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

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.
 
The thrust to Weight ratio is not there for speed, although an over Mach 1 capability was deemed as a favorable factor. It's there for sustained turns without loosing too much altitude and time to climb (and climb back) to training altitude.

The goals of the requirements were generally around having a training scession compressed in time and volume to allow for extra training time per flight hour. Something the T-7 does with brio.
 
I’ve heard speculation that the weight might have been misreported, that they were given in KG but assumed to be lb. That would make it similar in weight to the T-50.
 
F-2 said:
I’ve heard speculation that the weight might have been misreported, that they were given in KG but assumed to be lb. That would make it similar in weight to the T-50.
Click to expand...
That could well be the case. It would make the weights closer to Gripen, which has the same engine.
 
Ahh Northrop's little beauty needed a real successor. Redhawk has always been a disappointment. I am not an engineering nerd so what struck me first was its ugliness. It is nothing like the sleek and stiletto-like talon. In spite of many issues I am sure it will all be resolved as it is a pretty vital system for our military.
 
I’d like to see it cut loose at an airshow when they have more than just the EMD aircraft. I understand it has formidable high AoA capabilities.
 
F-2 said:
I’ve heard speculation that the weight might have been misreported, that they were given in KG but assumed to be lb. That would make it similar in weight to the T-50.
Click to expand...
My theory: Empty weight has never been disclosed. So someone just concluded the T-7 should weigh the same as its predecessor. T-38 empty weight as per wikipedia: 7,200 lb (3,266 kg). militaryfactory.com says T-7 empty weight is 7,165 lb (3,250 kg). No way the T-7 is that light.
The claimed MTOW of 12,125 lb (5,500 kg) is still around 1000 kg less than the T-50's empty weight.
 
TomcatViP said:
It's there for sustained turns without loosing too much altitude and time to climb (and climb back) to training altitude.
Click to expand...

So basically to "Turn and burn" in training flights?

TMA1 said:
I am not an engineering nerd so what struck me first was its ugliness. It is nothing like the sleek and stiletto-like talon.
Click to expand...

What controlled-substance have you been smoking? IMO I think the T-7A is a very elegant design and it's IMO a reflection of its' SAAB design heritage.
 
TMA1 said:
Ahh Northrop's little beauty needed a real successor. Redhawk has always been a disappointment. I am not an engineering nerd so what struck me first was its ugliness. It is nothing like the sleek and stiletto-like talon. In spite of many issues I am sure it will all be resolved as it is a pretty vital system for our military.
Click to expand...
The Northrop trainer had mechanical flight controls (don't know if they would have proposed FBW) as an example and the T-7 is FBW, representative of all new modern jets flying. Trainer aircraft have to be representative as close as possible to actual in-service or upcoming new aircraft, both in performance, handling and avionics.
 
www.airandspaceforces.com

Boeing Says T-7 Developmental Testing 80 Percent Complete | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Boeing-Saab T-7A Red Hawk advanced trainer is making progress despite the COVID-19 pandemic, Boeing officials reported July 14.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

The Boeing-Saab T-7A Red Hawkadvanced trainer is making progress despite the COVID-19 pandemic, with 80 percent of developmental testing complete and the first engineering and manufacturing development aircraft under construction, Boeing officials reported July 14.

“We’ve had over 200 flights with our two test aircraft,” which sometimes fly multiple times a day, Thomas Breckenridge, company vice president for international sales, told reporters on a media call. Boeing does not call the jets prototypes, because they were built on production tooling, but the eventual production aircraft will be somewhat different than the initial version.

Dan Draeger, chief test pilot, said the test pace has slowed only a bit during the pandemic in order to maintain social distancing among pilots, ground crew, and technicians in the telemetry room. It has not been possible to fly the two aircraft simultaneously as a result, but they have been taken to 557 knots and testing in “negative G” conditions—to test whether lubricants and fuel flow properly when the jet is inverted—is nearly complete, he said. The advent of very hot weather in the St. Louis, Mo., area will facilitate hot-weather testing in the coming weeks, he noted.

Draeger said the Air Force’s threshold requirement was for the jet to be able to maneuver at 20 degrees angle of attack, but testing shows it can maneuver “and demonstrate excellent aircraft performance well above” 25 degrees AOA, which was the objective requirement.

USAF’s sustained turn requirement was 12.5 degrees per second and an instantaneous turn rate of 18 degrees per second, “and we’re in excess of those” requirements, Draeger said. The sustained G requirement was 6.5 and the objective 7.5, and he said the jet is performing “well above” the 6.5 level. “We’re definitely demonstrating fighter-like performance,” Draeger added.

Breckenridge declined to provide details of how far along the first engineering and manufacturing development aircraft is and when it might fly, other than to say production is underway.

Progress is also being made on the simulation and ground-based training system, company officials asserted. Pam Valdez, vice president of Air Force services, said the first simulator will be delivered in 2023, “just before” the delivery of the first all-up airplane. It will help get the first cadre of instructor pilots ready for the T-7, she said.

Boeing designed the T-7 to have “growth capability” to allow it to serve in Air Forces desiring capability like that of the F-5 or Alpha Jet, Breckenridge said, and the company is exploring options for marketing the aircraft as a light attack platform. The aircraft as it stands has a single hardpoint on the centerline, although Boeing officials have previously said there is room under the wings for additional weapon stations. “We’re very confident the T-7 is able to fulfill that role,” he said.

He also said Boeing is looking at a Navy requirement for a T-45 carrier aircraft trainer, and the company is “confident” it can offer a T-7-based solution. He declined to say whether the landing gear or other structure would have to be altered to meet the Navy’s requirement, which is for a jet that can “touch and go” on a flight deck, but doesn’t have to make an arrested landing.

The Air Force recently rolled out a new concept of operations for fighter pilot training, called “Reforge,” that might require the purchase of more T-7s beyond the 351 called for in the 2018 contract. Breckenridge said Boeing has discussed it with the Air Force, but at this point the company has no idea how many additional T-7s might be needed. He said Boeing will remain “flexible” to support USAF pilot training in any way the service requires.

Valdez said the T-7 is “interoperable within its own network,” but there are no plans to integrate it with other jets through live, virtual, constructive training networks. She asserted that foreign customers could benefit from the jet because it would be interoperable with USAF trainers.

Discussions have continued with numerous potential customers on international sales even through COVID restrictions, Breckenridge noted. While he would not say when a first international aircraft could come off the line, “there is flexibility in the system to go over and above” the numbers already planned for the Air Force, so “we are able to meet needs that may arise from the international market.” He said it might be possible to start working on international contracts “as soon as the customer is ready for it.”

He also said Boeing is open to allowing licensed overseas production of the T-7 if the numbers required and conditions warrant.
Click to expand...
 
raptor82 said:
The JASDF may choose T-7A as its next-gen advanced trainer .（T-4後継機，T-4 successor）
Click to expand...

well, the silhoutte looks quite a bit like the T-7A, but who knows
Japan could well consider other alternatives such as the M-346
(Hurjet probably not likely, T-50 very unlikely)
or go at it on their own, as its something within their industry's capabilities.
 
Im kinda surprised they haven’t opted to build one themselves like they always have, but not shocked either
 
F-2 said:
Im kinda surprised they haven’t opted to build one themselves like they always have, but not shocked either
Click to expand...
Almost certainly they will build the aircraft they choose in Japan, but they may find an off-the-shelf design appealing if they're looking to keep their engineering effort focused on GCAP.
 
1675576159863.png

Above screenshot shows HUD screen of the T-7A. It seems to be the first time seeing EAS and TAS displayed together in addition to CAS on the HUD screen of fighter jets. Is this only for flight tests?
 
Last edited:
How many countries are buying the F-35? Why not buy the trainer designed specifically for the F-35 as well? At least that's what Boeing should be thinking.
 
Im saying we already have it in the T-7. Boeing is likely going to try marketing it to all those that bought the F-35.
 
I don't see many air forces forking out for a dedicated Red Air Aggressor trainer. That's a niche role and a pricey one (marginally cheaper than using frontline 4th Gen fighters I concede). It would seem to be tailored towards F-35 users.
 
Boeing is watching the market for trainers closely, and honestly with the design and expertise of Saab on board I feel like they might have gotten the formula right to capture all the slots that are opening in the aging trainer/lightweight jet market. They are certainly going to push hard for the T-45 replacement, and as the BAE Hawk fleets age out, they seem like a logical choice as well.
 
I'd think there's room for a new triner in the Hawk mould that trades out the top end performance of the T-7 for 80-50% cost reduction
 
red admiral said:
I'd think there's room for a new triner in the Hawk mould that trades out the top end performance of the T-7 for 80-50% cost reduction
Click to expand...
I disagree. Aircraft like the PC-21 show that the turboprops have increasingly eaten into the traditional high speed jet trainer role and the one part of that role that survives for jets is the top-end performance/ system capability area (where aircraft like the T-50, M-346 and T-7 can also offer a cheaper more efficient alternative than most training undertaken on 2-seat versions of the in-service combat types).

This is still a bit of a niche but for the likes of the US and the T-7 (and all the exports that will inevitably come its way on the back of this) it’s still quite a big niche.
And if people really wanted an aircraft in the class of the Hawk they would be ordering it. And they’re not.

There might be a gap for a super-efficient low-cost jet powered PC-21 competitor/ equivalent (though it would be quite late to the market and potentially be at a disadvantage in that regard). But again this is no Hawk equivalent.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom