015)

21-7001 (MSN 00003/APT001) N791TX, First flight 13 December 2023. To Edwards 21 August 2024.

21-7002 (MSN 00004/APT002) N792TX, First flight 22 Jun 2023. USAF accepted September 2023. To Edwards 8 November 2023

21-7003 (MSN 00005/APT003) N793TX, First flight 9 November 2023. To Eglin (McKinley) 15 December 2023

21-7004 (MSN 00006/APT004) N794TX, .

21-7005 (MSN 00007/APT005) N795TX, .
 
No.

With current delays, the official production start date will likely be pushed back again - from planned Feb 2025 to May 2025 - with IOT&E in January 2026 followed by first LRIP deliveries in April 2026.

Now, place your bets gentlemen ;)
 
Question, any info on the T-7 and whether it will ever fly supersonic? I see the Boeing page lists the max mach as 0.975 with the obtuse statement of expected performance/envelope tested.

Am I crazy in thinking it should be able to fly supersonic or was this a decision to reduce capability and thereby limit cost?
 
Ozair said:
Am I crazy in thinking it should be able to fly supersonic or was this a decision to reduce capability and thereby limit cost
Click to expand...

I'd say that the T-7A can go supersonic in a shallow powered dive especially if it's clean.
 
Ozair said:
Question, any info on the T-7 and whether it will ever fly supersonic? I see the Boeing page lists the max mach as 0.975 with the obtuse statement of expected performance/envelope tested.

Am I crazy in thinking it should be able to fly supersonic or was this a decision to reduce capability and thereby limit cost?
Click to expand...
It's my understanding that tactical aircraft don't usually spend a lot of time supersonic. May not even be able to, if they're carrying a bombload.

And from what I've heard from friends and read, going supersonic doesn't really feel all that different inside the plane. You're going faster, but nothing weird happens that would need specific training to cover.

Edit: so it was a deliberate choice to not go supersonic, saving money.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's my understanding that tactical aircraft don't usually spend a lot of time supersonic. May not even be able to, if they're carrying a bombload.
Click to expand...
Sorry I should have been more clear. The intent of T-X was to prep aircrew for 5th gen platforms which are more likely, given internal weapons large fuel volume and higher thrust engines etc, to be supersonic compared to 4th gen. The T-38 is supersonic and I expected then that while it wasn't an essential requirement it would have been a desirable one.

Scott Kenny said:
And from what I've heard from friends and read, going supersonic doesn't really feel all that different inside the plane. You're going faster, but nothing weird happens that would need specific training to cover.
Click to expand...
I've been supersonic a host of times and I remember my first time for it being such a non event. The pilot in the front seat announced we have passed mach one and I had not noticed a thing.

Scott Kenny said:
Edit: so it was a deliberate choice to not go supersonic, saving money.
Click to expand...
I expect so and somewhat disappointed by that. The T-7 almost certainly better replicates high AoA compared to the T-38 but I think the BVR training likely is diminished with no supersonic performance.
 
T-7 is a 30deg AoA trainer, something that is already a high value today. It is possible also that Boeing will open gradually the flight domain there, like they have done with the Hornet.

From Boeing

1728038043068.png

T-7 is also modestly supersonic, as a design and probably only limited for cost concerns under the Mach 1 mark.
 
TomcatViP said:
T-7 is a 30deg AoA trainer, something that is already a high value today. It is possible also that Boeing will open gradually the flight domain there, like they have done with the Hornet.
Click to expand...
Perhaps although that also likely comes down to cost. There is a mighty amount of cost overrun to recoup here so I expect they will limit changes where possible..

TomcatViP said:
From Boeing

View attachment 742917

T-7 is also modestly supersonic, as a design and probably only limited for cost concerns under the Mach 1 mark.
Click to expand...
Modestly but not yet demonstrated?
 
TomcatViP said:
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

View attachment 737873

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.
Click to expand...
One would have thought one of the original pioneers of designing aircraft for away from base operations would have long realised a built-in ladder is essential... More likely it is not essential - your ground crew would deploy ahead of time with essential GSE anyway - and it's likely not needed given a trainer is unlikely to often deploy away from home especially in short notice as other have mentioned.
 
Believed it or not, the Gripen E initially came without. Early pictures showed instructors having to do their last acrobatic play by walking on the cockpit edges to reach the trainee unique ladder.

It changed then. Either someone made a remark that reached mature ears ;) ... or the rate of Flight Instructors on seek leave after recovering from injuries sustained in a fall outpaced the expectations of the intrepid cost cutter.
 
@TomcatViP Could you elaborate? The way I read your reply, an instructor would have difficulty in reaching the ladder from the rear seat - Gripen E is a single-seat aircraft.
 
Errr... no.

Gripen A, C, E - single-seater
Gripen B, D, F - twin-seater

Gripen NG renamed to Gripen E/F. ( edit ) To be precise: Gripen E/F is the production version of the Gripen NG demonstrator, of which one was converted from a twin-seat JAS39D ( /edit )
First Gripen F yet to be completed.

Any images of Gripen retractable boarding ladder? I've tried to find them, but all I can find is this:
JAS39 ladder.jpg
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
Errr... no.

Gripen A, C, E - single-seater
Gripen B, D, F - twin-seater

Gripen NG renamed to Gripen E/F.
First Gripen F yet to be completed.
Click to expand...
TomcatVIP is talking about the actual Gripen NG, the demonstrator Saab built and flew trying to convince people the E was a good idea...

www.flightglobal.com

FARNBOROUGH: Saab plots bright future for Gripen programme

Flight-testing of Sweden's next-generation Gripen is on target as Saab looks for orders
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
TomcatViP said:
Believed it or not, the Gripen E initially came without. Early pictures showed instructors having to do their last acrobatic play by walking on the cockpit edges to reach the trainee unique ladder.

It changed then. Either someone made a remark that reached mature ears ;) ... or the rate of Flight Instructors on seek leave after recovering from injuries sustained in a fall outpaced the expectations of the intrepid cost cutter.
Click to expand...
Gripen E uses an external ladder like all other Gripen models? Or am I misunderstanding you?

1000243377.jpg
 
Initially, only the front seat had a ladder system designed for deplaning. Just like the T-7 today.
The instructor, someone that usually flies several flight a day with different trainee, had to play tightrope walker his way to the front cockpit to access the ladder. Given that Sweden is (nearly) under negative temperature half the year (Celsius), that made this design choice even more dubious.

Today, Gripen twins seat airframe have a ladder system that grants individual access fully to both cockpit
 
TomcatViP said:
Initially, only the front seat had a ladder system designed for deplaning. Just like the T-7 today.
The instructor, someone that usually flies several flight a day with different trainee, had to play tightrope walker his way to the front cockpit to access the ladder. Given that Sweden is (nearly) under negative temperature half the year (Celsius), that made this design choice even more dubious.

Today, Gripen twins seat airframe have a ladder system that grants individual access fully to both cockpit
Click to expand...
I see. Yes, they added a "boarding plank". The main ladder they share between the two versions and the boarding ladder just rests on the ladder and on the fuselage. On SAAF aircraft at least. Swedish test aircraft have a fancier one with railings I've seen.
 
Yes. And sorry as I don´t have the relevant picture on this computer.
Only depiction I found via a quick browser search on the internet is that of a kit model.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And from what I've heard from friends and read, going supersonic doesn't really feel all that different inside the plane. You're going faster, but nothing weird happens that would need specific training to cover.

Edit: so it was a deliberate choice to not go supersonic, saving money.
Click to expand...
It doesn't feel different as a passenger, the control forces on the flight controls do feel different, especially for non-fly-by-wire. The T-38 for instance has a very interesting pitch trim curve through transonic into supersonic flight. Even the Viper becomes statically stable in pitch and will have different pitch characteristics super versus subsonic. Although this is less of an issue with FBW.

IIRC the T-7 is just barely supersonic, enough so to demonstrate the difference in handling characteristics in preparation for more expensive airframes.
 
www.twz.com

Inside T-7 Red Hawk Test Operations At Edwards AFB

T-7 Red Hawk Integrated Test Force director details testing progress that will enable a desperately needed production green light.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

T7-2665.jpg
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom