bikerthai wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeing is in an awkward position. With the 737 MAX disaster, 787 grounding, 737-10 certification issues and 777X delays it would be incredibly unprofessional to officially announce the light fighter variant of the T-7.

Not in the least. The defense and commercial sides are distinct business units. Their clientele are different organizations with different interests and all sides know this.

During the pandemic and the MAX grounding, the defense side stabilized the company. So they have some chips to play within the company. So if they have customer for a F variant, they will be able to execute that plan as profitability permit.

The only thing that may have some bearing on the F/A-7 would be how all their products that comes out of St Louis perform.

However your concern is not new. During the MAX crisis, government officials were concerned enough to request assurance from Boeing that the military production line would not be raided to fix the commercial line. Since the military was the few bright spot during that time, Boeing kept their promise and delivered as best they could. After all it was the only way they could keep their cash flow going.


bt

Yeah, I agree. Saying airlines or the military would be offended by Boeing offering new products, is just not reasonable or accurate.

Also airlines are not holding off on compensation lawsuits, they are entitled to compensation and have received it. Many are applying the compensation as credits on new aircraft purchases.

The airline lawsuits that emerged, were from airlines that were in financial straits and didn't have the same contract assurances for compensation. But there were only a few of those. In at least one case, compensation from Boeing was the largest source of airline income, at one point in the pandemic.

The T-7 may find a market as a light fighter, it's too early to tell yet. Customers first will be looking at the performance as a trainer.

The first thing they have to address is the top speed. Mach 1.2 is a no-go for a light fighter, even with today's "top speed is irrelevant" mantra.

That being said, I don't buy that number for a second. Based on the available thrust, weight of the airframe and aero configuration, it should be able to do mach 1.2 in military power. Now mach 1.6-1.8 I'd believe.

Avatar2go wrote:

The T-7 may find a market as a light fighter, it's too early to tell yet. Customers first will be looking at the performance as a trainer.

The USAF has already put out the RFI on October 12 last year for 100+ Advanced Tactical Trainers. The Q&A a month later allows anyone to read between the lines. The Boeing T-7A contract was for 351 trainers with the options in the contract for 475 aircraft in total.

You will find that after a few years of T-7A production Boeing will begin to prewire the frames for pylons and radar. Pylon mounts will also appear inside the wing as they have already been designed digitally. I'd expect to see a photo of Boeing flight testing a T-7A with wing pylons next year.

So there will be no light fighter competition but the USAF will simply buy kits to upgrade the basic T-7A into Advanced Tactical Trainers.

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/10/t-x ... rivalries/

The Air Force is seeking “at least 100” and as many as 400 Advanced Tactical Trainer aircraft to fly aggressor missions as part of the Reforge initiative,

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... t-usaf.htm

744SPX wrote:

The first thing they have to address is the top speed. Mach 1.2 is a no-go for a light fighter, even with today's "top speed is irrelevant" mantra.

That being said, I don't buy that number for a second. Based on the available thrust, weight of the airframe and aero configuration, it should be able to do mach 1.2 in military power. Now mach 1.6-1.8 I'd believe.

The Mach 1.2 is just a minimum speed for the T-X competition as that allowed the M-346 to enter. The production T-7A will easily exceed the minimum competition speed requirement. Just like how the F-35 easily exceeds the JSF Mach 1.6 requirement.

RJMAZ wrote:

You will find that after a few years of T-7A production Boeing will begin to prewire the frames for pylons and radar

LOL, while I do not doubt Boeing will attempt a fighter version of the T-7A. They will not "pre-wire" the frames of a T-7A to be "fighter capable" like one would do in auto production.

The closest they will come would be something like this: They would win a Fighter competition. And for cost reduction purpose they may "back" incorporate some systems from the fighter to the trainer.

bt

Hey guys,
I just know Australia will end up buying T-7s in probably 10 years: perhaps even the F/A-7 version?
I will be sad to see the BAe Hawks go however, they are IMHO the best looking military jets ever, and so much better looking than the T-7!
Take care
Bunumuring

bikerthai wrote:

LOL, while I do not doubt Boeing will attempt a fighter version of the T-7A. They will not "pre-wire" the frames of a T-7A to be "fighter capable" like one would do in auto production.

The phrase is called "fitted for but not with"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_but_not_with

Boeing will 100% begin pre-wiring the frames. The central computer and displays are all powerful enough to run a full fighter version with just new software. The digital databus can simply have an extension into the wings and nose. The power supply cable can extension into the nose awaiting a future radar. This is now becoming common practice in the military.

Boeing prewired all of the RAAF Super Hornets to be Growlers despite most not being delivered as Growlers. Lockheed now runs the plumbing in every F-16 for conformals despite most not buying conformals. It actually becomes more costly to have difference parts or harnesses.

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeing will 100% begin pre-wiring the frames. The central computer and displays are all powerful enough to run a full fighter version with just new software

I see. What you are describing is design for dual use. If they had it in mind, they would have wires pre-designed in already. Not necessary begin putting in later.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeing will 100% begin pre-wiring the frames. The central computer and displays are all powerful enough to run a full fighter version with just new software

I see. What you are describing is design for dual use. If they had it in mind, they would have wires pre-designed in already. Not necessary begin putting in later.

bt

Iterative development. Boeing even mention this as part of their 3D development process. They mention how it is already designed for pylons but there is currently no metal in the wing to mount a pylon.

The radar used by the T-7 for example would most likely be a cleansheet design using the latest Gallium nitride AESA modules to reduce cost per unit. This is provides the greatest power and lowest cooling requirement for the available space. You can't design the cooling and wiring harness for a radar that isn't finalised.

The T-7 software will also evolve like with the F-35. The JSF program didn't wait until the software reached block 4 before starting production as that would result in a 10 year delay. The T-7 software will have the appearance of the F-35 but most of the features won't work. Slowly the F-35 avionic features will become simulated but still not actually work. Then once the radar and pylons get added the basic radar functions and a couple weapons will then work. Most of the F-35 avionic features in the T-7 can then go from fake/simulated to real/working. It might be another 10 years until the T-7 reaches that point but it would then be superior to all of the 4th gen fighters like the F-16, Gripen, Eurofighter etc.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
I just know Australia will end up buying T-7s in probably 10 years: perhaps even the F/A-7 version?

It is a near certainty. I think all F-35 operators besides Orra will buy the T-7 due to it being best at simulating the F-35. Boeing will have multiple versions/levels.

If we look at the KAI T-50 we have:
T-50: Advanced jet trainer
TA-50: Lead-in fighter trainer
FA-50: Light combat aircraft
F-50: A proposed single–seat multirole fighter.

KAI even offers SIX different radars:
Lockheed Martin AN/APG-67 (T-50IQ)
Elta EL/M-2032 (TA-50 and FA-50 Block 10)
Elta EL/M-2052 (FA-50 Block 20)
Northrop Grumman AN/APG-83 (FA-50 Block 20)
Raytheon AN/APG-84 (FA-50 Block 20)
Raytheon PhantomStrike (FA-50 Block 20)
LIG Nex1 (FA-50 Block 20)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle

I would expect Boeing to also offer multiple radar options. The radar manufacturers usually fund the compatibility testing as they want to get sales. Future radars will be made compatible with the central avionics computer in the T-7. Raytheon PhantomStrike currently has the best tech and highest efficiency so this radar scaled to fit the T-7 is probably the front runner..

I would expect them to add the INS6 version of the F404 as an option as well, given that an F/A-7 will most certainly be heavier.

RJMAZ wrote:

I would expect Boeing to also offer multiple radar options.

From their typical business practice, probably two options, maybe three. They do this to foster exclusive deals, promote commonality, and get good prices from radar suppliers.

bt

744SPX wrote:

I would expect them to add the INS6 version of the F404 as an option as well, given that an F/A-7 will most certainly be heavier.

I actually think it will have the exact same engine as the trainer.

The trainer only version will then have a better thrust to weight ratio, better wing loading and higher agility. The T-7 will then be able to match the latest 5th and 6th gen fighters in air combat maneuvering (dogfighting). This allows the trainer to take a lot of the hard high G load flight hours off the more expensive frames. F-22 pilots couldn't practice dogfighting in the T-38 but they could in the T-7.

The fighter version does not need such a high thrust to weight. It will be doing low end roles in the USAF such as combat air patrols, escorting AWACs and national guard work. For smaller air forces it will attack drug smuggler or pirate boats. Intercept unidentified aircraft that approach their border. Being supersonic, with a radar and to cost as cheap as possible is the primary goal for these smaller air forces.

It does not need a F414 engine to do these missions. The F414 gains its extra thrust by reducing its bypass ratio to fit inside the same physical size. A lower bypass ratio means worse fuel efficiency. The F404 burns 0.81 pound of fuel per pound of thrust. The F414 burns 0.84 pound of fuel per pound of thrust. The F404 is more fuel efficient despite it being a decade older.

bikerthai wrote:

From their typical business practice, probably two options, maybe three. They do this to foster exclusive deals, promote commonality, and get good prices from radar suppliers.

I could also see a tiny and super cheap radar available just to assist with training. I could also see a radar that fills all available space to make it as capable as a Eurofighter.

RJMAZ wrote:

escorting AWACs

That will be done by wingman drones, controlled by the AWACs themselves.

bt

RJMAZ wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

LOL, while I do not doubt Boeing will attempt a fighter version of the T-7A. They will not "pre-wire" the frames of a T-7A to be "fighter capable" like one would do in auto production.

The phrase is called "fitted for but not with"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_but_not_with

Boeing will 100% begin pre-wiring the frames. The central computer and displays are all powerful enough to run a full fighter version with just new software. The digital databus can simply have an extension into the wings and nose. The power supply cable can extension into the nose awaiting a future radar. This is now becoming common practice in the military.

Boeing prewired all of the RAAF Super Hornets to be Growlers despite most not being delivered as Growlers. Lockheed now runs the plumbing in every F-16 for conformals despite most not buying conformals. It actually becomes more costly to have difference parts or harnesses.

I don't think it's as easy as running some wires and having a plate to which one might bolt on a pylon.
The design of the pylon would require costly design and testing including drop tests. And they could not install the pylon mounting hardware and wires without this design and testing work. I don't think Boeing Defense has a history of spending even $1 on anything not required by the contract.

bikerthai wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I would expect Boeing to also offer multiple radar options.

From their typical business practice, probably two options, maybe three. They do this to foster exclusive deals, promote commonality, and get good prices from radar suppliers.

bt

Question: Does no part of Boeing Defese make a suitable radar? Because if they do, Boeing will probably only offer that.

kitplane01 wrote:

I don't think it's as easy as running some wires and having a plate to which one might bolt on a pylon.
The design of the pylon would require costly design and testing including drop tests. And they could not install the pylon mounting hardware and wires without this design and testing work.

It's called concurrency. While the T-7A is entering service Boeing will be ready be test physical pylons and radar. Most aircraft have blocks or tranches where upgrades are added during a long production run. It is very unlikely that the first T-7A off the production line will be identical to one coming off the line in 10 years time.

kitplane01 wrote:

I don't think Boeing Defense has a history of spending even $1 on anything not required by the contract.

Boeing has a clear strategy.
1) Bid low with the basic T-7 to lock in the USAF.
2) Offer a premium variant or upgrades for high profit.
3) Avoid a competition with the FA-50.
4) Secure further top up orders with high profit.

Boeing has a history of this. Super Hornet sold as an "upgrade" while it was a brand new aircraft. Super Hornet bid low, killed the F-14 and then made big profit. The KC-46 bid low and it will probably make a fat profit in the long run. Sneaking in the F-15EX without a competition.

Boeing will want to sneak the light fighter version of the T-7 into the USAF without a competition. A huge 300 aircraft lighter fighter purchase would require a proper competition. Boeing will instead upgrade them in batchs. Once the USAF has 400 T-7 in service if they need additional trainers Boeing holds a big advantage. At that point the USAF will not want to operate two different trainers and have the added cost of two different supply chains.

Once the F-16 is crushed Boeing will be able to charge F-16 prices giving massive profits.

kitplane01 wrote:

Question: Does no part of Boeing Defese make a suitable radar? Because if they do, Boeing will probably only offer that.

Not a core competence. Others does it better.

kitplane01 wrote:

I don't think it's as easy as running some wires and having a plate to which one might bolt on a pylon.

The wiring could be that easy. With computing open architectures and all digital systems, you just need to pre-route power and data bus wire. If the data wire is fiber, then you have sufficient band width for all future needs.

bt

RJMAZ wrote:

Sneaking in the F-15EX without a competition.

What are the available options for replacing the F-15C?

The F-35 (the ultimate successor) require additional pilot training which pose short term gap in capability. Any other aircrafts would face the same hurdle.

There are times when sole source competition is the only option. Hind sight: If the UK did not sole source their MPA, they would not have them now in a most critical time in Europe. Heck, they should have contracted it a year earlier.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

What are the available options for replacing the F-15C?

The F-35 (the ultimate successor) require additional pilot training which pose short term gap in capability. Any other aircrafts would face the same hurdle.

Hopefully you don't believe that..

The F-15C didn't even need to be replaced. The maintenance was simply becoming a little high. Spending $120 million per aircraft to save $15,000 per hour on maintenance is ridiculous. They created a problem to find a solution.. the solution is more profit for Boeing.

The Golden Eagles had AESA radars, 48 had a half SLEP that allowed them to fly until 2040. There was no short term gap in capability just a short term maintenance bill. The F-15Cs could have been flown until resources became available to transition the pilots without a capability gap. There is so much information on the Golden Eagles upgrades. The longeron SLEP to add 10 years costs only a few million.

Let's do the maths. The F-15EX is meant to drop maintenance from $42k per hour to $27k per hour. The F-15C Longeron SLEP costs about $100 million less than buying a brand new F-15EX. That is 6,666 hours that the F-15EX has to fly until it breaks even in cost. That is 30 years away.

The original problem was a short term capability gap of F-15C pilots and crew transitioning to the F-35. Now the F-15C pilots will never transition to the F-35 because they are stuck flying the F-15EX for 30 years.

People saying the F-15EX is more capable than the F-15C and can carry a dozen AMRAAM is irrelevant to that original problem.

bikerthai wrote:

There are times when sole source competition is the only option.

When the system is corrupt sole source will always be an option.

RJMAZ wrote:

The F-15C Longeron SLEP costs about $100 million less than buying a brand new F-15EX.

The only problem with that is you would have to pull the C out of the line in order to do upgrade

30+ years on the EX seems reasonable when you consider once the F-35 takes over the function, the EX will bed in with the E which will be serving almost as long.

144 frames, now down to 80 frames seems reasonable for a stop gap measure. I guess if one is budget conscious, might as well let the C retire without a replacement until enough F-35 can be had.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The F-15C Longeron SLEP costs about $100 million less than buying a brand new F-15EX.

The only problem with that is you would have to pull the C out of the line in order to do upgrade

Really clutching at straws with that argument. The Longeron SLEP is not like a centre barrel replacement. Compared to the regular inspections and maintenance the Longeron SLEP would not make a difference in aircraft availability at the fleet level. It is the longeron in the nose.

By replacing the aircraft's longerons — the thin strips of material that make up the skeleton of an aircraft — the Air Force can extend the life of the F-15C/D past 2030 for about $1 million per aircraft, Boeing's vice president of F-15 programs, Steve Parker, said during an April 17 interview.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/04 ... -proposal/

There are multiple levels of SLEPs proposed for the F-15C the more time and money spent the longer the life extension. Once again the original problem was the short term pilot and crew transition to the F-35. The solution was to just do the cheap and quick Longeron SLEP.

The small amount of training to transition from the F-15C to the revised F-15EX cockpit would cause more availability problems than the longeron SLEP.

bikerthai wrote:

I guess if one is budget conscious, might as well let the C retire without a replacement until enough F-35 can be had.

If they did the $1 million longeron SLEP the F-15C retirements line up perfectly with the F-35 arrivals.

“The longeron SLEP entails replacing 14 primary tension members in the structure of the forward fuselage and is critical to the safety of flight of these aircraft,”

Not familiar with F-15 construction. But any time they talk about "primary tension members in structure", easy don't comes to mind. Straight forward? Sure.

Any thing less than a month down time per frame would be a miracle. But I get your point in the time scale with pilot training.

bt

The specific F-15C of the NG are being replaced by the F-35 in the long run. For top end frontline fighter coverage, NGAD is supposed to do that.

From a pin hole view, though the program is still shrouded in secrecy, my sense is NGAD is coming along optimistically. (As far as what rumors is coming down from industrial grape vine.)

bt

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I don't think it's as easy as running some wires and having a plate to which one might bolt on a pylon.
The design of the pylon would require costly design and testing including drop tests. And they could not install the pylon mounting hardware and wires without this design and testing work.

It's called concurrency. While the T-7A is entering service Boeing will be ready be test physical pylons and radar.

That sounds like what a well run company might do, but not what the Boeing of today does. Do you have any reason that Boeing *is* doing this? (I already agree they ought to, but I don't see any reason to think they *are*. I hope you're right.)

Consider this:
737 -- two year stop on deliveries due to crashes, just now getting back
777X -- Years late and still not delivered
787 -- Deliveries stopped for over a year, just now getting back
KC-46 -- So many write offs, so much problems
Starliner -- years late
Air Force One -- years late, $billion over
(I don't want to start a "Boeing sux" thread, but just don't believe "Boeing does the right thing" without evidence. Again, I hope you're right.)

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeing has a clear strategy.
1) Bid low with the basic T-7 to lock in the USAF.
2) Offer a premium variant or upgrades for high profit.
3) Avoid a competition with the FA-50.
4) Secure further top up orders with high profit.

Why "avoid the FA-50"? That plane seems to be right in the middle of the potential figher-varient-of-the-T-7A market. Any one buying the T-7A fighter variant will of course compare with the FA-50. Maybe the T-7A-light-fighter wins, but it will be in a competition with the FA-50.

kitplane01 wrote:

That sounds like what a well run company might do, but not what the Boeing of today does.

All your "bad Boeing" examples are programs coming out of the Puget Sound area.

I harp on this often because it's true. BDS and BCA has different operational leadership, so often their performance do not coincide.

As for Boeing does the right thing?

P-8A running strong for 2 decades now. Gray Wolf finally made it past the COVID delay and FAA maze. MQ-25 and MQ-28 do not seem to be getting too many headlines.



bt

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

That sounds like what a well run company might do, but not what the Boeing of today does.

All your "bad Boeing" examples are programs coming out of the Puget Sound area.

I harp on this often because it's true. BDS and BCA has different operational leadership, so often their performance do not coincide.

As for Boeing does the right thing?

P-8A running strong for 2 decades now. Gray Wolf finally made it past the COVID delay and FAA maze. MQ-25 and MQ-28 do not seem to be getting too many headlines.



bt

Starliner is from the Puget Sound area?

Otherwise good point.

Extra credit question: Name any defense program by Boeing that's going well.

My favorite. P-8A.

AH-64 and CH-47. But yeah those are pretty much legacy programs but still churning out new variants.

The USAF spy shuttle is not in the news. Only a couple of frames, but I guess no news is good news in that case.

bt

Starliner is part of BDS, I think. But it came from the legacy Space Division which also is responsible for some of the larger communication and reconnaissance satellites out of So. Cal. I guess that part of the business although small, is doing well.

But strictly speaking, that is the S part of BDS and really not the D part.

bt

RJMAZ wrote:

Once the F-16 is crushed Boeing will be able to charge F-16 prices giving massive profits.

The T-7A is not an F-16 much like the FA-50 is not an F-16. They are in two completely separate weight and capability classes. It's like saying the pick-up truck will take over the role of semis.

kitplane01 wrote:

That sounds like what a well run company might do, but not what the Boeing of today does. Do you have any reason that Boeing *is* doing this?

The programs you list all had concurrency. The 737-9 was being developed and under construction while the 737-8 was in flight testing. That is why the both entered service within a year. The same applies with most variants in a family.

You must consider the design, manufacturing and flight testing as three different steps done in order. Once the 737-8 goes off to manufacturing the design team can move onto the 737-9. Once the flight testing people have finished with the 737-8 the design team would be onto the 737-7 and 737-10. The same applies with the 787 family. Boeing with designing the new 787-9 construction techniques while the 787-8 was being flight tested.

The T-7A is now moving into the manufacturing and flight testing stages so the design staff can move onto improvements/lights fighter. Boeing has publicly mentioned doing digital design for T-7A pylons in one of my previous links.

kitplane01 wrote:

Why "avoid the FA-50"? That plane seems to be right in the middle of the potential figher-varient-of-the-T-7A market. Any one buying the T-7A fighter variant will of course compare with the FA-50. Maybe the T-7A-light-fighter wins, but it will be in a competition with the FA-50.

The answer is very obvious. Lockheed could bid the FA-50 extremely low to get their foot in the door. This risk would mean Boeing has to also be aggressive on their price. Proof of this is the original trainer contract. Boeing bid extremely low to get their foot in the door. They could have charged much more for the original T-7A contract and still won. Not running a competition might mean Boeing charges $40 million for the light fighter version instead of $30 million. If the build price is $25 million that means Boeing's profit goes from $5 million to $15 million per aircraft. That is a couple billion in pure profit.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Why "avoid the FA-50"? That plane seems to be right in the middle of the potential figher-varient-of-the-T-7A market. Any one buying the T-7A fighter variant will of course compare with the FA-50. Maybe the T-7A-light-fighter wins, but it will be in a competition with the FA-50.

The answer is very obvious. Lockheed could bid the FA-50 extremely low to get their foot in the door. This risk would mean Boeing has to also be aggressive on their price. Proof of this is the original trainer contract. Boeing bid extremely low to get their foot in the door. They could have charged much more for the original T-7A contract and still won. Not running a competition might mean Boeing charges $40 million for the light fighter version instead of $30 million. If the build price is $25 million that means Boeing's profit goes from $5 million to $15 million per aircraft. That is a couple billion in pure profit.

All of this is why Boeing would like to avoid competing against the FA-50. But why would the DoD allow this? The DoD likes lower prices.
(Yes, know Boeing has clever salesmen, but so does LM).

Also, overseas (which is not what you wrote but what I thought you meant) avoiding competing with the FA-50 will be impossible.

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeing has publicly mentioned doing digital design for T-7A pylons in one of my previous links.

I looked in https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... t-usaf.htm and https://breakingdefense.com/2021/10/t-x ... rivalries/ and could not find the word "pylon". Also quick Google searches cannot find any relevent articles with "T-7A" and "pylon".

I might be missing something.

The T-7A’s design includes provisions for growth as requirements evolve for additional missions such as an aggressor, light attack / fighter variant.

Directly from the Boeing website.

Yes it does not say pylon. And I could not find any image of a T-7 with pylon.

What it does tell me though is the structures are probably sized to take the loads of weapons hard points, whether it be wing pylon or fuselage.

Provisions would also include pre-installed wiring as noted by RJMAZ, including but not limited to power, space and cooling requirements.

I've done something like that myself a while back. Provide a space for an LRU for a growth system, including wiring. After quite a number of deliveries, the customer still haven't excecute that growth option.

bt

RJMAZ wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

What are the available options for replacing the F-15C?

The F-35 (the ultimate successor) require additional pilot training which pose short term gap in capability. Any other aircrafts would face the same hurdle.

Hopefully you don't believe that..

The F-15C didn't even need to be replaced. The maintenance was simply becoming a little high. Spending $120 million per aircraft to save $15,000 per hour on maintenance is ridiculous. They created a problem to find a solution.. the solution is more profit for Boeing.

The Golden Eagles had AESA radars, 48 had a half SLEP that allowed them to fly until 2040. There was no short term gap in capability just a short term maintenance bill. The F-15Cs could have been flown until resources became available to transition the pilots without a capability gap. There is so much information on the Golden Eagles upgrades. The longeron SLEP to add 10 years costs only a few million.

Let's do the maths. The F-15EX is meant to drop maintenance from $42k per hour to $27k per hour. The F-15C Longeron SLEP costs about $100 million less than buying a brand new F-15EX. That is 6,666 hours that the F-15EX has to fly until it breaks even in cost. That is 30 years away.

The original problem was a short term capability gap of F-15C pilots and crew transitioning to the F-35. Now the F-15C pilots will never transition to the F-35 because they are stuck flying the F-15EX for 30 years.

People saying the F-15EX is more capable than the F-15C and can carry a dozen AMRAAM is irrelevant to that original problem.

bikerthai wrote:

There are times when sole source competition is the only option.

When the system is corrupt sole source will always be an option.

The F-15C/D absolutely needs to be replaced. They are beat and tired. They are becoming exceedingly difficult to service and keep flying.

kitplane01 wrote:

All of this is why Boeing would like to avoid competing against the FA-50. But why would the DoD allow this? The DoD likes lower prices.
(Yes, know Boeing has clever salesmen, but so does LM).

The Super Hornet is the best example. Sold as an upgrade to avoid a competition. Where was the LM salesmen? With the F-15EX the USAF was put into a corner where they had to a sole source.

kitplane01 wrote:

Also, overseas (which is not what you wrote but what I thought you meant) avoiding competing with the FA-50 will be impossible.

The USAF and USN will be both funding upgrades to the T-7A for decades. Knowing thay the T-7A will be able to provide training for 6th gen fighters and loyal wingman is a bonus. The USAF and USN has an amazing supply chain across the world. So buying the T-7A means you can have access to that supply line for decades.

Will Korea supply parts? Will it be like the NHI90 or Tiger Helicopters in 10 years time?

kitplane01 wrote:

Also quick Google searches cannot find any relevent articles with "T-7A" and "pylon".

I might be missing something.

Paul Niewald, vice president / program manager of T-7 programs and former T-7 chief engineer at Boeing says:

The correlated analytical static and fatigue models mean some modifications could be assessed through digital analysis in combination with only limited physical testing – of a pylon attachment, for example

https://www.aerospacetestinginternation ... sting.html

There are other keywords you can use such as external weapons, provisions for growth etc.

RJMAZ wrote:

Paul Niewald, vice president / program manager of T-7 programs and former T-7 chief engineer at Boeing says:

The correlated analytical static and fatigue models mean some modifications could be assessed through digital analysis in combination with only limited physical testing – of a pylon attachment, for example

This tells me they do not have a pylon attachment built in yet because it would require "modification". It does not mean that they don't have a concept or design ready for implementation.

bt

Production of Air Force’s next-gen training jet delayed to 2024
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... d-to-2024/

TL/DR: "Setbacks have dulled the shine of a program hailed as a major step forward in the adoption of faster, digital-first aircraft design. It also pressures the Air Force to maintain its aging T-38 Talon fleet longer than expected until a replacement is ready."

However, if you read the fine print, it seems much has to do with the emergency egress system being a new design "to accommodate the wider range of body types and sizes for future aircrew.”

Daetrin wrote:

Production of Air Force’s next-gen training jet delayed to 2024
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... d-to-2024/

TL/DR: "Setbacks have dulled the shine of a program hailed as a major step forward in the adoption of faster, digital-first aircraft design. It also pressures the Air Force to maintain its aging T-38 Talon fleet longer than expected until a replacement is ready."

However, if you read the fine print, it seems much has to do with the emergency egress system being a new design "to accommodate the wider range of body types and sizes for future aircrew.”

From the linked article:

It’s not your standard ejection system: In 2020, the Air Force mandated that companies must design future aircraft to fit a wider range of recruitable Americans, rather than past standards based on a 1967 survey of male pilots that considered their standing and sitting heights and reach.

? Surely if the pilots are able to press buttons/screens on the instrument panel up front, they'd be able to reach the ejection handles between/on the side of their legs?

889091 wrote:

? Surely if the pilots are able to press buttons/screens on the instrument panel up front, they'd be able to reach the ejection handles between/on the side of their legs?

A rocket that safely accelerates a 120kg man out of the aircraft at a force of 20G would probably see a 50kg woman experience a career ending 30+G.

This is the price you pay for gender equality. I guess they want this new trainer to also train non fast jet pilots. So the pilot size range would be greater.

RJMAZ wrote:

889091 wrote:

? Surely if the pilots are able to press buttons/screens on the instrument panel up front, they'd be able to reach the ejection handles between/on the side of their legs?

A rocket that safely accelerates a 120kg man out of the aircraft at a force of 20G would probably see a 50kg woman experience a career ending 30+G.

This is the price you pay for gender equality. I guess they want this new trainer to also train non fast jet pilots. So the pilot size range would be greater.

So I assume this could potentially impact the B21 and NGAD programs as well?

I highly doubt it would impact the B-21 or NGAD.

Traditionally the lighter seats have more difficulty handling various weights and flight profiles. The T-7 would be using fairly light ejection seats.

The F-35 had a 62kg minimum pilot weight for many years due to the lighter seat design. The B-21 and NGAD being heavy aircraft could use a heavier seat. I also expect the NGAD to have a really heavy ejection system to handle Mach 2 ejections.

Daetrin wrote:

Production of Air Force’s next-gen training jet delayed to 2024
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... d-to-2024/

TL/DR: "Setbacks have dulled the shine of a program hailed as a major step forward in the adoption of faster, digital-first aircraft design. It also pressures the Air Force to maintain its aging T-38 Talon fleet longer than expected until a replacement is ready."

However, if you read the fine print, it seems much has to do with the emergency egress system being a new design "to accommodate the wider range of body types and sizes for future aircrew.”

Calling a spade a spade does "to accommodate the wider range of body types and sizes for future aircrew" mean to fit fat pilots in? Or perhaps people are getting taller so that needs to be addressed for the future? Or much shorter pilots (female)?

RJMAZ wrote:

This is the price you pay for gender equality. I guess they want this new trainer to also train non fast jet pilots. So the pilot size range would be greater.

Gender equality is embedded in the Constitution of the United States to which all military personel are sworn an oath to protect.

Legalities and ethics aside, the requirement to open up the human factor aspect of the design impact all aspect of the military, not necessarily just pilot ejection seats.

We have do deal with it in every aspect of the design including maintenance and so on.

On the practical side, opening up the human percentage size allow for a larger pool of qualified/skilled candidates. All the US Military branches constantly have recruiting issues, so if they can solve the human factor problem through engineering, then it is worth the delay and cost.

bt

art wrote:

Or perhaps people are getting taller so that needs to be addressed for the future? Or much shorter pilots (female)?

Can't recall the exact requirement, but the range for some of the mission seats in a P-8A was something like 5% tile female to 90% tile male. So yes the upper end of of a tall male is also considered.

Of course certain jobs do limit the size of the candidate, so a fighter pilot size range would be more restricted.

I recall a Midshipman name David Robinson who really wanted to go into the submarine service. Google him and you'll know why he did not get his wish.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

On the practical side, opening up the human percentage size allow for a larger pool of qualified/skilled candidates. All the US Military branches constantly have recruiting issues, so if they can solve the human factor problem through engineering, then it is worth the delay and cost.

bt

The delay and cost need to be quantified though. Where/How do you draw the line - it's going to be an on-going issue. Today's 75kg may be tomorrow's 85kg. What would be an 'acceptable' delay and cost? Assuming that this is the only outstanding issue, how long is the USAF prepared to wait?

889091 wrote:

The delay and cost need to be quantified though

No doubt. As with all requirements, they can always provide exceptions. If they agreed upon a delay, then the Air Force would have weighed the cost benefit already and made their determination that the delay and extra cost was acceptable.

I wonder if they would have provided a temporary waver to proceed with testing but will not get full acceptance until the seat issue is resolved. Mean while will they continue to accept the frames with their planned or reduced rate?

bt

At issue are the emergency egress systems, including ejection seats, and flight control software...

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... d-to-2024/

Unless FCS is the issue, why the delay because of the ejection issue? Why cannot the USAF initially restrict use to pilots who meet the ejection seat criteria while waiting for the revised seat(s) to be ready?

bikerthai wrote:

889091 wrote:

The delay and cost need to be quantified though

No doubt. As with all requirements, they can always provide exceptions. If they agreed upon a delay, then the Air Force would have weighed the cost benefit already and made their determination that the delay and extra cost was acceptable.

I wonder if they would have provided a temporary waver to proceed with testing but will not get full acceptance until the seat issue is resolved. Mean while will they continue to accept the frames with their planned or reduced rate?

bt

Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe where they have 1.3 billion people to choose from to fit the design criteria of their standard seats.......

Yes, I oversimplified the pool availability - not all 1.3 billion people will meet the age requirements, but you get my drift.

From the article posted by art

The assessments showed high risk for concussions, unsafe acceleration when a parachute opens, and the possibility that a pilot’s helmet visor could fly off at high speeds, Air Force spokesperson Maj. Alli Stormer said.

This could be a more complex problem with multiple aspects of the ejection cycle.

It's one of those thing that you really can't simulate using computer modeling or at least not yet. And if they discovered it in 2021 during testing, then 2-3 years to analyze the problem, come up with a solution then incorporate the fix is pretty much par for the course.

bt