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 ;)
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom