T-7A Red Hawk News and Discussion Thread

bikerthai · Sat Dec 18, 2021 12:46 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Sure, it could be (a). I sure wouldn’t bet on it, though.

Yup, Boeing can screw up on a number of fronts. But the digital design and manufacturing aspect is real.

Was able to see their early R&D proof of concept model a few years back (about a year before they won the MQ-25 contract). It is no slight of hand as the tech is being ported to the commercial side and will one of the core tech of the new clean sheet 737/757 replacement.

Note that their Loyal Wingman and MQ-25 are built using the same process. They came together just as quick. So this process is not a fluke.

bt

HowardDGA · Sat Dec 18, 2021 6:43 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
This leaves Lockheed and Northrop Grumman as the only remaining option.

What about Embraer?

RJMAZ · Sun Dec 19, 2021 3:05 am

HowardDGA wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
This leaves Lockheed and Northrop Grumman as the only remaining option.

What about Embraer?

No chance. Brazil has ordered 72 Gripen.

Brazil had no faith in Embraers ability to make a light fighter after the C-390 disaster.

kitplane01 · Sun Dec 19, 2021 7:04 am

RJMAZ wrote:
HowardDGA wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
This leaves Lockheed and Northrop Grumman as the only remaining option.

What about Embraer?

No chance. Brazil has ordered 72 Gripen.

Brazil had no faith in Embraers ability to make a light fighter after the C-390 disaster.

In 2010 they announced planes to have a prototype in 2014. In 2014 they flew the prototype.
They developed the largest plane (I think) ever made on the whole continent on time.
You should see what Boeing or even H.A.L do!
(Seriously, what disaster?)

RJMAZ · Sun Dec 19, 2021 7:37 am

kitplane01 wrote:
In 2010 they announced planes to have a prototype in 2014. In 2014 they flew the prototype.
They developed the largest plane (I think) ever made on the whole continent on time.
You should see what Boeing or even H.A.L do!
(Seriously, what disaster?)

How about 22 orders.. :lol:

Billions of Brazilian government money invested. Columbia and Argentina did a runner. Embraer provided unrealistic projections predicting 300+ aircraft sold. The dreaded death spiral has already begun. Production has been slowed to a snails pace so that the line can stay running for a few more years hoping to capture further orders.

The initial investment by Embraer has been spread out over a large production number for accounting purposes. When that is production number is revised downwards it will be a massive financial write off. We saw this with the 747-8, A380 programs.

The E2 program is also currently getting dominated by the A220. So it is doom and gloom at the company.

Boeing walked away from the partnership deal because Embraer has very little and rapidly declining value.

kitplane01 · Sun Dec 19, 2021 6:47 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
In 2010 they announced planes to have a prototype in 2014. In 2014 they flew the prototype.
They developed the largest plane (I think) ever made on the whole continent on time.
You should see what Boeing or even H.A.L do!
(Seriously, what disaster?)

How about 22 orders..

Billions of Brazilian government money invested. Columbia and Argentina did a runner. Embraer provided unrealistic projections predicting 300+ aircraft sold. The dreaded death spiral has already begun. Production has been slowed to a snails pace so that the line can stay running for a few more years hoping to capture further orders.

The initial investment by Embraer has been spread out over a large production number for accounting purposes. When that is production number is revised downwards it will be a massive financial write off. We saw this with the 747-8, A380 programs.

The E2 program is also currently getting dominated by the A220. So it is doom and gloom at the company.

Boeing walked away from the partnership deal because Embraer has very little and rapidly declining value.

The Brazilian government has greatly reduced support and orders, and yet still Embraer makes progress. My reading says the Brazilian government has decided to save the money, but the C-390 is everything promised.

HowardDGA · Mon Dec 20, 2021 6:22 am

RJMAZ wrote:
HowardDGA wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
This leaves Lockheed and Northrop Grumman as the only remaining option.

What about Embraer?

No chance. Brazil has ordered 72 Gripen.

Brazil had no faith in Embraers ability to make a light fighter after the C-390 disaster.

How does the T-7A cost compare to the Gripen? 19 million versus 30 million, optimistically?

I was actually thinking of something like the AMX. A Leonardo-Embraer program might be successful.

RJMAZ · Mon Dec 20, 2021 7:26 am

HowardDGA wrote:
How does the T-7A cost compare to the Gripen? 19 million versus 30 million, optimistically?

I was actually thinking of something like the AMX. A Leonardo-Embraer program might be successful.

The Gripen is only cheap in terms of hourly operating cost. The purchase price is similar to a medium sized fighter.

Estimates have the Gripen E around $80 million fly away. With some posts as high as $100 million. It is the Gripen C sales of used and refurbished aircraft that make people think it is cheap.

The Super Hornet, Block 70 F-16, F-35A and Saab Gripen are all approximately the same purchase price. The Gripen has the lowest hourly operating cost and the F-35A is highest because it is stealth and also the most capable. The Gripen will be then be the cheapest to operate for 20 years.

An armed T-7 will have low operating costs but also a low purchase price. The Boeing T-7 trainer version has a flyaway price around $25 million. I expect an armed version with AESA to be around $40 million or half the purchase price of the Gripen.

The armed T-7 should have an even lower hourly operating cost than the Gripen due to its more modern and slightly lighter design.

Even if Boeing goes all out and makes the T-7 a single seat with EODAS, AESA and installs a F414 engine it should still be under $50 million.

art · Tue Dec 21, 2021 12:08 am

RJMAZ wrote:
HowardDGA wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
This leaves Lockheed and Northrop Grumman as the only remaining option.

What about Embraer?

No chance. Brazil has ordered 72 Gripen.

I'm sure they will but right now I think they have only ordered 36.

Avatar2go · Fri Apr 29, 2022 6:58 am

The first production version of the USAF T-7a Redhawk has come off the assembly line in St Louis. It will now undergo ground testing prior to flight testing and eventual delivery. One of 350 ordered with options for 100 more. Also a modified version, the T-7B, is a contender for the USN trainer program.

This aircraft will replace the USAF T-38 Talon, and if selected by the USN, the T-45 Goshawk.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display ... rolls-out/

mxaxai · Tue May 03, 2022 7:07 am

Since this might get lost in the CivAv thread:
Boeing booked a big loss for the T-7A project in 1Q22. https://leehamnews.com/2022/04/27/boein ... ntil-2025/

Boeing Defense recorded [...] $367 million in charges on its T-7 Red Hawk trainer program.
...
Supply costs, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and inflation are driving up costs on the T-7 trainer replacement program, according to Boeing’s SEC filing.

The risks of a long term fixed-price contract

kitplane01 · Wed May 04, 2022 4:37 am

mxaxai wrote:
Since this might get lost in the CivAv thread:
Boeing booked a big loss for the T-7A project in 1Q22. https://leehamnews.com/2022/04/27/boein ... ntil-2025/
Boeing Defense recorded [...] $367 million in charges on its T-7 Red Hawk trainer program.
...
Supply costs, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and inflation are driving up costs on the T-7 trainer replacement program, according to Boeing’s SEC filing.

The risks of a long term fixed-price contract

Has Boeing in the recent decades had any fixed price contracts that did'n't run over budget?

Avatar2go · Wed May 04, 2022 5:36 am

kitplane01 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Since this might get lost in the CivAv thread:
Boeing booked a big loss for the T-7A project in 1Q22. https://leehamnews.com/2022/04/27/boein ... ntil-2025/
Boeing Defense recorded [...] $367 million in charges on its T-7 Red Hawk trainer program.
...
Supply costs, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and inflation are driving up costs on the T-7 trainer replacement program, according to Boeing’s SEC filing.

The risks of a long term fixed-price contract

Has Boeing in the recent decades had any fixed price contracts that did'n't run over budget?

The issue occurs when development and production are included under the same contract terms. If the contract is cost-plus, the government suffers from risk of higher production costs. If the contract is fixed-cost, the vendor suffers from risk of higher development costs. So increasingly there is a focus on hybrid contract terms, that lean more toward cost sharing for development, and toward fixed-cost for production, once the risk has been retired.

kitplane01 · Wed May 04, 2022 9:07 am

Avatar2go wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Since this might get lost in the CivAv thread:
Boeing booked a big loss for the T-7A project in 1Q22. https://leehamnews.com/2022/04/27/boein ... ntil-2025/

The risks of a long term fixed-price contract

Has Boeing in the recent decades had any fixed price contracts that did'n't run over budget?

The issue occurs when development and production are included under the same contract terms. If the contract is cost-plus, the government suffers from risk of higher production costs. If the contract is fixed-cost, the vendor suffers from risk of higher development costs. So increasingly there is a focus on hybrid contract terms, that lean more toward cost sharing for development, and toward fixed-cost for production, once the risk has been retired.

Also the problem is the absolute crap under estimates that every defense contractor always provides. They give an estimated price, and almost always it’s an under bid. If the problem was uncertainty, then some estimate would be too high and other estimate would be too low. But that’s not what happens.

Avatar2go · Wed May 04, 2022 9:16 am

kitplane01 wrote:

Also the problem is the absolute crap under estimates that every defense contractor always provides. They give an estimated price, and almost always it’s an under bid. If the problem was uncertainty, then some estimate would be too high and other estimate would be too low. But that’s not what happens.

While underbidding is definitely an issue, the reason the results skew to under rather than over bidding, is that the government tends to select the lowest bid.

Thus the projects that contain little risk tend to come in either on or on under cost, while the projects that contain risk are the ones that go over. Most projects are bid on the assumption that risks are understood. But turns out not to be the case, much of the time.

The advantage of the hybrid contract is that you don't assume you know the risks until you work through the development. Once retired, you can proceed to production at much lower cost.

bikerthai · Wed May 04, 2022 9:56 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Has Boeing in the recent decades had any fixed price contracts that did'n't run over budget?

The answer is yes. Contracts for mature production run like the P-8A, CH-47 and AH-64 made it through the COVID pandemic in the black.

Even the P-8A at the development stage had some delays which may have cause some charges.

bt

flyingturtle · Wed May 04, 2022 10:02 am

Avatar2go wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Also the problem is the absolute crap under estimates that every defense contractor always provides. They give an estimated price, and almost always it’s an under bid. If the problem was uncertainty, then some estimate would be too high and other estimate would be too low. But that’s not what happens.

While underbidding is definitely an issue, the reason the results skew to under rather than over bidding, is that the government tends to select the lowest bid.

In Swiss law, when a government authority places a contract, price isn't the main criterion. In the decision, price will have a weighting of 20 to 50%. Other factors are quality, the supplier's reputation, how quality and timely delivery will be assured... if the purchase is something very usual (e.g. construction material), the price's weighting is more like 50%. When something comes with a large degree of uncertainty (e.g. researching new technologies), it's 20% or in special cases, even 10%.

bikerthai · Wed May 04, 2022 10:17 am

The belief that companies expect to make massive profit on the back end of production run may be an myth.

As I understand, for the P-8A for latest lots, the per frame cost is expected to be lower than the prior lot. Not sure the in's and out's of the reason for this, but the expectation to make up profit by "overcharging" for later production run may no longer be wise.

bt

Avatar2go · Wed May 04, 2022 10:36 am

flyingturtle wrote:

In Swiss law, when a government authority places a contract, price isn't the main criterion. In the decision, price will have a weighting of 20 to 50%. Other factors are quality, the supplier's reputation, how quality and timely delivery will be assured... if the purchase is something very usual (e.g. construction material), the price's weighting is more like 50%. When something comes with a large degree of uncertainty (e.g. researching new technologies), it's 20% or in special cases, even 10%.

Thanks for this, very interesting. Makes a lot of sense.

kitplane01 · Wed May 04, 2022 5:29 pm

flyingturtle wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Also the problem is the absolute crap under estimates that every defense contractor always provides. They give an estimated price, and almost always it’s an under bid. If the problem was uncertainty, then some estimate would be too high and other estimate would be too low. But that’s not what happens.

While underbidding is definitely an issue, the reason the results skew to under rather than over bidding, is that the government tends to select the lowest bid.

In Swiss law, when a government authority places a contract, price isn't the main criterion. In the decision, price will have a weighting of 20 to 50%. Other factors are quality, the supplier's reputation, how quality and timely delivery will be assured... if the purchase is something very usual (e.g. construction material), the price's weighting is more like 50%. When something comes with a large degree of uncertainty (e.g. researching new technologies), it's 20% or in special cases, even 10%.

OK. But that seems bad. I *want* the government to consider price .. and in many cases price seems very important. Lower taxes, more money for poor people or extra tanks, etc.

But if the contractor almost always underbids, and the government has to pay the excess .. that *ought* to go to supplier reputation.

kitplane01 · Wed May 04, 2022 5:37 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Also the problem is the absolute crap under estimates that every defense contractor always provides. They give an estimated price, and almost always it’s an under bid. If the problem was uncertainty, then some estimate would be too high and other estimate would be too low. But that’s not what happens.

While underbidding is definitely an issue, the reason the results skew to under rather than over bidding, is that the government tends to select the lowest bid.

I agree. And the system as a whole produces almost-always-under-estimates, which are then believed as an accurate estimate. Which is stupid.

Avatar2go wrote:
Thus the projects that contain little risk tend to come in either on or on under cost, while the projects that contain risk are the ones that go over. Most projects are bid on the assumption that risks are understood. But turns out not to be the case, much of the time.

No. Risk means there is variability between the actual cost and the estimated cost. A good estimator will be above and below the actual cost in equal measure. Our system does not produce that ... it almost always produces underestimates (in part for the reason above). Our system has know, fixable flaws.

Avatar2go wrote:
The advantage of the hybrid contract is that you don't assume you know the risks until you work through the development. Once retired, you can proceed to production at much lower cost.

I don't think you wrote that right. I believe you mean "The advantage of the hybrid contract is that THE CONTRACTOR doesn't assume you know the risks until you work through the development." But the risk should be on the company that both (1) produced the estimate and (2) has more control over the costs. Companies that consistently underestimate will lose money, companies that consistently overbid will not get contracts, and companies that more often than their competitors get it right will make money. That sounds much better than the current system which rewards under-estimators.

JayinKitsap · Wed May 04, 2022 6:44 pm

DOD sometime prior to the KC-46 bidding shifted the terms of the contract from more risk sharing in the development and production phase. Before many programs were basically true cost + a fixed margin for profit. The KC-46 RFP was a very much fixed price contract for both development and production, all of the risk on the Company, but the Company can factor that risk into the price, however, the worry is what is the competition doing. Adding a risk factor of 20% say might doom the bid if the competition uses 17%. The time period where the P-8A was bid had more risk sharing, but a dual direction, Boeing's costs are down on the P-8 so their pricing is also down.

Seen that in Construction contracts, a period of very fixed prices then a period of partnering and risk sharing. There are drawbacks to both types.

For the T-7A, things will be all right, once the plane is certified in this RFP, it is a very known entity for the next proposal, while the competition has a much larger challenge. Boeing can get back a big chunk then, pricing in say 70% of the competitions cost to certify.

Avatar2go · Wed May 04, 2022 7:35 pm

kitplane01 wrote:

No. Risk means there is variability between the actual cost and the estimated cost. A good estimator will be above and below the actual cost in equal measure. Our system does not produce that ... it almost always produces underestimates (in part for the reason above). Our system has know, fixable flaws.

I don't think you wrote that right. I believe you mean "The advantage of the hybrid contract is that THE CONTRACTOR doesn't assume you know the risks until you work through the development." But the risk should be on the company that both (1) produced the estimate and (2) has more control over the costs. Companies that consistently underestimate will lose money, companies that consistently overbid will not get contracts, and companies that more often than their competitors get it right will make money. That sounds much better than the current system which rewards under-estimators.

Risk in this sense means uncertainty about the technology that no one has built yet. That has a direct bearing on development costs. Further contributing are changes to the specifications that may develop along the way, with learning on either side. Thus cost sharing is a better arrangement during development, whereas fixed price becomes more reasonable during production. Hence the hybrid contract.

The USAF acknowledged this directly in testimony before Congress on the KC-46. They are working on developing more suitable forms of contracts, that better address the risks, while also taking advantage of the retirement of risk that should occur before production.

flyingturtle · Wed May 04, 2022 8:53 pm

kitplane01 wrote:

OK. But that seems bad. I *want* the government to consider price .. and in many cases price seems very important. Lower taxes, more money for poor people or extra tanks, etc.

But if the contractor almost always underbids, and the government has to pay the excess .. that *ought* to go to supplier reputation.

Yes, price is always considered. But here it's never the main factor. There are other stuff, like... is the technology we buy future-proof? How easily can the service life be extended? How easy can the system be maintained by other companies?

And one problem with underbidding - especially with civil engineering contracts, like building road tunnels - is that companies have more and more competent experts on hand. They will write a nice letter to the government, saying why they need more money to finish the project, and why it is not the fault of the contractor. Due to the pay grades, the best engineers rarely work with the government.

The federal government ordered a 53 kilometer railway tunnel, and it was delivered on time, and under budget. (But as the Mirage affair has shown, we also had some... err... crass mistakes with government contracts.)

VMCA787 · Thu Jul 07, 2022 8:55 pm

Looks as if there will be a further delay in the T-7A due to a redesign of the canopy due to concerns regarding the risk of injury to the pilot(s) in the case of a birdstrike. The previous aluminum arch has been replaced with a titanium piece and an increased thickness of the blast shield.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... trike-risk

aumaverick · Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:30 pm

VMCA787 wrote:
Looks as if there will be a further delay in the T-7A due to a redesign of the canopy due to concerns regarding the risk of injury to the pilot(s) in the case of a birdstrike. The previous aluminum arch has been replaced with a titanium piece and an increased thickness of the blast shield.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... trike-risk

Kind of a bummer a 4 lb. frozen chicken can cause a further delay, but for the sake of the pilot, safety first. With the exception of COVID-19 and supply chains, this seems to be on a pretty good track to run to completion quickly.

The T-7 program has faced delays the company says are a result of COVID-19-related supply-chain issues, and a recent reported charge of $367 million. The company is about halfway through its test program, flying the aircraft as often as six times per day at its St. Louis facility with turnarounds of less than an hour with no downtime for maintenance, Schmidt says.

par13del · Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:34 pm

VMCA787 wrote:
Looks as if there will be a further delay in the T-7A due to a redesign of the canopy due to concerns regarding the risk of injury to the pilot(s) in the case of a birdstrike. The previous aluminum arch has been replaced with a titanium piece and an increased thickness of the blast shield.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... trike-risk

So shooting chickens into engines are done before production as part of the certification, but shooting chickens at a mock-up of the cockpit canopy cannot be done, it must be done at a time that will delay production?
Ok.....

bikerthai · Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:11 pm

par13del wrote:
So shooting chickens into engines are done before production as part of the certification, but shooting chickens at a mock-up of the cockpit canopy cannot be done, it must be done at a time that will delay production?

Actually certification testing must be done with production parts. Or parts built to production standards.

You can do preliminary tests with non production parts to have confidence in your final results.

The same test timeline is done on the commercial side (recall the 787 ultimate test).

Question. Does the first two flight test frame have the same canopy configuration as the production model?

Also, even with the redesign, they can continue test flights right? So the impact of the canopy redesign is not as critical schedule wise as something like an engine blade.

bt

JayinKitsap · Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:34 am

Came across this good T-7A clip - sort of a "T-7A intro for Dummies" but it had interesting bits of information, like the anticipated production in its run - 3,000 in total, and when the program first started, I recall '06. Great photos of the planes assembly and maintenance access. Haven't heard of this 'Dark Tech' channel before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0-M4vy6QdM

An article about the testing of the T-7A

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

aumaverick · Wed Sep 28, 2022 12:18 pm

What are the chances we see the Thunderbirds relinquish the Viper in favor of the T-7 somewhere down the line?

bikerthai · Wed Sep 28, 2022 12:37 pm

aumaverick wrote:
What are the chances we see the Thunderbirds relinquish the Viper in favor of the T-7 somewhere down the line?

I believe the chance for the F-35 is higher. Just from the fact that T-bird pilots rotate in from active squadrons and those pilots will have had more time on the '35s than the T-7.

bt

okie73 · Thu Sep 29, 2022 1:18 am

bikerthai wrote:
aumaverick wrote:
What are the chances we see the Thunderbirds relinquish the Viper in favor of the T-7 somewhere down the line?

I believe the chance for the F-35 is higher. Just from the fact that T-bird pilots rotate in from active squadrons and those pilots will have had more time on the '35s than the T-7.

bt

Where the pilots come from will have no bearing on the type of aircraft the T-birds operate. Anyone selected for that job can be trained into a new aircraft type very quickly. Often pilots are selected who have never flown the F-16.

bikerthai · Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:07 am

okie73 wrote:
Often pilots are selected who have never flown the F-16.

You would think the Air Force would be a stickler for requirements.

https://aerobaticteams.net/en/teams/i18 ... 12%20years)%20of%20military%20service.

pilot candidates for the Thunderbirds aerobatic team must have at least 1000 flying hours on a jet fighter and must be current on the F-16. All candidates for the "Thunderbirds" must have at least 3 years (but no more than 12 years) of military service.

I guess in theory, a pilot can be more proficient on another aircraft, and still be "currently proficient" on the F-16.

But then will they be firm on the requirement of jet fighter (F vs T?)

bt

aumaverick · Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:27 pm

bikerthai wrote:
okie73 wrote:
Often pilots are selected who have never flown the F-16.

You would think the Air Force would be a stickler for requirements.

https://aerobaticteams.net/en/teams/i18 ... 12%20years)%20of%20military%20service.

pilot candidates for the Thunderbirds aerobatic team must have at least 1000 flying hours on a jet fighter and must be current on the F-16. All candidates for the "Thunderbirds" must have at least 3 years (but no more than 12 years) of military service.

I guess in theory, a pilot can be more proficient on another aircraft, and still be "currently proficient" on the F-16.

But then will they be firm on the requirement of jet fighter (F vs T?)

bt

I get what you're spinning here. But once the T-7A enters the mix, more new pilots will have T-7A time. Much like when the 'Birds and Blues were equipped with the T-38 and A-4s for cheaper operations, I can see the USAF moving down this path. Taking an F-16 down to its basic airframe for airshows is easy, but I can't see that with the F-35. Plus, the F-35 would look even more ugly in the 'Birds livery compared to the T-7.

bikerthai · Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:49 pm

Agreed on the looks.

As for cost, the T-bird is show biz. And you know how american feel about show biz.

The only factor I see for the T-7 is the rivalry factor with the Navy Blue Angels. Don't know if the Navy have a choice but to go with the '35s. If that is the case, then would rh Air Force want to something different? But the T-7, or even an F/A-7 may seem to be a step down.

It is a complex question, the more I think about it.

bt

aumaverick · Thu Sep 29, 2022 1:31 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Agreed on the looks.

As for cost, the T-bird is show biz. And you know how american feel about show biz.

The only factor I see for the T-7 is the rivalry factor with the Navy Blue Angels. Don't know if the Navy have a choice but to go with the '35s. If that is the case, then would rh Air Force want to something different? But the T-7, or even an F/A-7 may seem to be a step down.

It is a complex question, the more I think about it.

bt

Inter-service rivalry may be a moot point if the Navy also selects the T-7B for its UJTS replacement of the T-45. Already, the T-7A is meant to be able to off-load some of the training and flight hours from the actual frontline fighter airframes, and the T-7B would act much in the same way if selected for the Navy. If all 3 servicers operate the F-35, it would make logical sense to also operate the T-7A/B in much the same way.

Airshows are show-biz for sure, but the aerobatic teams of the services are meant to be a recruiting tool. I always thought it would be much more effective if the 'Birds and Blues could show potential pilots the aircraft they would fly first, even giving more hands-on opportunities than is afforded now by the single-seat 'front-line' fighters of the F-16 and F-18. With the T-7, you can not only demonstrate a high degree of aerobatic performance, but also demonstrate the cockpit modularity and training opportunities the airframe and avionics offers. The razzle-dazzle of cobra maneuvers can be left to the one-off aircraft demo teams.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41935/these-contenders-are-vying-to-replace-the-navys-t-45-goshawk-with-a-new-jet-trainer

bikerthai · Thu Sep 29, 2022 1:45 pm

aumaverick wrote:
but the aerobatic teams of the services are meant to be a recruiting tool. I always thought it would be much more effective if the 'Birds and Blues could show potential pilots the aircraft they would fly first,

The plane a potential pilot would fly first would be a prop.

The aerobatic team should fly a plane that has excellent maneuvering characteristics. Both type should have that.

As for recruiting. To me you want to show the recruit what they aspire to, not a stepping stone to something better.

bt

RetiredWeasel · Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:23 pm

Don't know why this "must be current in F-16s" is floating around on the internet. It's just plain false. Several F-15 pilots and even A-10 pilots have been selected as Thunderbird pilots. Here's a link to the requirements for a 2020 slot.
https://www.ang.af.mil/Portals/77/docum ... 150806-870

bikerthai · Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:37 pm

RetiredWeasel wrote:
Don't know why this "must be current in F-16s" is floating around on the internet.

Shrug. Both may be right. The letter was from 2020. The web page is more recent. It or could be wrong or they increased the requirement.

bt

RetiredWeasel · Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:56 pm

bikerthai wrote:

Shrug. Both may be right. The letter was from 2020. The web page is more recent. It or could be wrong or they increased the requirement.

bt

She will or has gone through some F-16 training prior to starting T-Bird training, but had zero previous F-16 time prior to being selected.
https://www.seymourjohnson.af.mil/News/ ... nderbirds/

bikerthai · Thu Sep 29, 2022 4:04 pm

RetiredWeasel wrote:
She will or has gone through some F-16 training prior to starting T-Bird training,

She must have been hired sometimes after that letter then. Obviously redundant to say that a T-bird pilots must be current on the F-16 8-)

How long does it take to train to learn a new rating? 6 mo?

That's what being bantering about for potential Ukrainian F-16s.

bt

RetiredWeasel · Thu Sep 29, 2022 4:14 pm

bikerthai wrote:
She must have been hired sometimes after that letter then. Obviously redundant to say that a T-bird pilots must be current on the F-16

How long does it take to train to learn a new rating? 6 mo?

That's what being bantering about for potential Ukrainian F-16s.

bt

Don't know the answer to that, but would assume it would be a short TX course maybe as short as 2 months. She is an experienced fighter pilot so emphasis during a tailored short course would be on instruments and formation-- little to no tactical stuff like bombing or air to air.

JayinKitsap · Thu Sep 29, 2022 8:47 pm

From a budget perspective the T-7A would be the winner - these are approximate
- Acquisition - 7 x ($ 75M - $ 25M) = $ 350M saved!
- Flight Hour - 7 x 300 hr/year x (35K - 10K) = $ 73.5 million a year saved.

That may affect this decision a bit. $ 73.5 million a year buys a lot of advertising.

Daetrin · Thu Sep 29, 2022 9:16 pm

The other advantage of the T-7A is that it has 2 seats, so you can take VIPs up in the back. The F-35 as a choice would not allow this.

My $$ is on the T-7A for that reason alone, but there are several other positive factors as others have already pointed out.

bikerthai · Thu Sep 29, 2022 9:37 pm

Oh and don't forget the politics. Right now, Boeing has the Blue Angels and LM has the Thunderbirds.

Imagine the political fight if both goes with one frame. :box:

bt

kitplane01 · Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:58 pm

Has there been any significant effort to make the T-7A into a light fighter?

Avatar2go · Fri Oct 07, 2022 7:06 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Has there been any significant effort to make the T-7A into a light fighter?

It was designed with that purpose in mind. So will just depend on if there is sufficient market interest.

bikerthai · Fri Oct 07, 2022 9:34 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Has there been any significant effort to make the T-7A into a light fighter?

Let them get to full rate production first.

But yeah probably a small group of core engineers working on configurations and program management corralling up partners.

bt

RJMAZ · Fri Oct 07, 2022 11:54 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Has there been any significant effort to make the T-7A into a light fighter?

All of the design work is done including the pylon attachment. It is even being offered for sale. Serbia has already unofficially selected the light fighter version and they want to purchase 20 aircraft. It is also worth noting that the landing gear has been designed for carrier specification using Super Hornet modelling. So the Navy will probably have their own version of the T-7 to do touch and go on a carrier.

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.

It would also be bad to launch the MOM/797 without pissing off many airlines. Airlines are currently holding back on compensation lawsuits to try and maintain a good relationship with Boeing. If Boeing launches some new products it looks like they aren't taking their existing problems seriously.

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

bikerthai · Sat Oct 08, 2022 2:43 am

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

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net