First EMD aircraft seems to be on track to fly before end of 2021.


The main issue known as wing rock was discovered during flight testing, said Paul Niewald, Boeing’s vice president of T-7 programs.

“We saw an anomaly in the data,” he said during a briefing with reporters in September at the Air Force Association’s annual conference. “We had this wing rock at 25/26 degrees angle of attack — so the left and right wing gently rock back and forth.”

Brown, speaking during a media roundtable at the confab, said the service and Boeing were addressing the issue.

“We’re working … with them to solve this together and do it at an affordable price,” he said. “I haven’t seen anything to give me the indication it’s going to go beyond the slight delay.”

Niewald told reporters later that the issue has now been resolved and the fix required no hardware changes. He touted the benefits of digital engineering in helping to solve the issue.

“We went and fixed it before the first [engineering and manufacturing development] aircraft ever flies,” he said. “That shows how we’ve been able to use digital engineering to know where those uncertainties lie.”
 
I've read an article suggesting Boeing and Saab having a hard time to meet what the ACC has stated on their RFI as their requirements regarding the ATT program as well as the USN on their revised requirements for the new naval trainers. For example it was suggested that Boeing claimed that the maintenance cost would double for the Red Hawk under the new requirements which differs and is more challenging than that of the T-X. The sources cited by the article were Novemeber issues of Janes Defence Weekly and Washington technology. Has anyone got access to confirm these matters?
 
If they ask for more capability then of course the sustainment cost would increase commensurate with the added capability. The same will be true for pretty much anyone else wanting to meet those same requirements, with the T-X having an advantage in that it would likely be the newest of those and can cater to the exact requirement as opposed to trying to fit into it like a more established similar aircraft like the F/A-50.
 
I am also sure this thing is a rocket. That comes into my mind every time I put my eyes on it:

chevrolet-_corvette_c1-1958-c3223-043.jpg
 
The old saying about "if a plane looks good, it will fly good," comes to mind.

Too true yasotay. I hope that it will have a long service life with the USAF, and I also hope that it will not be long before we see the first export customer.
 
My money is on seeing these in the Thunderbirds eventually, since the F-35 looks like a whale at airshows
 
My money is on seeing these in the Thunderbirds eventually, since the F-35 looks like a whale at airshows

Seems inevitable, honestly. It's going to be cheaper to fly than either F-16 or F-35, and the F-35 would mean abandoning the popular back seat publicity flights.

I would think that the T-7A would suite the Thunderbirds a lot better than the F-35 even though the F-35 has the main advantage of being the main frontline fighter, TomS is right that the T-7A would be cheaper to fly and maintain in the long term.
 
Given the supposed cost per flight hour differential, I would vote for T-7A for the Tbirds before F-35.
In Thunderbird's service, the F-35's stealth coatings, thermal management systems and lots of electronics would probably taken off so I'd think that the unit price and operating costs would be reduced.
 
I just don't see how either team could go without 2-seaters. Maybe a high-low mix in their future, but that brings its own complications.

I think if you want better performance than T-7A, cross your fingers that the light interceptor version happens and gets an upgrade to F414.
 
Given that almost all the airforces of the world have long since shifted away from using front line fighter aircraft for their display/ aerobatic teams then a planned future for the US airforces Thunderbirds display teams based on the T-7 would appear to make a lot of sense.

Any transition doesn’t have to be rushed (the F-16s being used should last a while more, possible could swap in more used F-16s as an interim step - also a while before any T-7s become available) but the T-7 class of trainer, when available, would clearly offer approx. equivalent air show performance as a F-16 or F-35 but at a more efficient price/ cost point.

In a future of ever-stretched defence budgets and needing to concentrate spending on where it matters most, potentially out-moded traditions like “the Thunderbirds have only ever flown front line fighters” need to be interrogated and evolve.
 
I just don't see how either team could go without 2-seaters. Maybe a high-low mix in their future, but that brings its own complications.

I think if you want better performance than T-7A, cross your fingers that the light interceptor version happens and gets an upgrade to F414.

In a future of ever-stretched defence budgets and needing to concentrate spending on where it matters most, potentially out-moded traditions like “the Thunderbirds have only ever flown front line fighters” need to be interrogated and evolve.

The T-Birds flew T-38s for 8 years. I've never heard that those shows were somehow unsatisfactory, though they did change to be less vertical, more horizontal, to play into the Talon's strengths. They'd probably have kept flying T-38s for a while longer if not for the 1982 crash. (The Blue Angels kept flying A-4s until 1986 -- 12 years total)

If the Navy adopts the T-7B for aggressor flying, I'd be shocked if they don't use them for demonstration as well, eventually. They're going to want those Super Hornet airframes back in the fleet at some point.
 
I just don't see how either team could go without 2-seaters. Maybe a high-low mix in their future, but that brings its own complications.

I think if you want better performance than T-7A, cross your fingers that the light interceptor version happens and gets an upgrade to F414.

I was surprised that Boeing did not use an upgraded variant of the F-414 engine to begin with for the T-7A and have it as a supersonic advanced jet trainer to begin with, let's hope that in the not too distant future Boeing rectifies that issue and designs a T-7B.
 
I was surprised that Boeing did not use an upgraded variant of the F-414 engine to begin with for the T-7A and have it as a supersonic advanced jet trainer to begin with, let's hope that in the not too distant future Boeing rectifies that issue and designs a T-7B.

Comes down to there not being enough performance incentive in the contract to justify the more expensive F414 (up front and on fuel) when there were pretty serious incentives to keep CPFH as low as possible.

T-7B is discussed a bit above and seems to be a pretty minimal tweak to suit Navy (non-carrier) requirements.

F414 probably won't show up unless/until they build the currently notional FT-7 (AT-7, TF-7? Who knows with the nomenclature office these days?)
 
Do we believe the weight of the T-7A?

It's one of the bigger AJTs out there, and yet it's given as 3,250 kg empty - less than an M345, or just over half the empty weight of the T-50.

Looking at the many photos of the aircraft 'in build' do we believe the thing is really all-metal? The back end in particular has a 'compositish' look to it.
 
It's all metal. It's also novative in many aspects, like the digital one that allows more efficient building techniques with less material.
Saab was very proud of their new assembly method that reduces drastically the number of fasteners.

Last but not least, the instrumentless and radarless cockpit and nose section help greatly in taming down the front section weight, hence that of the entire plane. Think that when a cockpit and nose are heavy, being usually the tip of a long perch mounted like mass, it's all the airframe that needs to be structurally reinforced to cope with accelerations induced strains. The rear surfaces need also to be dimensioned large enough to raise the nose and trim it without excessive drag. Etc.. Etc...

Boeing_T-7A-pilot.jpg
 
It's all metal. It's also novative in many aspects, like the digital one that allows more efficient building techniques with less material.
Saab was very proud of their new assembly method that reduces drastically the number of fasteners.

Last but not least, the instrumentless and radarless cockpit and nose section help greatly in taming down the front section weight, hence that of the entire plane. Think that when a cockpit and nose are heavy, being usually the tip of a long perch mounted like mass, it's all the airframe that needs to be structurally reinforced to cope with accelerations induced strains. The rear surfaces need also to be dimensioned large enough to raise the nose and trim it without excessive drag. Etc.. Etc...

Boeing_T-7A-pilot.jpg

Smart looking cockpit. Gone are the old fashioned steam gauge instruments, and in with the digital screens.
 
Do we believe the weight of the T-7A?
No we don't. Well I don't for sure.
AFAIK, no official empty weight has been released. But some sources seemed to reason it's the T-38 replacement so surely the successor must be in the same weight class.
I think the T-7 is closer to 6 tons (the T-50 is about 6.5 tons).
 
Boeing recently said it would pay the Air Force $285 million for charges related to the plane’s late-stage development and production. The Air Force directed a request for details on the fines to Boeing; the company declined to answer.

I don't think it works that way. Or is this a new development? Is the AF doing a "clawback" of progress payments by refusing to liquidate them?

Fines?
 
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...
I wonder if they'll make any profits off the T-X program at this point. Can't imagine their profit margins to be high enough already, if they've undercut LM/KAI by that much. Guess foreign sales would be saving grace.

Also, I think it's clear at this point who should be contracted for the ATT and UJTS.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom