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

NMaude said:
Has someone explained to them the concepts of "Requirements creep" and "Gold plating"?
Click to expand...
They invented the concept, I think...


This is why you write absolutely punishing costs for change requests past a certain point into your contracts. I'm talking order-of-magnitude increases, starting at $10mil and going up for each phase of design. $10mil, $100mil, $1bil, $10bil. The T-7 should be in the $1bil per change request level. If not $10bil/change.
 
Looks like the most-recent delay is on account of flight control software work that had to be redone to correct deficiencies that has pushed back testing and thus the M-C . Similar issues, along with the escape system fixes, had previously caused the delay from early to mid 2025.
Multiple updates to the T-7’s flight control software have been required, delaying progress. According to the commander of Edwards’s 412th Test Wing, Brig. Gen. Douglas P. Wickert, the problem centered on control issues when the aircraft was operating at high angles of attack...A Boeing spokesperson acknowledged the flight control setbacks, but said the problem is now solved..
Click to expand...

“We experienced a delay, but the issues have been resolved and the program is pressing forward with high angle of attack testing up to 30 degrees,” a Boeing spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine before the latest Air Force announcement. The spokesperson said such issues “are not uncommon when testing a new aircraft.”
Click to expand...
www.airandspaceforces.com

USAF Rejiggers T-7 Plan Again: New Test Aircraft, Delayed Production

The Air Force plans to buy four new test aircraft for the T-7 program and delay the first contract for production aircraft until fiscal 2026.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

 
Last edited:
archipeppe said:
A complex question with a simple answer.... ;)
Click to expand...
Now one would think that, but, well, it needs US electronics that work on a different amperage, and the fuel system is not in concurrence with USAF Reg "this that and the other," and the brakes have to be redone, different ejection seats. But most of all the Congressional delegations from Missouri and five other states will have grave concerns about it being the best choice.
 
yasotay said:
Now one would think that, but, well, it needs US electronics that work on a different amperage, and the fuel system is not in concurrence with USAF Reg "this that and the other," and the brakes have to be redone, different ejection seats. But most of all the Congressional delegations from Missouri and five other states will have grave concerns about it being the best choice.
Click to expand...
It is right.
But M-346 is more "F-35 oriented" as Italian and other air forces has already demonstrated.

I have a question for you: given the production line of M-346 in U.S. and not in Italy do you really think that all the above (and other) modifications would take longer than this Boeing well..... mess?
 
Boeing T-X is already producing aircraft, and first production contract will come next year. Its a fixed price contract meaning Boeing, and not the AF is on the hook for delays or additional costs associated with keeping the line humming along during this period. You aren't going to find an industrial partner, establish production program, and achieve production and design certifications in time before Boeing begins working on the first production order.

The more viable alternate to Boeing T-7A would have been the T-50 based proposal from Lockheed. LM had an industrial partnership established and site and production plane stablished for the aircraft in its South Carolina facility that now produces F-16's.
 
archipeppe said:
It is right.
But M-346 is more "F-35 oriented" as Italian and other air forces has already demonstrated.

I have a question for you: given the production line of M-346 in U.S. and not in Italy do you really think that all the above (and other) modifications would take longer than this Boeing well..... mess?
Click to expand...
While the comments from @bring_it_on are correct, I believe that it is possible for partnership with Boeing competitors . Now that Leonardo has facilities in the US and a program with the USAF, it could be a real alternate if Boeing continues to demonstrate ineptitude. I am sure that Lock-Mart would entertain renewing the option if it appeared that T-7 was truely at risk.
Honestly I think that a significant portion of the continued patience with Boeing comes from a strategic concern at America's faultering leadership in aicraft technology. I would contend that there are several nations already on par with the US in that respect, with several more rapidly gaining. Lethargic bureaucratic leadership does not keep you at the top of the game.
 
Worth refreshing how the program went down. Boeing bid something like $9 Bn on a program that had a cost estimate somewhere in the $13-15 Bn range. It was a deliberate strategy with Boeing at the time hopeful that cash flows from commercial aircraft sales would more than compensate for the additional costs..The USAF is getting a good deal here all things considered..a clean sheet digitally designed trainer aircraft with the contractor bearing 100% of the cost overruns (and penalties) to meet spec and agreed upon terms. It would be foolish for the USAF to break those terms as long as it can live with a 2-3 year delay in getting IOC. In hindsight, setting this up where someone with a completely untested design could outbid other two offers with proven designs is probably not a good idea..even if the contractor assumes all risk..
 
Last edited:
I am beginning to wonder that not all of the asininity belongs with Boeing. Have our testing methods become so infinite that it is virtually impossible for a program to meet its original timelines? I do not have any love for Boeing, nor distaste for the test community, but recent history with aircraft development make me wonder if this is more or a communal problem.
 
yasotay said:
I am beginning to wonder that not all of the asininity belongs with Boeing. Have our testing methods become so infinite that it is virtually impossible for a program to meet its original timelines? I do not have any love for Boeing, nor distaste for the test community, but recent history with aircraft development make me wonder if this is more or a communal problem.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking the same thing yesterday. It's beginning to feel a lot like those scary news reports about dangerous chemicals that are sometimes based on very small amounts that are only found due to improved testing processes.
 

Flight Testing the T-7A Red Hawk​

On this episode, Jonathan "Gremlin" Aronoff, of the U.S. Air Force's 419 Flight Test Squadron at Edwards AFB, California, describes the rigorous testing and development needed to introduce a new trainer more than a half century since the last time a tactical jet trainer debuted.
Click to expand...

podcasts.apple.com

Flight Testing the T-7A Red Hawk

Podcast Episode · Fighter Pilot Podcast · 01/28/2025 · 1h 55m
podcasts.apple.com podcasts.apple.com
 
yasotay said:
I am beginning to wonder that not all of the asininity belongs with Boeing. Have our testing methods become so infinite that it is virtually impossible for a program to meet its original timelines? I do not have any love for Boeing, nor distaste for the test community, but recent history with aircraft development make me wonder if this is more or a communal problem.
Click to expand...
Some of the seats issues are USAF responsibility as they selected the seat. The seat escape issues, so getting the seat out of the aircraft and specifically through the canopy, are Boeing issues.

Overall I agree with your statement though. The test community has become completely risk averse. Easy to say because I'm not putting my life on the line but the amount of time spent on edge cases that are almost never replicated in real life and could be mitigated by either stronger training or AGCAS, which isn't currently on the aircraft.
 
Ozair said:
Some of the seats issues are USAF responsibility as they selected the seat. The seat escape issues, so getting the seat out of the aircraft and specifically through the canopy, are Boeing issues.
Click to expand...
Also pertaining to seat requirements itself. Introduced expanded seat and egress requirements assumes risk on the program. AF wanted that from day-1, and Boeing agreed to it so now they must eat the cost of all those re-runs and testing.
 
bring_it_on said:
Also pertaining to seat requirements itself. Introduced expanded seat and egress requirements assumes risk on the program. AF wanted that from day-1, and Boeing agreed to it so now they must eat the cost of all those re-runs and testing.
Click to expand...
That part confuses me. The other option was the MB seat that was already certified for the weights the USAF was seeking and operational on the F-35. I question if that seat had been chosen what the state of play would be today.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom