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

I am not sure that the PC-21 class of high performance turbo trainer will survive long.
Modern training emphasize the importance of trainee cognitive ability in a modern combat environment, increasing the need for longer high performances flight time in the syllabus sessions on a cost effective manner. Hence, a modern trainer will take less time to climb to altitude, less time to recover from high G manoeuvres and spend more time into dynamics mode (high G turn, high alpha, beta departure)... All things that are only precious goddies in a turboprop trainer when even available (most are not).

Turboprops were a thing of peacetime when we had experts of all kinds professing the end of wars and counter terrorism activity as the model of future warfare. They were wrong.

It's time to move on.
 
There is nothing cheaper than a simulator for flying hours and a lot of combat training can be done on a fully networked set-up against a whole array of AI-directed and human-directed targets.

Sure the modern pilot needs to learn situational awareness and airmanship and effects of G - but that doesn't necessarily require strapping them into a mini-F-16. Lighting afterburners is fun but for most potential customer nations without a million square miles of desert/tundra nothingness to fly around in, subsonic is going to be order of the day for most overland and nap-of-the earth flight profiles.
 
I don't mean an actual Hawk, but more the approach for an 80% performance design in order to reduce costs. I think you can take some significant cost out of T-7, T-50, M-346 by lowering performance a bit. Sure training in some aspects might not be quite as good, but its all a balance.

I think the turboprops will stay around for intermediate training, or just for an even lower cost point
 
T-7 production aircraft soon to start EMD flight test as ejection seat problems solved:

The seats did not behave as expected in tests with pilot manikins representing the smallest class of potential pilots.

“We anticipate EMD (engineering, manufacturing and development) flight testing will begin this summer after receiving the military flight release,” a Boeing spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “We continue to progress on T-7 escape system testing. Along with the U.S. Air Force, we have compiled a lot of data that shows we are moving in the right direction.”
Click to expand...

www.airandspaceforces.com

Boeing: Developmental Flight Testing for the T-7 Expected This Summer

The Air Force’s new trainer aircraft, the T-7, may start flight testing this summer as Boeing and the service resolve an ejection seat issue.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
 
I wasn't aware that the T-7 had issue with its' Martin-Baker ejection-seats, what was the problem?
 
TomcatViP said:
T-7 production aircraft soon to start EMD flight test as ejection seat problems solved:

The seats did not behave as expected in tests with pilot manikins representing the smallest class of potential pilots.

“We anticipate EMD (engineering, manufacturing and development) flight testing will begin this summer after receiving the military flight release,” a Boeing spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “We continue to progress on T-7 escape system testing. Along with the U.S. Air Force, we have compiled a lot of data that shows we are moving in the right direction.”
Click to expand...

www.airandspaceforces.com

Boeing: Developmental Flight Testing for the T-7 Expected This Summer

The Air Force’s new trainer aircraft, the T-7, may start flight testing this summer as Boeing and the service resolve an ejection seat issue.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...

Sources told Air & Space Forces Magazine the Air Force either improperly evaluated data gathered during earlier ejection seat testing, incorrectly instrumented the manikins, or both. A reassessment of the data, combined with the testing Hunter referenced, now show that the seats are compliant, the sources said.
Click to expand...

So the issue wasn't even the seats not working? It was just the data gathered itself that was incorrect?
 
What I think
GTX said:
NMaude said:
I wasn't aware that the T-7 had issue with its' Martin-Baker ejection-seats, what was the problem?
Click to expand...
See here:

www.airandspaceforces.com

Air Force and Boeing Delay T-7A, Citing Escape System Problem | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force and Boeing have encountered issues with the ejection system of the new T-7A trainer jet, delaying production deliveries.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
It wasn't the Martin-Baker seats that are in the prototypes that were the problem. Production T-7A's will have Collins ACES V seats, that is the seat that is having problems.
 
NCQ said:
NMaude said:
mkellytx said:
The exception is the MB seats in the T-38 which replaced the old 1950’s seat.
Click to expand...

The F-35 is also equipped with MB seats.
Click to expand...
That's mostly a result of the British involvement in the JSF program as I understand it.
Click to expand...

Partly but also keep in mind that the USN (And by extension the USMC since it's subordinate to the USN) have a preference for MB seats dating back to the 1950s.
 
Not again, and it is the ejection seat that is causing the trouble, not good news that production won’t start until 2027.
 
@FighterJock That’s not what it says. 1st production aircraft will be delivered in Dec 2025, with IOC in 2027.
Production will have to start in 2024 or even earlier, with final assembly AFAIK scheduled for the first half of 2025.
 
H_K said:
@FighterJock That’s not what it says. 1st production aircraft will be delivered in Dec 2025, with IOC in 2027.
Production will have to start in 2024 or even earlier, with final assembly AFAIK scheduled for the first half of 2025.
Click to expand...

Thanks H_K, I had read the article wrong.
 
FighterJock said:
Not again, and it is the ejection seat that is causing the trouble, not good news that production won’t start until 2027.
Click to expand...
The problem is with expanding the - ejection seat - envelope to include Society of Automotive Engineers 5th percentile women (108 pounds and standing 60 inches/5 feet tall). These tiny humans simply cannot survive the same ejection forces as mid-sized men. Remember that mid-sized men still often suffer injuries during ejections.
 
www.thedrive.com

T-7A Delays Compound Pilot Shortage, Expose Digital Engineering Pitfalls

Boeing's T-7 Red Hawk delays aren't just a pilot production issue, they are also a reality check on 'transformational' digital engineering.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

Looks like the digital design concept is not flawless. But in the long run it's better for Boeing to iron out and perfect this technology on a trainer than on a sixth gen fighter. It would also have big applications for their 737 replacement down the line.

Does anyone feel that maybe the Lockheed T-50 should have been selected instead ?
 
www.thedefensepost.com

South Korea Plans to Double FA-50 Fighting Eagle Aircraft Production

South Korea plans to increase its manufacturing capacity for the FA-50 Fighting Eagle by building two additional production lines in 2024.
www.thedefensepost.com www.thedefensepost.com

KAI is ramping up production of the FA-50, and the company told investors that it sees a chance that the USAF would buy its trainers, at least as a stopgap, due to the T-7 delays.

alberchico said:
Looks like the digital design concept is not flawless. But in the long run it's better for Boeing to iron out and perfect this technology on a trainer than on a sixth gen fighter.
Click to expand...

What was so different about Boeing's "e-planes"? Is it just marketing nonsense? CAD and VR have been commercially available for decades. ANSYS and OpenFOAM have been around since the 90s. A jet trainer shouldn't be this difficult to develop or manufacture, especially for a company like Boeing.
 
Too true alberchico. Looking back I too would have much preferred the Lockheed T-50 to have won the contest instead.
 
The Lockheed aircraft would have been required to use the same seat, and it's the seat which is causing the delays. This is not the airframe or overall system's failure, it's the seat.
 
I would have thought that the best idea would be to remove the existing seat and put in a new one, I don't get it how the seat could be the cause of all the delays of the T-7.
 
FighterJock said:
I would have thought that the best idea would be to remove the existing seat and put in a new one, I don't get it how the seat could be the cause of all the delays of the T-7.
Click to expand...

Because they are pushing the limits of ejection seat performance to get one that can handle 95th-percentile male and female pilots. The original T-50 seat can't do that either.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
Too true alberchico. Looking back I too would have much preferred the Lockheed T-50 to have won the contest instead.
Click to expand...
That's the one I was rooting for. I mean what are the odds that Boeing of all people would be more likely to produce a clean-sheet design on time and on budget than LM, whose design had been in production for years?
 
riggerrob said:
FighterJock said:
Not again, and it is the ejection seat that is causing the trouble, not good news that production won’t start until 2027.
Click to expand...
The problem is with expanding the - ejection seat - envelope to include Society of Automotive Engineers 5th percentile women (108 pounds and standing 60 inches/5 feet tall). These tiny humans simply cannot survive the same ejection forces as mid-sized men. Remember that mid-sized men still often suffer injuries during ejections.
Click to expand...
It would be much easier if they no longer had to account for 95% men.

In any case, it's not the forces, per se, it's the acceleration. The seat needs a certain performance to get the human in it far enough away from the aircraft (or ground) for the parachute to deploy and slow the human to low enough speeds before they hit the ground. The rocket's thrust and burn time is set by what's needed for that 95th man, which means the accelerations will be too great for non-oversized humans.

One could, I suppose, (and perhaps they do) design the ejection seat's launch system to adjust thrust to meet the required acceleration profile. It would only take money and time.
 
The USAF should stick with the Martin-Baker seats used in the prototypes.
 
Whopper said:
KAI is ramping up production of the FA-50, and the company told investors that it sees a chance that the USAF would buy its trainers, at least as a stopgap, due to the T-7 delays.
Click to expand...
They are aiming for the ATT and UJTS programs, not a stop-gap. If anything, a stop-gap acquisition of small amount of T-50s, should the T-7 get even more delayed, are only possible if the USAF commits to an acquisition of larger fleet of T-50 in the future, which again is only possible via ATT.
 
NMaude said:
The USAF should stick with the Martin-Baker seats used in the prototypes.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, those seats don't meet the requirements either. The only seat that currently meets the requirements is the seat in the F-35 and the new US18E that will coming with the Block 70 F-16's.
 
flateric said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

GAO: Boeing Unlikely to Meet Revised T-7 Schedule

The GAO predicts more delays for the T-7A trainer, and urges the Air Force to build a realistic schedule that accounts for concurrency.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, the FA-50 is right on track, it's a pity the USA didn't choose this aircraft for the Air force next generation trainer.
www.thedefensepost.com

South Korea Plans to Double FA-50 Fighting Eagle Aircraft Production

South Korea plans to increase its manufacturing capacity for the FA-50 Fighting Eagle by building two additional production lines in 2024.
www.thedefensepost.com www.thedefensepost.com
 
pedrospe said:
flateric said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

GAO: Boeing Unlikely to Meet Revised T-7 Schedule

The GAO predicts more delays for the T-7A trainer, and urges the Air Force to build a realistic schedule that accounts for concurrency.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, the FA-50 is right on track, it's a pity the USA didn't choose this aircraft for the Air force next generation trainer.
www.thedefensepost.com

South Korea Plans to Double FA-50 Fighting Eagle Aircraft Production

South Korea plans to increase its manufacturing capacity for the FA-50 Fighting Eagle by building two additional production lines in 2024.
www.thedefensepost.com www.thedefensepost.com
Click to expand...
If the chairforce had chosen the FA-50 they'd have stuffed the exact same ejection seat into it, and experienced exactly the same problems they're having right now.....
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom