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

[Mach42]

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

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.

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

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.....

Except that
1. The T-7A’s issues are not just limited to the ejection system
2. The issues with the T-7A’s ejection system are not just related to the ACES 5 ejection seat but are connected to Boeing’s choice of a Canopy Destruct design over the Canopy Jettison design of the T-50A

If one reads the above articles on the GAO report it seems clear that the USAF selecting ACES 5 is minor aspect of Boeing’s failures for the T-X program.

 

[GTX]

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.

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

LM/KAI had their chance and lost to Boeing. No point playing "the grass is greener" style what if scenarios.

 

[FighterJock]

There is nothing wrong with the T-7A it is the ejection seat, if LM/KAI had won instead of Boeing they would have had the exactly the same issue that Boeing are now having.

 

[Kiltonge]

There is nothing wrong with the T-7A it is the ejection seat, if LM/KAI had won instead of Boeing they would have had the exactly the same issue that Boeing are now having.

"The Air Force and Boeing also disagree over how close the T-7′s flight control software is to being finished, GAO said."

"...the Air Force’s own software experts said five or six more revisions to the software will be needed to fix problems with the trainer’s flight control"

"Each iteration could take six more months, Air Force experts told GAO, which could delay the completion of the software by more than two years "

 

[Helix88]

it’s worth noting that flight control software can vary considerably between production standard models and initial rollout versions of an aircraft. The ejection seat issue has been dodging the T-7a for the last little while now., though seems that it will be resolved relatively soon. When you consider from that from initial design to the first flight took a little over three years, that’s pretty impressive. Even if as far as a development schedule, current delays put it more on par with the slogging pace that is more typical.

 

[Flyaway]

There is nothing wrong with the T-7A it is the ejection seat, if LM/KAI had won instead of Boeing they would have had the exactly the same issue that Boeing are now having.

"The Air Force and Boeing also disagree over how close the T-7′s flight control software is to being finished, GAO said."

"...the Air Force’s own software experts said five or six more revisions to the software will be needed to fix problems with the trainer’s flight control"

"Each iteration could take six more months, Air Force experts told GAO, which could delay the completion of the software by more than two years "

What is it with Boeing and software these days, need we mention the Starliner here. By the way people mentioning that the T-7 is still on a fast schedule, again I mention the Starliner. I know they are different parts of Boeing but does it speak to a more general issue.

 

[Helix88]

There is nothing wrong with the T-7A it is the ejection seat, if LM/KAI had won instead of Boeing they would have had the exactly the same issue that Boeing are now having.

"The Air Force and Boeing also disagree over how close the T-7′s flight control software is to being finished, GAO said."

"...the Air Force’s own software experts said five or six more revisions to the software will be needed to fix problems with the trainer’s flight control"

"Each iteration could take six more months, Air Force experts told GAO, which could delay the completion of the software by more than two years "

What is it with Boeing and software these days, need we mention the Starliner here. By the way people mentioning that the T-7 is still on a fast schedule, again I mention the Starliner. I know they are different parts of Boeing but does it speak to a more general issue.

The Starliner and T-7 actually fall under the purview of Boeing defense and space or BDS. So at least at a high-level, they are managed by at least the same team of corporate decision makers.

 

[FighterJock]

Oh dear, I did not know that. Let’s wait and see if Boeing can get both problems sorted out.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

There is nothing wrong with the T-7A it is the ejection seat, if LM/KAI had won instead of Boeing they would have had the exactly the same issue that Boeing are now having.

To add to what's given, if you read the GAO report you'll see that the escape system problems are three-fold :

Two are related to the canopy fracturing system, which the T-50A wouldn't have had at all.
The other is the decceleration problem that occurs when the parachute deploye, which happens too rapidly and is dangerous when it comes to pilots with small body. This is the only problem the T-50A would have shared with T-7A in current state.

Also apart from the flight software problem mentioned by others and the escape system problem, there's the problem of inadequate program management. Overall Boeing didn't manage this program the best way they could, even accounting for the delays caused by the ejection seat itself (then again, even if the ACES decceleration problem wasn't there, their own choice of the canopy fracturing system design would have caused delays concerning the commenct of EMD flight tests, so they've got no excuse). Most importantly they still haven't submitted critical sustainment data which is also important to keep the EMD flight test prototypes afloat. So they are compounding issues regarding the flight test delays themselves.

Significant portion of these developmental issues wouldn't have been present with the T-50A.

LM/KAI had their chance and lost to Boeing. No point playing "the grass is greener" style what if scenarios.

There's a lot of point of considering the what if scenario. For one when a company undercuts the program budget by 10 billions and aims to deliver clean sheet design on a very tight schedule which they've agreed with while having demonstrated very questionable corporate management strategies in recent times points to something very notable going forward. Also everything right now point to proving that acquiring a pre-existing, advanced-enough design would have cut the bill without most of these hassles, since we are talking about a non-combat system.

 

[Sundog]

There is nothing wrong with the T-7A it is the ejection seat, if LM/KAI had won instead of Boeing they would have had the exactly the same issue that Boeing are now having.

To add to what's given, if you read the GAO report you'll see that the escape system problems are three-fold :

Two are related to the canopy fracturing system, which the T-50A wouldn't have had at all.
The other is the decceleration problem that occurs when the parachute deploye, which happens too rapidly and is dangerous when it comes to pilots with small body. This is the only problem the T-50A would have shared with T-7A in current state.

Also apart from the flight software problem mentioned by others and the escape system problem, there's the problem of inadequate program management. Overall Boeing didn't manage this program the best way they could, even accounting for the delays caused by the ejection seat itself (then again, even if the ACES decceleration problem wasn't there, their own choice of the canopy fracturing system design would have caused delays concerning the commenct of EMD flight tests, so they've got no excuse). Most importantly they still haven't submitted critical sustainment data which is also important to keep the EMD flight test prototypes afloat. So they are compounding issues regarding the flight test delays themselves.

Significant portion of these developmental issues wouldn't have been present with the T-50A.

LM/KAI had their chance and lost to Boeing. No point playing "the grass is greener" style what if scenarios.

There's a lot of point of considering the what if scenario. For one when a company undercuts the program budget by 10 billions and aims to deliver clean sheet design on a very tight schedule which they've agreed with while having demonstrated very questionable corporate management strategies in recent times points to something very notable going forward. Also everything right now point to proving that acquiring a pre-existing, advanced-enough design would have cut the bill without most of these hassles, since we are talking about a non-combat system.

You actually don't know that that would have been the only problem the T-50 would have had, because the version the USAF was getting was quite a bit different from what is flying now. Many of the systems were different, the cockpit was different, etc. The T-50 that is flying now is only a shell of what the USAF would have been getting.

 

[TomcatViP]

The T-50 would have certainly faced the same problem adapting its ejection system for the lower end of pilot size and weight.
I don't understand why it's so hard for some to get that the requirements for pilots morphology are new. It's even probable that all aircraft will face the same problems: F-35, F-16, 15, 22, B-21 or even NGAD.

You don't train petites in a T-7 to assign them a desk behind a typewriter...

 

[Moose]

With recruitment and retention issues, you want to put anyone smart and motivated enough to do the job in there.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

You actually don't know that that would have been the only problem the T-50 would have had, because the version the USAF was getting was quite a bit different from what is flying now. Many of the systems were different, the cockpit was different, etc. The T-50 that is flying now is only a shell of what the USAF would have been getting.

Yes, it's possible that a teething issue could've arrised concerning new avionics, but slim chance it would've been anywhere as serious as fundamental airvehicle problems the T-7A has right now. You're underestimating the advantage of a proven pre-existing platform and are overly exaggerating the difference between the T-50 and the T-50A and the possible developmental issues.

If anything, most of those new training and cockpit avionics and systems unique to APT, which would've also been required for the T-50A, are not the main issues with T-7A right now in the first place. Bar the ACES, we're talking about components and systems that in case for the T-50A, would've been shared with other T-50 variants and have been working just fine.

The T-50 would have certainly faced the same problem adapting its ejection system for the lower end of pilot size and weight.
I don't understand why it's so hard for some to get that the requirements for pilots morphology are new. It's even probable that all aircraft will face the same problems: F-35, F-16, 15, 22, B-21 or even NGAD.

Calling it the "same problem" is just very misleading. Like I and others have said, the T-50A would not have had the canopy fracturing system related problems at all in the first place. For the T-50A the only problem would've been for Raytheon to sort their issues out with ACES whereas with T-7A, even if there wasn't any problem with the ejection seat itself, they would still need to get the fracturing system work safely before any kind of EMD flight test would get underway.

 

[TomcatViP]

Why would fracturation system not have been a problem?

See how even Borame is subject to similar concerns:

KF-21 ejection seat works with pilots of all sizes, says Martin-Baker

Martin-Baker is showing the KR18A ejection seat it developed for the Korea Aerospace Industries KF-21 Boramae fighter, which is poised to make its maiden flight.

www.flightglobal.com

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Why would fracturation system not have been a problem?

See how even Borame is subject to similar concerns:

KF-21 ejection seat works with pilots of all sizes, says Martin-Baker

Martin-Baker is showing the KR18A ejection seat it developed for the Korea Aerospace Industries KF-21 Boramae fighter, which is poised to make its maiden flight.

www.flightglobal.com

No it doesn't...? If you're going to link an article, I hope you actually read what's written before citing it. It doesn't mention any kind of a "concern" regarding canopy system but only the fact that "Martin-Baker also provides the KF-21’s canopy ejection system.". Please go read the GAO report first before making any unsubstantiated replies. It's clear as a daylight why the T-50A would not have had significant portion of the problems the T-7A is having with its escape system (i.e. blast overpressure induced concussion and canopy fragment interference) since it uses a canopy ejection system rather than fracturing system.

 

[TomcatViP]

I think you have a point here (chomping my hat)

I made the mistake accepting w/o any back checking that the double seater canopy was not ejectable.

 

[Helix88]

T-7a achieves Military Flight Certification

https://www.airdatanews.com/boeing-achieves-military-flight-certification-for-t-7a-red-hawk-advanced-trainer/

 

[riggerrob]

Does anyone have details on the GR 7000 round parachute packed into the ACES 5 ejection seat?
Please remember that the request is coming from an FAA Master Parachute Rigger who has dozens of jumps with C8, C9 and T10 canopies and has packed hundreds of C9s into pilot emergency parachutes containers made by: Butler, Irvin, Para-Phernalia, Pioneer, Security, Strong, etc.

 

[Helix88]

T-7A Red Hawk Completes Taxi Tests Ahead Of First Flight

Boeing's T-7A now won’t be in service until 2027 at the earliest, but getting the first EMD jet into the air will be a big milestone.

www.thedrive.com

 

[TomcatViP]

Notice the serial number: 7002.

This is the second or third EMD airframe.

 

[NMaude]

Aren't the first two airframes prototypes?

 

[Helix88]

Aren't first two airframes prototypes?

Multiple EMD airframes are produced to test different facets of an aircraft required performance and durability benchmarks. One may be specifically for wing loading, one may be specifically for extreme environmental, testing, etc..

 

[TomS]

Aren't first two airframes prototypes?

Yes. I was going to say that they got civil reg numbers (N381TX and N382TX) but there are also pics of them with USAF codes as well.

 

[eagle]

That is a poor photoshop.
I couldn't find any photos of the two company jets with USAF serials.
The 5 EMD aircraft are 21-7001 to 7005.

 

[TomS]

That is a poor photoshop.
I couldn't find any photos of the two company jets with USAF serials.
The 5 EMD aircraft are 21-7001 to 7005.

I wondered. Thanks for the correction.

 

[bring_it_on]

Aren't first two airframes prototypes?

Multiple EMD airframes are produced to test different facets of an aircraft required performance and durability benchmarks. One may be specifically for wing loading, one may be specifically for extreme environmental, testing, etc..

Of the five EMD aircraft funded for the program, I believe four are going to be supporting flight testing.7002 to 7005. I think there are pictures of a couple of others but I don't think they've rolled out all five. All have been built already and I believe Boeing has started production of aircraft beyond EMD.

Edit: Actually all five are flight test aircraft. There's a sixth static test article that Boeing has also shown so they've built six aircraft already to round off EMD production and are now doing LRIP with the possibility of having as many as 10 LRIP aircraft completed by the time they get LRIP-1 production contract in early 2025. The Static test aircraft has actually been in testing since March 22 of last year.

 

[archipeppe]

Anyway, the Leonardo M-346 is always behind the corner......

Airbus and Leonardo join forces to promote new integrated training systems based on M-346

During the Paris Air Show 2023, Airbus and Leonardo signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to jointly promote integrated training systems and study future s

www.aviacionline.com

 

[bring_it_on]

This is a very competitive market segment with a few highly capable offerings. T-X is different from others here in that it has 100% of its domestic production of more than 350 aircraft ahead of it. Not to mention the high likelihood of it being chosen as a platform for other mission areas in the future. Wouldn't be far fetched to think of a domestic market of 500 or more T-7A derivatives and at least a two decade production run. They've also facilitized to 60 aircraft per year production rate so would begin to get competitive in terms of cost and delivery schedules towards the tail end of this decade as they move out of LRIP.

 

[TomcatViP]

May I remind our overly enthusiastic members that M346 wasn't able to reach key parameters and was discarded for those specific reasons. Hence, the odds to have it replace an hypothetical failed Boeing T-7 are... Null.

 

[Helix88]

First EMD flight has taken place!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1674100050773913602

View: https://twitter.com/mergenewsletter/status/1674100050773913602?s=46

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Good Day All!

I was up at Lambert for the T-7A first flight today. Those pesky Canadians exported a lot of wildfire smoke and with a mid to high overcast, the morning launch was pretty gray. The T-7A and TA-4 Skyhawk chase were out about an hour and shot one missed approach - or is it a touch and go?! - and then came back around and finished the flight. A few pics for your persual....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[aonestudio]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbLviD22S18

 

[red admiral]

So along with Boeing's internal write offs I make that Boeing has so far lost about $1.1-1.2bn on this $9.1bn contract...

So with Q2s results in we can add another $189m loss to the above to bring the total so far up to $1.3-1.4bn

 

[TomcatViP]

F-7 as a replacement for F-16?

USAF to assess need for ‘post-F-16' affordable mass

The US Air Force (USAF) is to shortly begin assessing its longer-term requirement for an “affordable” aircraft that it can operate in the post-Lockheed Martin F-16...

www.janes.com

 

[Maro.Kyo]

F-7 as a replacement for F-16?

USAF to assess need for ‘post-F-16' affordable mass

The US Air Force (USAF) is to shortly begin assessing its longer-term requirement for an “affordable” aircraft that it can operate in the post-Lockheed Martin F-16...

www.janes.com

It seems to be considered but I very much doubt.

 

[TomS]

F-7 as a replacement for F-16?

USAF to assess need for ‘post-F-16' affordable mass

The US Air Force (USAF) is to shortly begin assessing its longer-term requirement for an “affordable” aircraft that it can operate in the post-Lockheed Martin F-16...

www.janes.com

"Affordable mass" is such a nebulous role. The one specific mention they call out (protecting the Super Bowl) is basically a form of air policing, and such a rare mission that frankly we CAN afford to use F-22s for it (or F-35s). It's also strange that the mention of four fighter fleets omits both the F-22 and NGAD entirely.

It's really hard to imagine that there's any room in the USAF budget to develop a new "affordable" fighter in the next few years, alongside NGAD and the various companion UCAVs.

 

[fightingirish]

Nice top-view.
From this view, the Boeing T-7A reminds me very much of the lightweight fighter project Northrop N-322 / P-610.

The first T-7A Red Hawk soars over the Mojave Desert, Nov. 8, prior to its arrival at Edwards Air Force Base, California.
USAF photo by Bryce Bennett

Source:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1736919064768094563

View: https://twitter.com/Fighterman_FFRC/status/1736919064768094563?t=OSKZDwG4le6N-aQuBERJAQ&s=19

 

[FighterJock]

Nice to see the T-7A flying at Edwards now.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Boeing pushes back T-7 plans due to faulty parts

Boeing said the companies that produced the parts with quality problems acted quickly to fix them, and it is moving to finish building the final test jets.

www.defensenews.com

I'm being proven right about my point every two months or so Boeing today are bunch of incompetent dimwits taken over by MD corporate masterminds. What a shame how a great company has fallen so much to disgrace. There's no safe space regardless if its the BCA or BDS.

What's worse is T-7A is now inevitable. Without it St. Louis plant is no more, at least in current capacity. DoD were basically forced to choose Boeing, even if they didn't undercut the bid with unreasonable cost estimates.

 

[NMaude]

Boeing today are bunch of incompetent dimwits taken over by MD corporate masterminds.

Boeing needs to be purged of the pernicious McDonnell Aircraft Corporation influence and one way to help this purge would be to moves its corporate HQ from Chicago back to Washington state.