Revelation wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The drone pilots are in a quiet room, with a second person, connected to all the relevant networks, with room to spread out maps and charts. It should be a good situation to make decisions.

The key thing would be the network, and the lag (latency) it introduces.

From the documentaries I've seen (i.e. non classified stuff) about drone strikes during the Obama era (so now dated) the drone has a satellite antenna in its nose which accessed one or more satellites. The drones were launched in a friendly ME country and the operators were seated in the equivalent of shipping containers at good old Creech AFB in Nevada USA.

My understanding is they were using geostationary satellites so the signal had to travel tens of thousands of miles from ground to satellite(s) to drone. Since it's a round trip from pilot to bird and back, double it. This probably means large fractions of a second between command and response. You might not think this matters, but it does when considering air combat maneuvers (ACM). There's a reason why gamers pay more money for low latency network connections.

The advantage of the geostationary satellite is you know where it's going to be so it's easier to retain coverage wherever the drone goes anywhere in the satellite's footprint. The disadvantage is the latency. The military can do what SpaceX is doing with Starlink and deploy dozens of satellites in lower orbits but that takes a lot of time and money (and for all I know they've done so already) but so far I haven't heard of reports of them doing so. In any case they'd then have to make a moving drone hit a moving satellite with tiny margins for error since the drone can't afford to waste too much battery generating its signal to the satellite.

Then consider ACM: How do you keep a satellite dish pointed at the satellite while you're throwing yourself all over the sky? The answer is you do not. It's pretty much a given that the signal will be lost for some non-trivial amounts of time during ACM, I would think. Therefore the drone will need some sort of way to have a "safe mode" to make sure the signal isn't lost when you're pointing at the earth at a high rate of speed. Since this is all happening while you're in a fight, I can imagine you'd want some AI to have the drone do something other than get back to straight and level flight.

Even in non-ACM situations (i.e. drone strikes in the documentaries I've watched) the operators were frustrated since they would have loss of signal especially when turning the aircraft. I can imagine things have gotten better, but it's still a hard problem to solve. Could you imagine being in a fight with the signal coming and going as someone's trying to shoot your drone down? It wouldn't be fun.

I suppose this is why the "loyal wingman" approach is being taken. The signals now become very short (line of sight) so latency is small ,and signal energy needed is low so omni-directional antennas become appropriate.

It's also a sign that they know they can't solve the issues I've raised with a satellite based solution.

And again, this is a non-professional analysis based on non-sensitive information, just for the record.

Now, how about that T-7?

Ozair wrote:

Ha, I spoke too soon although this is a response from Boeing to the RAAF's RFI for replacement of the Hawk 127 for a dedicated advanced trainer. There is no expectation the T-7A would be used as a light attack aircraft in RAAF service.

kitplane01 wrote:

I don't understand this. It should not be hard to mount a 4K camera on a Predator drone, and feed the video to a 180-degree-surround simulator like screen. This wold offer much *better* vision to the drone pilot than a manned aircraft pilot, since one can see straight down. (Yes, I know the F-35 pilot can see *through* the airframe .. this could be just like that). The real problem is likely one of bandwidth, not hardware. But bandwidth increases every year.

Revelation wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I don't understand this. It should not be hard to mount a 4K camera on a Predator drone, and feed the video to a 180-degree-surround simulator like screen. This wold offer much *better* vision to the drone pilot than a manned aircraft pilot, since one can see straight down. (Yes, I know the F-35 pilot can see *through* the airframe .. this could be just like that). The real problem is likely one of bandwidth, not hardware. But bandwidth increases every year.

There's an old saying in computer networking: you can buy bandwidth, but you can't buy latency. See my earlier post or talk to any internet gamer.

bikerthai wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Ha, I spoke too soon although this is a response from Boeing to the RAAF's RFI for replacement of the Hawk 127 for a dedicated advanced trainer. There is no expectation the T-7A would be used as a light attack aircraft in RAAF service.

If working relationship between Boeing and the RAAF have any weigh in the decision process, then the T-7 will have the in side track for this deal.

Any word if industrial offsets will be included in this campaign?

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

Why would Australia buy a T-7 vs something like an M346? One can get an M346 now, and it comes in both Trainer and Attack versions. I assume an M346 costs less.

I understand that a T-7 has better performance/cockpit, but the M346 is also an upgrade over the Hawk's they have now.

bikerthai wrote:

Don't the trainers comes with advance simulators as well? Why not glum on to the USAF and get new state of the art simulators as well? And don't forget the time and money the USAF is currently spending on perfecting the curriculum.

bt

Ozair wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Don't the trainers comes with advance simulators as well? Why not glum on to the USAF and get new state of the art simulators as well? And don't forget the time and money the USAF is currently spending on perfecting the curriculum.

bt

The T-X tender was for a whole training system so simulators are part of the overall package, just as the RAAF are creating the AIR 6002 project for LIFTS (Lead in Flight Training System). Hence simulators will be part of the procurement. That doesn't mean a nation cannot acquire the T-7 without a simulator, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to not do so.

Boeing has begun production of the first T-7A ground-based training systems, preparing the way for the company to make its first deliveries in 2023.

Workers at Boeing’s plant in St. Louis, Missouri, are currently assembling the first two weapon systems trainers and one operational flight trainer, the company said in a news release Tuesday. Those assets will be among the first simulators the company expects to deliver to Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas, in 2023.

The high-fidelity simulators include 8K native projectors that supports imagery that is 16 times the clarity of high-definition video, and the crew stations are equipped with motion seats that simulate the sensation of flight, Boeing stated.

The ground-based trainers will be able to connect to a physical T-7A, meaning that pilots virtually training can team up with those performing live flights in the T-7 aircraft. Because the simulators were built with an open-architecture backbone, it can be easily modified with new software applications.

“The Red Hawk’s training system is arguably the most advanced in the world. It’s a game changer,” said Chuck Dabundo, Boeing’s vice president of the T-7 programs. “This system is 100% integrated with the pilot’s real-world experience, offering ‘real-as-it-gets’ simulation. We’re working closely with the U.S. Air Force and look forward to testing and fielding the devices.”

...

N328KF wrote:

Am I the only one who would love to see the Thunderbirds take T-7s? (For that matter - the Super Hornet is far too much metal for the Blue Angels.)

JayinKitsap wrote:

I could see ANG units around CONUS getting the T-7 trainers along with a light attack variant of it. Lots of pilots will see the T-7 to keep current as its cost per hour is like half or less than flying a fighter.

What is really needed is a trainer the pilots love to fly and get realistic training in it. I hope the T-7 meets this.

JayinKitsap wrote:

LM thought it was 'shockingly low' at the time

bikerthai wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

LM thought it was 'shockingly low' at the time

One way to measure whether Boeing underbid is whether they can deliver the frames in time. Cost over run escalate exponentially with schedule delay.

So if they can deliver on schedule, then their bid would be spot on.

bt

angad84 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

LM thought it was 'shockingly low' at the time

One way to measure whether Boeing underbid is whether they can deliver the frames in time. Cost over run escalate exponentially with schedule delay.

So if they can deliver on schedule, then their bid would be spot on.

bt

yep. flight test appears to be going really well, so doesn't look like any nasty surprises on that front. which leaves only production and [*cough*KC46*cough*] QC to screw things up for them. Very impressive thus far, totally Boeing's to screw up now.

aumaverick wrote:

I think the QC gremlins prefer the coastal locations and will not appear for the Red Hawk.

JayinKitsap wrote:

The T-7 trainer system has some great unique aspects, such as a virtual cockpit that controls the underlying avionics. This allows it to mimic a F-16, F-35, F-22, F-15, or F-18 cockpits as to instrument arrangement and performance feel. No the T-7 won't match the F-35 but it will have higher commonality than being in a T-50 for a F-35 pilot.

It also has the systems linked so the ground trainers update with the planes to the latest version and allow for training in groups. Probably can have synthetic sensor displays created by the ground computer to replicate 'attack center' information.

All this for billions less than what the other competitors bid, LM thought it was 'shockingly low' at the time. Something like 12B not 16B for the program.

RHoom101 wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

The T-7 trainer system has some great unique aspects, such as a virtual cockpit that controls the underlying avionics. This allows it to mimic a F-16, F-35, F-22, F-15, or F-18 cockpits as to instrument arrangement and performance feel. No the T-7 won't match the F-35 but it will have higher commonality than being in a T-50 for a F-35 pilot.

It also has the systems linked so the ground trainers update with the planes to the latest version and allow for training in groups. Probably can have synthetic sensor displays created by the ground computer to replicate 'attack center' information.

All this for billions less than what the other competitors bid, LM thought it was 'shockingly low' at the time. Something like 12B not 16B for the program.

What is your source for this assertion that T-7 can mimic other cockpits?

What the Air Force needed was a new training system, not just a plane, that would catapult young pilots into the age of digital technology. T-7 does that with a training system that can be easily adjusted to mimic the displays and handling qualities of every fighter and bomber in the Air Force fleet.

texl1649 wrote:

RHoom101 wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

The T-7 trainer system has some great unique aspects, such as a virtual cockpit that controls the underlying avionics. This allows it to mimic a F-16, F-35, F-22, F-15, or F-18 cockpits as to instrument arrangement and performance feel. No the T-7 won't match the F-35 but it will have higher commonality than being in a T-50 for a F-35 pilot.

It also has the systems linked so the ground trainers update with the planes to the latest version and allow for training in groups. Probably can have synthetic sensor displays created by the ground computer to replicate 'attack center' information.

All this for billions less than what the other competitors bid, LM thought it was 'shockingly low' at the time. Something like 12B not 16B for the program.

What is your source for this assertion that T-7 can mimic other cockpits?

They've touted this ability for a while; it's yet to be shown in detail/proven in flight/operation. Roughly simulating a layout (visually with huge touchscreens), with dumbed down throttle/direction input responses for strategic aircraft for instance, is my guess what they are mainly talking about.

What the Air Force needed was a new training system, not just a plane, that would catapult young pilots into the age of digital technology. T-7 does that with a training system that can be easily adjusted to mimic the displays and handling qualities of every fighter and bomber in the Air Force fleet.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... 0bfe4b5f7c

JayinKitsap wrote:

Thank you Tex for the Forbes article, it was one of those I was remembering. A pertinent articles regarding Reforge, the new training plan is below.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/ref ... -training/

What I recall from several articles that I can't find now is that the T-7 has an upper level program that is the plane to be mimicked - be it F-35, F-22, F-15EX, F-16, etc. The glass cockpit changes the displays the pilot sees to match the mimic aircraft. This upper level program controls the underlying program which is the one actually certified for flight. This allows for a single configuration to be certified - sort of like basic law in other planes. This interface between the upper and lower programs is that the ground trainers just need to mimic the underlying actual conditions, the upper level program is the same on the ground as in the air.

It also allows for simulated radar and weapon controls, as well as group training.

Revelation wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Thank you Tex for the Forbes article, it was one of those I was remembering. A pertinent articles regarding Reforge, the new training plan is below.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/ref ... -training/

What I recall from several articles that I can't find now is that the T-7 has an upper level program that is the plane to be mimicked - be it F-35, F-22, F-15EX, F-16, etc. The glass cockpit changes the displays the pilot sees to match the mimic aircraft. This upper level program controls the underlying program which is the one actually certified for flight. This allows for a single configuration to be certified - sort of like basic law in other planes. This interface between the upper and lower programs is that the ground trainers just need to mimic the underlying actual conditions, the upper level program is the same on the ground as in the air.

It also allows for simulated radar and weapon controls, as well as group training.

That's an awful lot of software to develop/debug/test/maintain.

Hope it goes well for them.

VMCA787 wrote:

Apparently, the T-7A (or more precisely eT-7A) full-rate production decision has been delayed a year due to supply line problems and instability in the roll axis at high angles of attack. Not good news, but not insurmountable problems to fix.

https://www.airforcemag.com/technical-p ... -decision/

The Air Force, in a statement, said there are multiple issues inhibiting the Red Hawk’s progress toward production. For example, the Milestone C decision, or full-rate production, slipped from 2022 to 2023 because of supplier’s critical parts shortages, initial design delays, and the need for more testing after the “discovery of aircraft wing rock,” which means the T-7 can be unstable in the roll axis when flying at high angles of attack.
...
The Air Force has touted the use of digital engineering for the T-7, with then Air Force Secretary Barbara M. Barrett announcing in September 2020 that Boeing’s Red Hawk trainer jet would be the first plane to earn an “e” designation, as the eT-7A, signifying it was designed and tested using digital engineering. Digital engineering uses advanced computer modeling and simulation, and technology like virtual and augmented reality, to quickly draw up hardware blueprints and vet how various configurations would work in the real world without building a physical prototype.

RJMAZ wrote:

"Boeing is already looking at light attack and aggressor training opportunities for the aircraft and it says it has already identified locations for hardpoints under the wings."

https://combataircraft.keypublishing.co ... t-fighter/


"However, Boeing could grow to two hardpoints per wing plus the centerline point without changing the aircraft’s design.

“This is all about the trainer,” he says. “If we choose to go down that path, we built something with a lot of growth potential.”
- Darryl Davis, president of Boeing Phantom Works

https://www.flightglobal.com/boeing-unv ... 89.article

RJMAZ wrote:

The T-7A fighter variant will definitely come.

RJMAZ wrote:

https://youtu.be/RXmM9jTl58A

It is performing well

flyingturtle wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

https://youtu.be/RXmM9jTl58A

It is performing well

I can't really compare to other fighter jets, but the T-7 cockpit looks spacious!

RJMAZ wrote:

wide angle lense on the cockpit camera

RJMAZ wrote:

This shows why the T-50 can never compete with the T-7 moving forward.

The Gripen or new build F-16's could never compete against a light fighter version of the T-7. They would have similar performance but they could never compete on price.

kitplane01 wrote:

Or Boeing really has a temporary production cost advantage here.

kitplane01 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

This shows why the T-50 can never compete with the T-7 moving forward.

The Gripen or new build F-16's could never compete against a light fighter version of the T-7. They would have similar performance but they could never compete on price.

Maybe. It is widely speculated that Boeing underbid the contract. If so, and assuming Boeing is unwilling to have additional losses, Boeing will have to raise the prices on future aircraft. Or Boeing really has a temporary production cost advantage here.