889091 wrote:Yes, I oversimplified the pool availability - not all 1.3 billion people will meet the age requirements, but you get my drift.
I get your drift. Too bad we can not recruite Indian fighter pilots like we recruite Indian doctors!
bt
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
I get your drift. Too bad we can not recruite Indian fighter pilots like we recruite Indian doctors!
bt
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
Ejections have always been a last resort to get out of Dodge and the actual process of ejecting oneself has always been risky, even to those meeting the standards inked in 1967. There will always be injuries - just ask GalaxyFlyer.
In summary - they have a round hole, and over time, the peg has become somewhat squared on the sides, Instead of rounding the peg, they are making the hole fit the peg.....
In summary - they have a round hole, and over time, the peg has become somewhat squared on the sides, Instead of rounding the peg, they are making the hole fit the peg.....
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
GalaxyFlyer provided a link over in the F-35B incident at NAS JRB Fort Worth thread.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1479427#p23590653
Embedded within that link is an interesting report from AvWeek (link no longer available) way back in 2017 which says:
So, if they fit the T-7 with the Martin Baker US16E seat, would it solve the problem that the USAF is facing? How much heavier/lighter is the US16E compared to the ACES5 from Collins Aerospace?
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1479427#p23590653
Embedded within that link is an interesting report from AvWeek (link no longer available) way back in 2017 which says:
The F-35’s US16E seat is a very different one from its predecessors, says Steve Richards, head of the US16E program at Martin-Baker. Because of the large number of countries expected to adopt the aircraft, the seat had to be designed for a variety of physiological needs.
Seat Stresses
US16E seat designed for operation from -60-600 kt.
First Western ejection seat capable of being ejected automatically
More than 20 ejection tests needed to requalify
It must accommodate males and females of varying height and weight and must be able to jettison them, fully kitted, at speeds of -60-600 kt. and altitudes of 0-50,000 ft
So, if they fit the T-7 with the Martin Baker US16E seat, would it solve the problem that the USAF is facing? How much heavier/lighter is the US16E compared to the ACES5 from Collins Aerospace?
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
My question would be how integrated is the seat with the actual a/c structure, is it just fittings inside that have to be adjusted or the entire cockpit has to be designed for a specific type of seat? My question relates to whether testing and certification of the a/c can continue while they resolve the seat issues if it is just to drop in the new seat with minor modifications.
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
T-7 production has been pushed out to fY2025. The USAF has asked for no funding for FY 2024 due to software problems with the flight controls and problems with the ejection seat. My understanding is the software problem is fixed or will be fixed shortly, but the seat problems are more perplexing. The expanded height and weight restrictions have been broadened and that has resulted to problems of shorter light weight pilots. They will be significantly shorter after punching out!
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... 015883456d
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... 015883456d
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
par13del wrote:My question would be how integrated is the seat with the actual a/c structure, is it just fittings inside that have to be adjusted or the entire cockpit has to be designed for a specific type of seat? My question relates to whether testing and certification of the a/c can continue while they resolve the seat issues if it is just to drop in the new seat with minor modifications.
There is little public information on this, but I suspect the issue is with appropriately modulating the forces and accelerations during the election sequence, for the large range of body types now required.
That sequence is very complex. First the occupant head, neck, spine, and limbs must be correctly positioned go avoid injury on departure. Then the seat must be launched into the slipstream, which could range from zero to Mach 1. Then the seat must be stabilized in all three axes of rotation, until it decelerates to the point that the chutes can open.
Obviously the body total mass, as well as mass distribution and moments of inertia, will be very different depending on body type. A force that might be mandatory for a larger person, could inflict injury on a smaller person. Accelerations that are either too low or too high, could cause malfunction or injury.
So the ejection seat has to account for all of that, while using what are basically small rocket motors, that fire for seconds down to milliseconds, with not a lot of control once they are fired. It's not a trivial problem. Actually quite challenging for the manufacturer.
Then of course, it all has to fit within the seat footprint of the cockpit. But I suspect that is the lesser issue, as opposed to the control issue.
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
So let's put our engineering hat on.
If the mass and geometry of the pilot is a factor, then perhaps you can program the ejector sequence to moderate the seat thrust to compensate for the pilot geometry.
The data input can be made on the initial check list or through sensors on the seat itself or can be pre-programed and selected as needed. Similar to how many car has pre-programed seat positions depending on the driver selection.
My car senses my phone and adjust the seat accordingly as I get in.
bt
If the mass and geometry of the pilot is a factor, then perhaps you can program the ejector sequence to moderate the seat thrust to compensate for the pilot geometry.
The data input can be made on the initial check list or through sensors on the seat itself or can be pre-programed and selected as needed. Similar to how many car has pre-programed seat positions depending on the driver selection.
My car senses my phone and adjust the seat accordingly as I get in.
bt
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
I go with a weight adjustable seat, how much do we want the seat to cost, more than the a/c itself?
Two options, a seat that is manually adjusted by ground crew based on the weight of the pilot, simple would be 3 ranges, low medium high.
Other option would be a software driven electronic seat which automatically weighs the pilot then sets the parameter as low medium high.
I prefer manual as there are already a ton of electronics and software in the a/c, too many lines of code to review for a failed ejection. Manual adjustment of the rockets could be cross verified.
Programmers and engineers will be looking for perfection here, how long that will take now controls the fate of the a/c.
Two options, a seat that is manually adjusted by ground crew based on the weight of the pilot, simple would be 3 ranges, low medium high.
Other option would be a software driven electronic seat which automatically weighs the pilot then sets the parameter as low medium high.
I prefer manual as there are already a ton of electronics and software in the a/c, too many lines of code to review for a failed ejection. Manual adjustment of the rockets could be cross verified.
Programmers and engineers will be looking for perfection here, how long that will take now controls the fate of the a/c.
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
Who is paying for the seat issue?
The USAF has expanded the pilot size range after the original contract was signed. If the USAF is paying then Boeing should charge a billion dollars to make a new seat. A nice profit.
This is what fixed priced contracts are for. It goes both ways.
The USAF has expanded the pilot size range after the original contract was signed. If the USAF is paying then Boeing should charge a billion dollars to make a new seat. A nice profit.
This is what fixed priced contracts are for. It goes both ways.
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
I suspect the seat is being modeled as a separate flight vehicle now, as it's ejected into the slipstream and has its own attitude controls.
This same issue is unfolding for the next generation of spacesuits, which have to conform to a broader range of occupant sizes and strengths, and are themselves small space vehicles.
This same issue is unfolding for the next generation of spacesuits, which have to conform to a broader range of occupant sizes and strengths, and are themselves small space vehicles.
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
RJMAZ wrote:Who is paying for the seat issue?
The USAF has expanded the pilot size range after the original contract was signed. If the USAF is paying then Boeing should charge a billion dollars to make a new seat. A nice profit.
This is what fixed priced contracts are for. It goes both ways.
Collins/UTC has the sole-source contract for the next generation ejection seat, the ACES 5, which was selected by the USAF for the T-7. The requirements were known at the time of selection, so I'd imagine this has more to do with testing and integration issues.
The ACES 5 seat was successfully tested with a T-7 mockup in 2021. But now they are probably finding real-world problems in the actual aircraft, related to the range of body types that must be accommodated.
I would also imagine that Boeing and Collins/UTC are on the hook for the costs associated with the delay.
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... y-features
https://www.pacmin.com/news/2022/05/are ... eats-safe/
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
WASHINGTON — Boeing’s T-7A jet trainer aircraft is not expected to reach initial operational capability until spring 2027, three years later than originally planned, the Air Force said.
The Air Force’s next jet trainer has struggled with problems such as a potentially dangerous escape system and ejection seat. Earlier in April, the Air Force acknowledged those troubles, and the time needed to fix them, caused it to delay a milestone C production decision to February 2025. Boeing is now expected to deliver the T-7 in December 2025.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/04 ... d-to-2027/
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
The GAO has released a report on the T-7 ATP (Advanced Trainer Program), which documents current issues that are causing delays.
1. The canopy det cord is located over the pilot's head, and could produce overpressure injuries on ejection, for some pilots.
2. The timing of parachute deploy does not adequately account for all body types, and incorrect timing can cause g-force injuries (deployment angie must align with the seat and spine).
3. The flight software is still in development stages and has undergone correction for lift stability at high AoA (wing rock).
4. The simulator software does not yet have the required component to link to live aircraft in real-time.
5. Sustainment data is incomplete because not all suppliers are on contract yet.
6. Disagreement on contract specifications between Boeing and USAF, and also between USAF and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), regarding the ejection seat, sustainment, manufacturing, and other issues.
Boeing is proceeding to build the 5 evaluation & test aircraft ahead of the USAF order, claiming that they have to sustain the production line & suppliers. The USAF is threatening to not accept those aircraft when the order is issued.
This all sounds a lot like the same progression as the similar fixed-cost KC-46 contract. Lack of clarity or agreement on the aircraft, with differing expectations that don't emerge until testing begins. And no mechanism for cost-sharing of requested design changes, leading to losses, delays and animosity.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106205.pdf
1. The canopy det cord is located over the pilot's head, and could produce overpressure injuries on ejection, for some pilots.
2. The timing of parachute deploy does not adequately account for all body types, and incorrect timing can cause g-force injuries (deployment angie must align with the seat and spine).
3. The flight software is still in development stages and has undergone correction for lift stability at high AoA (wing rock).
4. The simulator software does not yet have the required component to link to live aircraft in real-time.
5. Sustainment data is incomplete because not all suppliers are on contract yet.
6. Disagreement on contract specifications between Boeing and USAF, and also between USAF and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), regarding the ejection seat, sustainment, manufacturing, and other issues.
Boeing is proceeding to build the 5 evaluation & test aircraft ahead of the USAF order, claiming that they have to sustain the production line & suppliers. The USAF is threatening to not accept those aircraft when the order is issued.
This all sounds a lot like the same progression as the similar fixed-cost KC-46 contract. Lack of clarity or agreement on the aircraft, with differing expectations that don't emerge until testing begins. And no mechanism for cost-sharing of requested design changes, leading to losses, delays and animosity.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106205.pdf
-
- Revelation
- Posts: 29622
- Joined:
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
Avatar2go wrote:This all sounds a lot like the same progression as the similar fixed-cost KC-46 contract. Lack of clarity or agreement on the aircraft, with differing expectations that don't emerge until testing begins. And no mechanism for cost-sharing of requested design changes, leading to losses, delays and animosity.
Reminds me of when I bought a home that was under construction. Everything cool before the contract was signed, then arm-to-arm combat to get what I felt I was entitled to whilst the contractor scratched and clawed for every cent.
Personally I think getting the ejection right is important enough to delay the acceptance of the aircraft.
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
So to be clear, the US Air Force is not authorizing its pilots to conduct flight tests due to the safety of the ejection system and maturity of the flight control software, this is based on input from US Air Force software experts, test pilots and other non-Boeing / Saab experts. Since they do not fly and their software experts are not the ones writing the software, are they just programmers who disagree on how the OEM programmers work, how do they get to say the software needs X number of revisions for maturity and they are not the one writing? How about the digital design, since this is the first time and they have no experience on it, does that also cause a problem?
As for the ejection system, all these major issues only arise after the test a/c are built and flying? Why were the 7 sled test not included in the initial cost that the Air Force has to pony up 9 mill? I suspect the 7 test were added so the Air Force fund 3 and force the OEM to fund the additional 4. Sled test are basically routine and can be done with a mock-up of the cockpit, why did that have to wait until the a/c was built and flying, not enough resources at Boeing, Saab, Air Force to come up with specs prior to first flight? One would think that based on the number of ejections that the US Air Force has had over its history, they would have a template on how they want their ejection systems to function and all OEM have to conform, based on the report, it sounds as if the Air Force still allows OEM's to "come up with better solutions". Why blast a hole in the canopy versus the entire canopy, I know both such exist or existed on Air Force and Navy planes.
The GAO report is a great read, most comments I come up with when reading is, REALLY.
As for the ejection system, all these major issues only arise after the test a/c are built and flying? Why were the 7 sled test not included in the initial cost that the Air Force has to pony up 9 mill? I suspect the 7 test were added so the Air Force fund 3 and force the OEM to fund the additional 4. Sled test are basically routine and can be done with a mock-up of the cockpit, why did that have to wait until the a/c was built and flying, not enough resources at Boeing, Saab, Air Force to come up with specs prior to first flight? One would think that based on the number of ejections that the US Air Force has had over its history, they would have a template on how they want their ejection systems to function and all OEM have to conform, based on the report, it sounds as if the Air Force still allows OEM's to "come up with better solutions". Why blast a hole in the canopy versus the entire canopy, I know both such exist or existed on Air Force and Navy planes.
The GAO report is a great read, most comments I come up with when reading is, REALLY.
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
Revelation wrote:Reminds me of when I bought a home that was under construction. Everything cool before the contract was signed, then arm-to-arm combat to get what I felt I was entitled to whilst the contractor scratched and clawed for every cent.
Exactly. In my software business, I found that I had to lay out the scope in detail, and define what would constitute new functionality, to avoid conflict. I rarely had to invoke it, but it was essential to have the power to say no.
Personally I think getting the ejection right is important enough to delay the acceptance of the aircraft.
Totally agree, they need to get that right, and it's worth whatever delay or costs ensue.
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
Avatar2go wrote:and it's worth whatever delay or costs ensue.
There's delay, and there's delay.
They can withheld the full operation status until the seat problem is fixed for the extreme percentile.
But shouldn't they at least do partial implementation for the training of pilots who fall within the "safe" envelope?
bt
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
par13del wrote:How about the digital design, since this is the first time and they have no experience on it, does that also cause a problem?
Will Roper had some interesting commentary on this, as he was the chief proponent of digital twinning and virtual design. He said the T-7 is the first example and so has a learning curve. But also said his eyes are open to the limitations, that problems have still been found in testing that cause additional costs and delays.
As for the ejection system, all these major issues only arise after the test a/c are built and flying? Why were the 7 sled test not included in the initial cost that the Air Force has to pony up 9 mill? I suspect the 7 test were added so the Air Force fund 3 and force the OEM to fund the additional 4. Sled test are basically routine and can be done with a mock-up of the cockpit, why did that have to wait until the a/c was built and flying, not enough resources at Boeing, Saab, Air Force to come up with specs prior to first flight?
From the GAO report, it sounded like problems with the new ACES 5 ejection seat were found right out of the box, so the sled tests were never actually completed. That conflicts with media reports at the time, that the tests were successful. So possibly Collins/UTC were fudging a bit and only reporting the successful tests. Or possibly as the GAO report notes, they disputed the USAF assertion of unsatisfactory tests.
One would think that based on the number of ejections that the US Air Force has had over its history, they would have a template on how they want their ejection systems to function and all OEM have to conform, based on the report, it sounds as if the Air Force still allows OEM's to "come up with better solutions". Why blast a hole in the canopy versus the entire canopy, I know both such exist or existed on Air Force and Navy planes.
The choice of canopy destruct or eject, depends on the canopy weight and material, as well as the ejection conditions. Canopy eject requires additional time for the canopy to clear, and also may rely on aerodynamic forces in the slipstream to clear.
Canopy destruct has the advantage of being faster, and working regardless of aerodynamic conditions (zero velocity, on the ground). Those factors can be important if the aircraft mission involves flying at very low altitudes.
Some canopy materials, like the F-16 bubble, are too flexible for the destruct system to work, but on the other hand, are light enough to be easily ejected.
The GAO report is a great read, most comments I come up with when reading is, REALLY.
Agreed, this report is very well written, and it provides good insight into the program, and the procurement process in general. It's quite interesting.
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
bikerthai wrote:Avatar2go wrote:and it's worth whatever delay or costs ensue.
There's delay, and there's delay.
They can withheld the full operation status until the seat problem is fixed for the extreme percentile.
But shouldn't they at least do partial implementation for the training of pilots who fall within the "safe" envelope?
bt
That's also a good point. It gets into risk vs progress. I think it might be the interim solution, and is why they are trying to get partial qualification of the seat.
The overpressure issue from the canopy det cord was a surprise, but maybe is among the easier problems to solve.
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
Avatar2go wrote:bikerthai wrote:Avatar2go wrote:and it's worth whatever delay or costs ensue.
There's delay, and there's delay.
They can withheld the full operation status until the seat problem is fixed for the extreme percentile.
But shouldn't they at least do partial implementation for the training of pilots who fall within the "safe" envelope?
bt
That's also a good point. It gets into risk vs progress. I think it might be the interim solution, and is why they are trying to get partial qualification of the seat.
The overpressure issue from the canopy det cord was a surprise, but maybe is among the easier problems to solve.
Well they have conflicting issues, to eject the entire canopy does take more time and for low level flying like an A-10 we can see the importance, but for a trainer and other a/c which they want to operate at higher altitude, the pressure blast with its corresponding concussion effects seem to be more important than time, so why did they not specify this for the trainer as part of the initial specifications? We probably need a GAO report on the expenses PRIOR to approval of the project to get a handle on who created what RFP requirements.
Note also that once the project was approved, all and sundry were quick to put out that this was a trainer and would not be involved / converted / modified for anything close to or involving combat.
Yes the ejection system is important, however, the report also makes it clear that in other sections of the development, metrics and their standards do not exist so the squabble is over tech not yet invented or deployed, how the physics should be measured, but everyone knows how much time and money it will cost.
The section on the simulators is also a boondoggle, almost want to read as if the sim is for a ground combat a/c involved in low flying penetration.
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
The USAF has issued a Military Flight Release (MFR) for the T-7, meaning that it is airworthy and can formally commence flight testing.
https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/statu ... 6986519553
https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/statu ... 6986519553
-
- JuggernautAlpha
- Posts: 116
- Joined:
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ahcpRsruLA
Looks like Boeing is offering an armed version of the T-7 for both the USAF and Philippines.
Looks like Boeing is offering an armed version of the T-7 for both the USAF and Philippines.
Re: T-X becomes T-7A Red Hawk
RJMAZ wrote:How many years until they make a single seat version with AESA and AMRAAM capability?
I think this aircraft will definitely replace the F-16 as the budget fighter of choice in the coming decades. Being designed from the ground up to be cheap to manufacture and maintain will allow it to reach used F-16 life cycle costs. It might be slightly more expensive to purchase but the hourly operating costs will be lower.
The T-50 and the Saab Gripen would never be abe to hit the price levels due to it being designed 20 years ago. It would have more parts, more fasteners and less 3D printing.
With 26 F-16 operators some will not be able to afford to go to the F-35 with its much higher maintenance cost.
My 3 year old post aged like fine wine.
Prepare for global market domination. Lockheed F-35 on the high end and Boeing F-7 on the low end. The rest of the world will be stuck flying prototypes.
The Boeing salesmen are already preparing their sales pitch. "You could replace your current old fighters and as our operating cost is so much lower the Boeing F-7 will work out to free after only 10 years. The F-7 cockpit is also fully compatible with the latest drone wingmen while your current old aircraft would need to have their avionics upgraded"
I'm thinking there is a growing list of potential customers.
The capability per dollar will be so high we will see more medium sized air forces creating a high-low mix. If the F-7 can perform 50% of the fighter missions but is only 20% of the per hour cost of a high end fighter then it makes sense to bring it into the fleet purely to save cost.
For the smaller sized air forces the F-7 will provide F-16 capability at around half the cost. That will be hard to turn down. No longer will they have settle for used fighters.
-
- JayinKitsap
- Posts: 3282
- Joined:
Re: T-X becomes T-7A Red Hawk
RJMAZ wrote:RJMAZ wrote:How many years until they make a single seat version with AESA and AMRAAM capability?
I think this aircraft will definitely replace the F-16 as the budget fighter of choice in the coming decades. Being designed from the ground up to be cheap to manufacture and maintain will allow it to reach used F-16 life cycle costs. It might be slightly more expensive to purchase but the hourly operating costs will be lower.
With 26 F-16 operators some will not be able to afford to go to the F-35 with its much higher maintenance cost.
My 3 year old post aged like fine wine.
Prepare for global market domination. Lockheed F-35 on the high end and Boeing F-7 on the low end. The rest of the world will be stuck flying prototypes.
The Boeing salesmen are already preparing their sales pitch. "You could replace your current old fighters and as our operating cost is so much lower the Boeing F-7 will work out to free after only 10 years. The F-7 cockpit is also fully compatible with the latest drone wingmen while your current old aircraft would need to have their avionics upgraded"
I'm thinking there is a growing list of potential customers.
The capability per dollar will be so high we will see more medium sized air forces creating a high-low mix. If the F-7 can perform 50% of the fighter missions but is only 20% of the per hour cost of a high end fighter then it makes sense to bring it into the fleet purely to save cost.
For the smaller sized air forces the F-7 will provide F-16 capability at around half the cost. That will be hard to turn down. No longer will they have settle for used fighters.
It is excellent for CONUS as well, think reserve bases where pilots need to build hours, they will get quite used to the TX-7, but also on the flight line will be a brace of F-7's ready to go. Only one plane to maintain, the hours spent to keep quals will also bring a more effective patrol. There is some big gaps these days along the coast. Boeing has indicated that the TX-7 could have a production run around 2.5K, that only happens if there is an F-7.
Re: T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread
Yes it's perfect for CONUS. Also it is perfect for Top Gun school and aggressor aircraft at Red Flag.
I'm certain the T-7 cockpit will closely replicate the F-35 cockpit. Maneuverability should also match the F-35A. This has never happened before and opens up the idea of F-35A squadrons using the T-7 for dogfighting training. There would be a massive reduction in flight hour cost. Also an aircraft's service life is calculated based on average usage including intensive dogfighting training. If some of the this intensive training is shifted to the T-7 then the F-35 could have thousands of hours added to the service life.
I'm certain the T-7 cockpit will closely replicate the F-35 cockpit. Maneuverability should also match the F-35A. This has never happened before and opens up the idea of F-35A squadrons using the T-7 for dogfighting training. There would be a massive reduction in flight hour cost. Also an aircraft's service life is calculated based on average usage including intensive dogfighting training. If some of the this intensive training is shifted to the T-7 then the F-35 could have thousands of hours added to the service life.