Revelation wrote:

In "the good old days" we would have big write ups in aviation magazines with cross section views, lots of stuff to chew on.

In the good old days, those cross section views don't come out until the first production article is built or delivered, aka, somewhat matured.

You are probably right in terms if staffing. Many aviation news today are from bloggers with limited media presentation capabilities.

One final thing to consider is that both the T-X and the MQ-25 is being manufactured using Boeing's new proprietary digital manufacturing process, so perhaps Boeing is keeping the details close to the vest for competitive reason.

Finally, this Covid pandemic is restricting travel and media visits. You can only do so much reporting/investigating from your home office.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Revelation wrote:

In "the good old days" we would have big write ups in aviation magazines with cross section views, lots of stuff to chew on.

In the good old days, those cross section views don't come out until the first production article is built or delivered, aka, somewhat matured.

You are probably right in terms if staffing. Many aviation news today are from bloggers with limited media presentation capabilities.

One final thing to consider is that both the T-X and the MQ-25 is being manufactured using Boeing's new proprietary digital manufacturing process, so perhaps Boeing is keeping the details close to the vest for competitive reason.

Finally, this Covid pandemic is restricting travel and media visits. You can only do so much reporting/investigating from your home office.

bt

Agree, it's probably a bit early to expect a lot of detail especially under the circumstances.

Boeing has released very little in regards to any of its DOD planes - the P-8A, the KC-46, the MQ-25, nor the T-7A. Part for national security, but mostly for competative reasons. On the P-8A and KC-46 the Tabloid sized cutaway drawing with features was issued out during the RFP stage, not much since.

We do not have any information about payload, or the ability to add wing hard points, no information on range, top speed, G limits, etc. We do know that the Air Force liked the program better than the competition, was it just price or is it the really hot trainer they always wanted.

JayinKitsap wrote:

On the P-8A and KC-46 the Tabloid sized cutaway drawing with features was issued out during the RFP stage

The P-8A cutaway drawing has the configuration of the Stage 2 aircraft as opposed to the first two developmental frames. So that came some times after contract award.

The cuttaway was not created by Boeing, however the publisher probably received some modelling from to make life easier.

bt

I came across this article while I was doing some research and thought it was worth posting in reference to the T-7 being in a somewhat similar albeit not quite as far along test phase.

This Trainer Can GO, GO, GO

From sunbaked Edwards AFB in California’s Mojave Desert to the snowy winterscape of Malmstrom AFB, Mont., to Eglin AFB on Florida’s Gulf Coast, Air Force test pilots have in recent months been getting to know a new supersonic jet that should one day become a familiar piece of hardware at USAF bases here and abroad.

The plane is the supersonic T-38 Talon trainer. Fiftee­n of the Northrop-produced aircraft are currently in operation in the far-ranging and intensive test program. The total present order includes 144 planes, with further orders expected to follow. Service planning is that the T-38, designed for training in supersonic and high-altitude flight, formation flying, acroba­tics, multijet-engine operations, and night or instru­ment cross-country flying, will ultimately supplant the Lockheed T-33 Tee Bird jet trainer. The plane’s high performance and versatility may also suit it to a number ­of other missions.

...

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0361talon/

I especially like the following quote

As set up in the preliminary syllabus, the first mission for a student in the T-38 would be an afterburner takeoff and an afterburner climb to 86,000 feet. It would take about three and one-half minutes. It would be followed by practice 180-degree turns and an acceleration to the supersonic state, with several supersonic rolls and a “wind-up (descending and rolling) turn” with increasing forces up to four Gs supersonically. These maneuvers would take about six minutes.

Then the instructor would take the engines out of afterburner and demonstrate the stability augmenter at Mach .9—the most sensitive trim area—showing longitudinal and latitudinal pulses and correction with the damper on and off. Then they would drop down to 20,000 feet, doing lazy-eights, rolls, and other precision maneuvers. At 20,000 they would do a clean stall and a power-approach stall with gears and flaps down, then clean up the airplane and do several loops. Returning to the field, they would then shoot three or four landings. The entire flight would take about one hour.

I assume the text in bold is a misprint (given the article talks about a service ceiling of 60 kft) and that previous or the current training syllabus does not include an afterburner takeoff to 86 kft but if true that would be a hell of a first ride!!!

LOL, I am pretty sure no T-38 has ever flown above 60K feet. They’re not exactly Blackbirds, but Jack Northrop would be proud of the embellishment!

Ozair wrote:

".....student in the T-38 would be an afterburner takeoff and an afterburner climb to 86,000 feet.[/i][/b] It would take about three and one-half minutes. It would be followed by practice 180-degree ......."

When I joined the USAF and went to pilot training in the early 70's, flight above 50,000 ft was prohibited unless you were wearing a pressure suit. The first flight in T-38s was no where close to that article description. In fact only on one flight did we ever go supersonic and that was just a 'g-whizz' event. I understand now days, there is no supersonic flight scheduled in the syllabus.

RetiredWeasel wrote:

Ozair wrote:

".....student in the T-38 would be an afterburner takeoff and an afterburner climb to 86,000 feet.[/i][/b] It would take about three and one-half minutes. It would be followed by practice 180-degree ......."

When I joined the USAF and went to pilot training in the early 70's, flight above 50,000 ft was prohibited unless you were wearing a pressure suit. The first flight in T-38s was no where close to that article description. In fact only on one flight did we ever go supersonic and that was just a 'g-whizz' event. I understand now days, there is no supersonic flight scheduled in the syllabus.

Interesting info thanks. I expected the 86 kft was a typo but irrespective looks like the training was a lot more aggressive than it is today.

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.

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.

We should consider that Saab is a major partner in this program, no?

texl1649 wrote:

LOL, I am pretty sure no T-38 has ever flown above 60K feet.

Strictly speaking not likely true since NASA does use them for research, including programs that likely require exceeding this altitude.

RJMAZ wrote:

How many years until they make a single seat version with AESA and AMRAAM capability?

...many? If at all?

That's rather presumptive that Boeing would make a combat version at all, let alone one that's A2A focused as you imply. The F-16 represents an affordable value to this day, especially when you factor in upgrades like AESA and AMRAAM capability into the T-7. Not to mention it would be going into a competitive market with proven and highly capable entrants such as the F/A-50 and Gripen you already mentioned.

Revelation wrote:

We should consider that Saab is a major partner in this program, no?

I am sure SAAB would love to provide avionics and some parts if they end up producing a thousand fighter versions of the T-7A. If the speed and agility are as good as the rumours I think the Saab Gripen will be a second choice.

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

The F-16 represents an affordable value to this day, especially when you factor in upgrades like AESA and AMRAAM capability into the T-7. Not to mention it would be going into a competitive market with proven and highly capable entrants such as the F/A-50 and Gripen you already mentioned.

If we assume this F-7 fighter would have equal radar to the Gripen E then in any competition the F-7 would win against the Gripen. The actual structural air frame cost of the F-7 will be significantly less due and maintenance would be even lower than the already low Saab Gripen. With a large economy of scale and vastly reduced part count I would say this part will be HALF the cost. Once the avionics is added the F-7 might be 80% of the cost to buy and maintain.

The F-16 had a monopoly on the market with a very high economy of scale which has now passed. All it takes is something built with modern manufacturing techniques and it will easily get beaten on cost. This is why the T-50 can't compete as it is built like an F-16 and at a low rate. With avionics and weapons getting smaller the same capability of an F-16 block 60 can be placed in an aircraft three quarters of the size.

It will be intersting to see what the fuel fraction is for the T-7. This will be the biggest factor in terms of a F-16 replacement. I would also look at the Mig-21 and J-7 operstors.

RJMAZ wrote:

If we assume this F-7 fighter would have equal radar to the Gripen E then in any competition the F-7 would win against the Gripen.

That's making a fatal and frankly stupid mistake of assuming adding AESA radar to the T-7 is somehow free. The radar unit itself is costly; otherwise every air force would be slapping AESA onto every fighter they have and the Republic of China wouldn't be in a serious debate about whether or not they could fund the SABR upgrades for their current F-16s. Then there are actual R&D costs related to installation. I would love to see you show me an off the shelf AESA unit that can be literally shoved into the nose cone of a T-7 right now.

Ancillary that also assumes the T-7 is somehow an inherently better fighter than the Gripen. The Gripen is designed first and foremost as a multi-role fighter while it's my understanding that a major reason why the T-7 was selected was because it is more optimized as an actual trainer compared to the competition, the majority of which are either adapted from fighters or designed with equal consideration to front-line offensive use. I hope you understand the logical disconnect there.

The actual structural air frame cost of the F-7 will be significantly less due and maintenance would be even lower than the already low Saab Gripen. With a large economy of scale and vastly reduced part count I would say this part will be HALF the cost. Once the avionics is added the F-7 might be 80% of the cost to buy and maintain.

I could point out the apples-to-oranges comparison of a frontline tactical fighter designed first and foremost to be a viable tactical frontline fighter against a variety of advanced threats verses a trainer aircraft merely designed to be as economical as possible without having to face the rigors of operational tempo.

But I could also simply say the now classic line, citation needed

The F-16 had a monopoly on the market with a very high economy of scale which has now passed. All it takes is something built with modern manufacturing techniques and it will easily get beaten on cost. This is why the T-50 can't compete as it is built like an F-16 and at a low rate. With avionics and weapons getting smaller the same capability of an F-16 block 60 can be placed in an aircraft three quarters of the size.

This sounds self-contradictory.

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

That's making a fatal and frankly stupid mistake of assuming adding AESA radar to the T-7 is somehow free. The radar unit itself is costly;

I think you misread my post. I said the T-7 structural airframe will be half the price. Not the complete flyable aircraft. The AESA radar would be the same cost as the Gripen if they used the same radar. So the cost savings only come from the airframe part in terms of purchasing price and maintenance.

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

I would love to see you show me an off the shelf AESA unit that can be literally shoved into the nose cone of a T-7 right now.

The Gripen, F-20 and T-50 all have a 500mm radar diameter. The T-7 nose is similar in size to to the T-50 based on the photo with the man standing in front. The Gripen AESA radar would fit that is why I mentioned it.

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

Ancillary that also assumes the T-7 is somehow an inherently better fighter than the Gripen. The Gripen is designed first and foremost as a multi-role fighter

A radar and weapons and one less seat is really the only difference between an advanced trainer and a lightweight fighter. The mid wing layout with LERX and canted tails will provide better sustained turn rate than a delta canard. The delta canard will require a significantly higher thrust to rate weight to reach parity.

No need for a citation. The F-5 came from the T-38 trainer and the F-5 sold to the same markers that a single seat T-7A would target. The FA-50 is in service with the Philippines as their primary fighter aircraft which is another example of adding a radar to a trainer. The Hawk 200 is an example of removing a seat from a trainer and adding a radar.

The big advantage the T-7A has over all of these examples is an assembly process that is ahead of the competiton. It is all.about bang for buck. The F-5 back in the day might have provided 40% of the capability for 60% of the cost of the F-4. The T-7 fighter version might provide 60% of the capability at 40% of the cost of a Eurofighter.

Capability per dollar is the most important requirement. A small country might prefer 20 T-7 fighters instead of 8 Eurofighters if they are equal cost.

RJMAZ wrote:

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

That's making a fatal and frankly stupid mistake of assuming adding AESA radar to the T-7 is somehow free. The radar unit itself is costly;

I think you misread my post. I said the T-7 structural airframe will be half the price. Not the complete flyable aircraft. The AESA radar would be the same cost as the Gripen if they used the same radar. So the cost savings only come from the airframe part in terms of purchasing price and maintenance.

Ok. So? You're going to have to sink R&D into figuring out how to put AESA onto the frame which is going to shrink that cost gap, and you're going to end up with a smaller and less capable frame than a Gripen and ignore other aircraft like the F/A-50 that already has this capability built-in at a similar price point. But it's maybe cheaper because we're using simpleton logic, so congratulations.

The Gripen, F-20 and T-50 all have a 500mm radar diameter. The T-7 nose is similar in size to to the T-50 based on the photo with the man standing in front. The Gripen AESA radar would fit that is why I mentioned it.

It's not that simple. For starters show me that the T-7 actually has the ability to accommodate a radar aperture like that, not just based on guesses from photos, which can be misleading.

A radar and weapons and one less seat is really the only difference between an advanced trainer and a lightweight fighter.

There's a real capability gap you're completely ignoring. There are carriage and power requirements that are at least partially dependent on engine power, for example, which in turn is absolutely dictacted by airframe.

It's almost like 100% of everything you know about tactical fighters comes from Wikipedia and Ace Combat. I'm sorry, but that's the impression you've made upon me.

The mid wing layout with LERX and canted tails will provide better sustained turn rate than a delta canard. The delta canard will require a significantly higher thrust to rate weight to reach parity.

I'm not doubting you, but I would like to see hard evidence that this actually applies to the T-7.

No need for a citation.

Ok so I'm just supposed to take your word for it? Because you take me for an idiot?

The F-5 came from the T-38 trainer and the F-5 sold to the same markers that a single seat T-7A would target.

The F-5 also comes from an entirely different era and the goalposts have moved. Some air forces may feel they do not require AESA radar but those air forces are few and they may be able to get AESA fighters from the used market anyway.

The FA-50 is in service with the Philippines as their primary fighter aircraft which is another example of adding a radar to a trainer.

Yes and the FA-50 is specifically designed from the onset to be adaptable to a frontline aircraft. It was fulfilling a dual need for a T-38 replacement but also a frontline F-16 suppliment. It's also, as I understand it, quite a bit larger than a T-7, and as I also understand it, that added capability is what hurt it during the competition since the USAF, being flush with advanced fighters from the F-16 to the F-22, didn't need nor want a trainer that can be adaptable to frontline combat and the added costs thus associated.

The Hawk 200 is an example of removing a seat from a trainer and adding a radar.

And the Hawk 200 is obsolete, and wasn't particularly popular even when it was new. Again, the goalposts keep moving.

The big advantage the T-7A has over all of these examples is an assembly process that is ahead of the competiton. It is all.about bang for buck. The F-5 back in the day might have provided 40% of the capability for 60% of the cost of the F-4. The T-7 fighter version might provide 60% of the capability at 40% of the cost of a Eurofighter.

And as I understand it a major part of that is "drumming out" anything that is not optimized for and surplus to training. That means all the extra capability and engineering that would've made it easily adaptable as a frontline tactical aircraft without having to add all that engineering (and costs) back into it.

Capability per dollar is the most important requirement. A small country might prefer 20 T-7 fighters instead of 8 Eurofighters if they are equal cost.

But you're assuming equal capability or even remotely comparable. If it was that simple, the USAF would've canceled F-15 production a long time ago, instead opting for additional F-16s. There are more factors in play than a simple scaling up of the N^2 law. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't, and the reasons why are often contextual, context that most civilians like you and me just are not privy to.

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

and you're going to end up with a smaller and less capable frame than a Gripen

Do you have a problem with Boeing itself? You doubt that 28 years of aerodynamic improvements will not allow Boeing to match the capability of the old Gripen. We can see with the F-35 how far the agility of mid wing layout has come without thrust vectoring. The T-7A design start date is 15 years newer than the F-35 start date.

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

Ok so I'm just supposed to take your word for it? Bwecause you take me for an idiot?

"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

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

But you're assuming equal capability or even remotely comparable. If it was that simple, the USAF would've canceled F-15 production a long time ago, instead opting for additional F-16s. There are more factors in play than a simple scaling up of the N^2 law.

For the vast majority of countries on this planet they are well below this point of operating more than one fighter type. Your comparison with The USAF going with just the F-16 is ridiculous.

There is a certain fleet size where it makes sense to introduce multiple aircraft types with different design compromises including points where dedicated bombers and tankers should be purchased. Operating just one single orphan bomber is not 1% of the cost of operating a 100 bomber fleet.

The T-7A fighter variant will definitely come. The F/A-50 got a larger nose to fit bigger radar compared to the T-50. It was a very easy process.

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't, and the reasons why are often contextual, context that most civilians like you and me just are not privy to.

Civilian? I've spent 12 years in Defence, thousands of hours working on fast jets, I authored papers on researchgate.net and I have won multiple awards.

RJMAZ wrote:

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

and you're going to end up with a smaller and less capable frame than a Gripen

Do you have a problem with Boeing itself? You doubt that 28 years of aerodynamic improvements will not allow Boeing to match the capability of the old Gripen. We can see with the F-35 how far the agility of mid wing layout has come without thrust vectoring. The T-7A design start date is 15 years newer than the F-35 start date.

I think the date between designs has little to do with the actual capability of the aircraft and more to do with what the aircraft was designed to accomplish.

We know T-X had to meet the following requirements,

The high G maneuver shall be flown with a Standard Configuration, at 80% fuel weight (relative to maximum fuel capacity) and Standard Day conditions. The maneuver shall begin in level flight (flight path angle no lower than zero and no higher than two degrees nose high), wings level (±5 degrees of bank), at 15,000 feet PA, and at or below 0.9Mach. From this point, the aircrew will immediately initiate bank and back pressure to achieve the highest maintainable G-loading. The G-loading shall be maintained for a minimum of 140 continuous degrees. The aircrew may begin reducing the load factor and rolling out after a minimum of 140 degrees in order to roll out at approximately 180 degrees of turn. The flight path angle shall be no lower than 15 degrees nose low and the aircraft shall descend to no lower than 13,000 feet PA during any portion of the entire 180-degree maneuver. There is no power setting specified for this maneuver. The aircraft shall lose no more than 10% of the initial airspeed during the 180-degree maneuver.

The aircraft shall perform high G maneuvering with an instantaneous G-onset rate of at least 6 G per second using the following additional performance ground rules: Fuel weight at 50% (relative to maximum fuel capacity), pressure altitude (PA) equal to 15,000 feet, Airspeed no greater than 0.9 Mach and Standard Day. The aircraft shall immediately start a return to +1.0 G flight by relaxing the stick force/deflection.

From a steady +1.5 G trimmed level turn, using an abrupt maximum pitch control step input the aircraft shall traverse from +1.5 G and pass through +7.5 G (or the angle-of-attack for CLmax) in 1.7 seconds without over-G or departure. The aircraft shall immediately start a return to +1.0 G flight by relaxing the stick force/deflection. This shall be achieved using the following additional performance ground rules: Fuel weight at 50% (relative to maximum fuel capacity), PA equal to 15,000 feet, symmetric and planned asymmetric loadings, Standard Day, Corner Speed ±50 KEAS.

The aircraft shall fly in negative gravity for at least 10 seconds with unlimited occurrences and without adverse effects to the aircraft and subsystems for all engine thrust levels. The aircraft shall fly in zero gravity for at least 10 seconds with unlimited occurrences and without adverse effects to the aircraft and subsystems for all engine thrust levels. (Note: Zero gravity is defined as -0.5 to +0.5 G.)

The aircraft shall perform instantaneous turn rate of at least 18° per second using the following additional performance ground rules: Fuel weight at 50% (relative to maximum fuel capacity), PA equal to 15,000 feet, Airspeed no greater than 0.9 Mach and Standard Day. The aircraft shall perform sustained turn rate of at least 12.5° per second using the following additional performance ground rules: level flight, fuel weight at 50% (relative to maximum fuel capacity), PA equal to 15,000 feet, airspeed no greater than 0.9 Mach and Standard Day.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ements.htm

While that is impressive for a lead in trainer it isn't in the class of a dedicated fighter aircraft that will likely meet those maneuver requirements with more payload and external drag. The T-X will only do those with the suggested fuel states and with no external payload and for a limited period of time.

RJMAZ wrote:

There is a certain fleet size where it makes sense to introduce multiple aircraft types with different design compromises including points where dedicated bombers and tankers should be purchased. Operating just one single orphan bomber is not 1% of the cost of operating a 100 bomber fleet.

The T-7 will meet that fleet size requirement anyway given the expected USAF production of 350.

RJMAZ wrote:

The T-7A fighter variant will definitely come. The F/A-50 got a larger nose to fit bigger radar compared to the T-50. It was a very easy process.

In respect to fitting an AESA to the T-7 it is certainly possible but there are AESA fits and there are AESA fits... Doing it properly involves significantly more cooling capacity being feed into the radar compared to TWT radars. You can fit an AESA radar to most current fighter aircraft but you are unlikely to gain the significant performance benefits without that added cooling. You do get the reduced sidelobes and most importantly graceful degradation and therefore reduced sustainment costs which likely more than offset the increased acquisition cost.

The other issue is just how big the market really is for an airframe like this? As an air policing asset it might be good enough to suit small nations but potentially will still be too much money for a lot of nations operating F-5s etc today. I expect most will not renew their fighter fleets when the F-5s and MiG-21s/F-7s run out of time. It isn't like Gripens have been selling like hot cakes, nor the F/A-50 or the new M-346FA. Maybe the production volume of the T-7 will overcome that but even then with its US content it will probably only be of interest to a select number of nations willing to operate under US influence.

RJMAZ wrote:

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

and you're going to end up with a smaller and less capable frame than a Gripen

Do you have a problem with Boeing itself?

Actually yes but only insofar as I do with any multi-billion/trillion-dollar global corporation, not to mention this is a non-related and bizarre accusation to make given the context other than as a blatant ad hominem.

You doubt that 28 years of aerodynamic improvements will not allow Boeing to match the capability of the old Gripen.

There is no logical connect there. I have the benefit of piggybacking from Ozair's reply thanks to waiting, but he's already explained why that isn't exactly "fighter class." Not to mention it doesn't take into account any armaments-carrying load which as I understand it is important for a tactical aircraft.

We can see with the F-35 how far the agility of mid wing layout has come without thrust vectoring. The T-7A design start date is 15 years newer than the F-35 start date.

None of that seems to be relevant to each other. You seem to be obsessed with just naming advanced fighter aircraft and hoping that the comparison to the T-7 is readily inherently apparent when no such connection exists.

This is literally a conspiracy theory mentality.

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

Ok so I'm just supposed to take your word for it? Bwecause you take me for an idiot?

"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/

All of those articles are extremely vague and do not mention any sort of capability gap between what Boeing claims the T-7 can be upgraded to and what the USAF is looking for, what capability the USAF is even looking for in the first place or even if the USAF was actively soliciting proposals based on the T-7 for homeland defense or if Boeing is taking the opportunity to pitch it to them. This would be no different then when Textron pushed for the Scorpion for the same exact competition eventually won by the T-7 (and again for this "homeland defense" role) even though the Scorpion compared hopelessly against even its most basic competition.

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

But you're assuming equal capability or even remotely comparable. If it was that simple, the USAF would've canceled F-15 production a long time ago, instead opting for additional F-16s. There are more factors in play than a simple scaling up of the N^2 law.

For the vast majority of countries on this planet they are well below this point of operating more than one fighter type. Your comparison with The USAF going with just the F-16 is ridiculous.

It sounds like I may have touched a nerve.

Either way, I'm talking about capability, not whatever you're even trying to argue. Most air forces choose their types, even as a single operator type, along that capability. Very few air forces have historically elected to operate below that capability and I will need to see and be convinced that the T-7 is capable of that, given how it's apparently optimized for the trainer role (which Ozair's data collaborates).

The T-7A fighter variant will definitely come. The F/A-50 got a larger nose to fit bigger radar compared to the T-50. It was a very easy process.

Aircraft engineering isn't Legos where you can swap out a part for a larger one. It was likely helped by the fact that the T-50 had been designed for a larger nose in the first place. It's possible the T-7 is likewise designed but I will need to see that demonstrated.

Civilian? I've spent 12 years in Defence, thousands of hours working on fast jets, I authored papers on researchgate.net and I have won multiple awards.

Really? Because exactly none of that is showing through.

But hey, it's Airliners.net! I can make grandiose claims and act like an "Internet Tough Guy" too!

Ozair wrote:

While that is impressive for a lead in trainer it isn't in the class of a dedicated fighter aircraft that will likely meet those maneuver requirements with more payload and external drag. The T-X will only do those with the suggested fuel states and with no external payload and for a limited period of time.

Care to expound on that point? The reason I ask is just about every fighter (USAF) I am familiar with have asymmetrical G limits as well as G limits for various weights.

mmo wrote:

Ozair wrote:

While that is impressive for a lead in trainer it isn't in the class of a dedicated fighter aircraft that will likely meet those maneuver requirements with more payload and external drag. The T-X will only do those with the suggested fuel states and with no external payload and for a limited period of time.

Care to expound on that point? The reason I ask is just about every fighter (USAF) I am familiar with have asymmetrical G limits as well as G limits for various weights.

As a trainer the requirements were written to conduct those maneuvers for short intervals. The contrast to that is the F-15/16/18/22/35 etc back those maneuvers up again straight away or maintain them for far longer and do with payload. Yes the full up fighters still have weight and G limitations based on weapon and fuel load. I've posted the F-16C/D supplemental here enough times to understand the impact weight and drag will play on the respective airframes across speeds and altitudes.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, the aircraft looks like it will perform exactly as it should and do exactly what the USAF need it to do but we need to remember that what it is meant to do is train students to fly high performance aircraft, not drive that aircraft across and win a WVR engagement. I'd be really interested to see an EM diagram of the flight envelope of the aircraft, I expect it is designed to meet those requirements exactly.

What is important is how it actually performs. If is has the excellent cost per operation hour it is promoted at, it will do quite well. I can see it as a very light fighter at ANG bases, where it would be a trainer for most hours. Of course, it's role is as a trainer. Talk of other roles needs to wait until it is in service. If it is another KC-46 fiasco, who knows.

JayinKitsap wrote:

I can see it as a very light fighter at ANG bases, where it would be a trainer for most hours.

...yes, no, maybe? I feel very divided and conflicted on this in terms of opinion.

On the one hand, I feel that your suggestion is one of those "stupidly brilliant" ideas that I'm honestly surprised nobody (especially in the actual USAF) didn't think of before. But on the other, I can see potential for resistance. I have a hard time believing the ANG crowd isn't excited and jumping at the bit for not only brand-new F-15s (that thanks to the virtue of being two-seaters can also be used as trainers, or at least justified as such even if they're horrifically inefficient compared to T-7) but potentially if not very likely far more advanced and capable (including potentially in raw kinetic performance) than what the frontline guys have. They might see the suggestion of re-rolling combat capable trainers into the Homeland ANG role and back-and-fourth as needed as an extremely serious threat to their shiny new bragging rights toys, precisely because it's an extremely logical and cost-effective suggestion and, let's face it, there are few if any threats that even exist that requires an extremely advanced F-15 variant or a stealth aircraft to counter over the "homeland" especially away from the coasts.

Boeing might also be extremely resistant to the idea; sure, they produce both aircraft, but that's exactly the issue. I'm inclined to believe that the F-15EX has a far higher profit margin (and if nothing else greater flight-hour cost which also translates to profit margin for the OEM) that incentivizes Boeing to push for the F-15EX over the T-7 whenever practical, especially since one of the selling points of the T-7, the selling point that apparently was the deciding factor in being adopted by the USAF in the first place, was a very low acquisition and operating cost.

My own first instinct is to favor the F-15EX in the role anyway, but that's only because they can be easily rerolled into frontline units (or deploying the ANG units to the frontline ala like we do anyway) if we get into a shooting war that requires swapping out older aircraft for low-hour advanced ones, because that seems like a better "bang for the buck" option. But then again, not only is rerolling far cheaper trainer aircraft into the "homeland defense" role an even bigger bang for the buck still, but being able to "hot swap" those roles nearly instantaneously depending on demand doesn't just only compound that bang for the buck value but is also inherently far more adaptable.

Which may be the reason why it'll never happen. Again, it marks it as a potential serious threat to shinier, braggier, more profitable toys, from the same manufacturer no less.

I also don't know what kind of training procedure they even do at ANG bases, if permanently basing training aircraft would even be practical according to doctrine and practices anyway. But I also want to point out in regards to Boeing's claims that they can readily mount two wing and a center-line hardpoint station: I'm not too impressed because some T-38s are equipped with hardpoints for live weapons training, so it would be logical for a trainer to have some hardpoint capability more for the sake of performing its actual primary training mission than as for adaptability into a combat aircraft. I do recall some users using the F-5B in an offensive role (basically a T-38 with F-5A wings, so it would have more hardpoint capability to begin with anyway) but I think most users either upgraded or opted for the F-5F (with full or near-full F-5E capability).

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

T-38s are equipped with hardpoints for live weapons training, so it would be logical for a trainer to have some hardpoint capability more for the sake of performing its actual primary training mission than as for adaptability into a combat aircraft.

The "live weapons training" is not quite true. There was a gun pod that went on a centerline mount which was originally installed for a cross country luggage pod that was available. The only other weapon is a BDU-33 which is a practice bomb. That is it for weapons.

Several T-38s have been given to ACC for use as proficiency/aggressor training in AD squadrons. As far as the ANG/AFRES goes, I think you would probably see some of the T-38s when they are replaced with the T-7 would go to the ANG/AFRES, but they will be pretty long in the teeth by that point in time. I think the emphasis would be to get the T-7 in the inventory so ATC can get the T-7 out in the field and get the syllabus moving forward.

mmo wrote:

The only other weapon is a BDU-33 which is a practice bomb. That is it for weapons.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. That's my whole point. There is nothing in the design requirement saying that the T-7 has to carry more than that.

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

mmo wrote:

The only other weapon is a BDU-33 which is a practice bomb. That is it for weapons.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. That's my whole point. There is nothing in the design requirement saying that the T-7 has to carry more than that.

You are missing my point. A BDU-33 is NOT a live weapon! You wrote "live weapons training", the implication was the weapons were actually that. In addition, you imply there are several weapons to choose from which isn't the case.

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:

mmo wrote:

The only other weapon is a BDU-33 which is a practice bomb. That is it for weapons.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. That's my whole point. There is nothing in the design requirement saying that the T-7 has to carry more than that.

A BDU-33 is a 25lb bomb, which only has a small spotting charge that releases a cloud of smoke on impact. It is otherwise inert, with no explosives, and is about the size of a typical household cat. The BDU-33 is used to simulate the MK 82 500lb bomb in low drag configuration.

It is no way near a real, live bomb, and the only real danger to anyone is if one of these drops on your head, or if that small spotting charge goes off in your hand.

The T-7A just had "the critical design review (CDR) for the developmental T-7A Red Hawk advanced jet trainer."

“This is an important step forward in the life of this programme,” says Shanika Sims, air vehicle branch chief. “This design review further solidifies the aircraft and subsystem designs, bringing the T-7A Red Hawk closer to production.”

The CDR looked at the platform’s ability to train novice pilots bound for fourth- and fifth-generation fighters. Key focus areas included the jet’s escape system, engine integration, and external pylons.

What a bunch of feel good Word Salad reported. Never answered was whether the program was on schedule and on budget, what deficiencies or problems discussed, etc. Most importantly, is this going to be a plane pilots are "thrilled to fly" or just good enough. I really hope that it will be the "thrilled to fly" kind of plane that hits full rate production on schedule, not a decade late. I've been pro Boeing for a long time, but since the 777 rollout decades ago, every program seems to be plagued with ineptness. I understand the high tech having issues, but FOD in the fuel tanks found across model lines is disappointing.

Possibly more will come out on this CDR in another publication.

https://www.flightglobal.com/usaf-boein ... 63.article

CDR primarily deals with specifications and schedules and the only information that gets released is whether it occured. Typical CDR usually comes out with action items that must be satisfactorily answered before it closes out.

As for whether the pilots (Air Force) pilots will like the airplane, probably wont know until the first production frames gets to the user.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

CDR primarily deals with specifications and schedules and the only information that gets released is whether it occured. Typical CDR usually comes out with action items that must be satisfactorily answered before it closes out.

As for whether the pilots (Air Force) pilots will like the airplane, probably wont know until the first production frames gets to the user.

bt

I agree, CDR is a design review, not a program review.

I think Air Force pilots will love the plane. Small, sleek, high powered for a trainer. What's not to love? When have you heard pilots say their plane is a dog, especially cadets getting in to their first super sonic capable trainer?

JayinKitsap wrote:

What a bunch of feel good Word Salad reported. Never answered was whether the program was on schedule and on budget, what deficiencies or problems discussed, etc.

A CDR is the final review in the development process where significant changes can still be made. It is typically followed by a design freeze shortly after.
Typical points under review are:
- Is the design of all systems finished? Can this design achieve the intended function? Do technical drawings exist that can be sent to workshops for manufacturing?
- Do all calculations match the now finished design? Are the results satisfactory?
- Have newly developed technologies, concepts been proven in a lab environment (to prevent nasty surprises during later production & testing)?
- Do all system interfaces of the finished design match each other?
Schedule & budget usually aren't a major focus of such reviews. With regards to deficiencies, these often only become a real problem during later test campaigns. The developers will present a design that they feel confident going ahead with, and if the reviewers find issues they can still be adressed relatively easily. For example, if the cargo lock issue of the KC-46 had been caught in its CDR, Boeing could have simply swapped it for a different design before the first aircraft entered final assembly.

Looks like the USAF is looking to lease one of the jets that lost the T-X competition as a interim aircraft to plug the gap:

https://www.defensenews.com/2020/06/25/ ... ning-jets/

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force wants to lease advanced trainers as early as next summer while it waits for Boeing’s T-7 Red Hawk, creating an opportunity for the two training jets that lost out to the Red Hawk during the T-X competition.

The Air Force intends to open a competition for trainer jets that would help it test out a new training concept called “Rebuilding the Forge,” or “Reforge,” said Air Combat Command head Gen. Mike Holmes on June 22. The concept is meant to speed up the time it takes to produce an experienced pilot.

It appears the USAF intended on sole-sourcing the Korean Aerospace T-50 Golden Eagle from Hillwood Aviation, according to a sources-sought solicitation released in January. However, other companies also expressed interest, and this opened up the procurement as a competitive tender. The USAF is looking for upward of 11 planes starting in the summer of 2021, but the original tender requested four to eight trainers to provide approximately 4,500 flight hours annually for about five years.

While Leonardo's M346 Master is also on the table, the USAF has a preference for the T-50 as it is already integrated with a fire-control radar, while the M346 would require integration work which could drive up costs and cause schedule delays.

ThePointblank wrote:

Looks like the USAF is looking to lease one of the jets that lost the T-X competition as a interim aircraft to plug the gap:

https://www.defensenews.com/2020/06/25/ ... ning-jets/

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force wants to lease advanced trainers as early as next summer while it waits for Boeing’s T-7 Red Hawk, creating an opportunity for the two training jets that lost out to the Red Hawk during the T-X competition.

The Air Force intends to open a competition for trainer jets that would help it test out a new training concept called “Rebuilding the Forge,” or “Reforge,” said Air Combat Command head Gen. Mike Holmes on June 22. The concept is meant to speed up the time it takes to produce an experienced pilot.

It appears the USAF intended on sole-sourcing the Korean Aerospace T-50 Golden Eagle from Hillwood Aviation, according to a sources-sought solicitation released in January. However, other companies also expressed interest, and this opened up the procurement as a competitive tender. The USAF is looking for upward of 11 planes starting in the summer of 2021, but the original tender requested four to eight trainers to provide approximately 4,500 flight hours annually for about five years.

While Leonardo's M346 Master is also on the table, the USAF has a preference for the T-50 as it is already integrated with a fire-control radar, while the M346 would require integration work which could drive up costs and cause schedule delays.

We already have a thread for this, viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1443357

Boeing are moving along well having completed 80% of the first EMD phase and 200 flights.

Boeing progresses Red Hawk EMD testing

Boeing is progressing the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) element of its contract to deliver 351 new T-7A Red Hawk advanced jet trainer aircraft to the US Air Force (USAF), reporting 80% completion of the first phase.

Speaking at the company’s first ‘virtual’ pre-Farnborough International Airshow event on 14 July, Vice-President of International Sales, Strike, Surveillance and Mobility Thomas Breckenridge said that the first of three EMD phases had completed more than 200 test flights of the two production-representative jets (PRJs) currently flying.

“Significant progress is being made, [and] we are on track for initial operating capability in 2024,” Breckenridge said, added that many of the USAF performance targets had been exceeded.

...

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... md-testing

The Air Force Mag article on the same
https://www.airforcemag.com/boeing-says ... -complete/

First inverted flight test, and several following: inverted 1g roll included. Nice video at the end of the article.

https://interestingengineering.com/boei ... light-test

What happens if this trainer turns into a real sports car, one every pilot loves time in. It is looking good so far.

Revelation 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..

We should consider that Saab is a major partner in this program, no?

I think a combat-capable version would seriously erode any prospects of HAL capturing Tejas orders from budget-constrained air forces. I suppose it would also make inroads into FA-50 order prospects based on FA-50 being low cost. I can imagine that SAAB will be thankibg their lucky stars to have a stake in the low cost, light fighter market.

I can see this being the next F-5 with sales of many hundreds within 10 years of introduction to the market. I wonder how long Boeing will wait before offering a fighter version of the T-7A.

I have no idea but would it be a single seat design?

art wrote:

I think a combat-capable version would seriously erode any prospects of HAL capturing Tejas orders from budget-constrained air forces. I suppose it would also make inroads into FA-50 order prospects based on FA-50 being low cost. I can imagine that SAAB will be thankibg their lucky stars to have a stake in the low cost, light fighter market.

I can see this being the next F-5 with sales of many hundreds within 10 years of introduction to the market. I wonder how long Boeing will wait before offering a fighter version of the T-7A.

I have no idea but would it be a single seat design?

HAL will be lucky to service their captive domestic customer. Beyond that, they are simply not set up, culturally as an organisation, to pursue sales. Their entire marketing division is moribund, and substitutes political brown-nosing for actual achievement. Add to that an uncertain long term outlook for the Tejas (the IAF is still holding out for something that meets the original Air Staff Reqs) and high unit cost (>$40M flyaway) and it doesn't pack the punch to go up against proper fighters, and is still too pricey to compete with combat-trainers.

The small/light fighter market is at present:
1. Viper
2. Gripen E
3. Gripen C
--- below are those that don't want a full-up fighter ---
4. FA-50
5. M-346FA/FT
6. Yak-130
7. T-7 combat variant
.
.
.
.
.
8. HAL Tejas

Question about the concept of an attack T-7:

What can it do that a drone cannot do with more safety and *much* less cost?

Drop a bomb? Drones do that better.

Take a picture. Drones do that better.

Make a gun run. Yep, that's true.

Get to the fight quicker. Depends on how you think about it. One drone will get to the fight slower than a T-7, since a T-7 is faster. But suppose you could buy and operate 10 drones for the price of one T-7. Then the drone is on average 3.1 times closer (square root of 10). And it gets there faster. And it can do 10 things at once.

I would really think a ground commander would take 10 drones instead of one attack T-7.

(I'm not wedded to the number 10. Same argument, same result for any large number.)

kitplane01 wrote:

What can it do that a drone cannot do with more safety and *much* less cost?

With the current fleet of drones, situation awareness is still not up to par with a pilot.

Current drones can be shot down by low cost fighters.

For foreign governments export control may limit advance drone purchase.

bt

More information on the current flight test.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... wk-trainer

Draeger elaborated further: “Performance is squarely in the center of where fourth- and fifth-generation operate.” Moreover, the aircraft’s systems feature mission computers separated from the triplex flight-critical systems. That feature allows the aircraft to be digitally tailorable to synthetically mimic different aircraft types in terms of cockpit displays, radars, sensors, weapon systems, and defenses. For the student, that translates into an ability to see information presented in the cockpit in the same fashion as in the front-line aircraft, with its specific capabilities also replicated onboard synthetically.

So the digital cockpit will mimic different types of fighters . . . I'd like to see a view of it mimicking an F-15C cockpit

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

Question about the concept of an attack T-7:

What can it do that a drone cannot do with more safety and *much* less cost?

Drop a bomb? Drones do that better.

Take a picture. Drones do that better.

Make a gun run. Yep, that's true.

Get to the fight quicker. Depends on how you think about it. One drone will get to the fight slower than a T-7, since a T-7 is faster. But suppose you could buy and operate 10 drones for the price of one T-7. Then the drone is on average 3.1 times closer (square root of 10). And it gets there faster. And it can do 10 things at once.

I would really think a ground commander would take 10 drones instead of one attack T-7.

(I'm not wedded to the number 10. Same argument, same result for any large number.)

Besides that such a drone doesnt exist? As for drones doing things better, that is not true. The difference between a drone and a piloted aircraft is where the pilot sits. modern aircraft have similar capacity software to assist in accuracy. The big difference is that a manned aircraft can react to a situation faster than a drone. Im not saying that wont change, but right now drones best skills are flying high and straight. The technology simply isnt there yet.

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

What can it do that a drone cannot do with more safety and *much* less cost?

With the current fleet of drones, situation awareness is still not up to par with a pilot.

Current drones can be shot down by low cost fighters.

For foreign governments export control may limit advance drone purchase.

bt

I don't have any experience flying drones or fighters. Why do fighters have more situational awareness? 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 fighter pilot can look out the window, but is in a cramped place being tossed around by flight motion. I understand the pilot can look out the window, but the drone pilot can zoom back out and in. If you were a psychologist looking for a good decision making environment, its not obvious why the cockpit is a better choice.

Trainers can also be shot down by low cost fighters.

For foreign governments, export controls would effect both drones and attack planes. But politics is weird so who knows.

kitplane01 wrote:

Oroka wrote:

Get to the fight quicker. Depends on how you think about it. One drone will get to the fight slower than a T-7, since a T-7 is faster. But suppose you could buy and operate 10 drones for the price of one T-7. Then the drone is on average 3.1 times closer (square root of 10). And it gets there faster. And it can do 10 things at once.

I would really think a ground commander would take 10 drones instead of one attack T-7.

(I'm not wedded to the number 10. Same argument, same result for any large number.)

Besides that such a drone doesnt exist? As for drones doing things better, that is not true. The difference between a drone and a piloted aircraft is where the pilot sits. modern aircraft have similar capacity software to assist in accuracy. The big difference is that a manned aircraft can react to a situation faster than a drone. Im not saying that wont change, but right now drones best skills are flying high and straight. The technology simply isnt there yet.

Why does a drone react less quickly than a fighter? It's not that the fighter is faster (see argument above). Various documentories suggest that drone reaction is slow because the decision making chain is slow. If drones use a different decision making process than fighter pilots, that is a policy decision and not a technical problem.

Oroka wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Question about the concept of an attack T-7:

What can it do that a drone cannot do with more safety and *much* less cost?

Drop a bomb? Drones do that better.

Take a picture. Drones do that better.

Make a gun run. Yep, that's true.

Get to the fight quicker. Depends on how you think about it. One drone will get to the fight slower than a T-7, since a T-7 is faster. But suppose you could buy and operate 10 drones for the price of one T-7. Then the drone is on average 3.1 times closer (square root of 10). And it gets there faster. And it can do 10 things at once.

I would really think a ground commander would take 10 drones instead of one attack T-7.

(I'm not wedded to the number 10. Same argument, same result for any large number.)

Besides that such a drone doesnt exist? As for drones doing things better, that is not true. The difference between a drone and a piloted aircraft is where the pilot sits. modern aircraft have similar capacity software to assist in accuracy. The big difference is that a manned aircraft can react to a situation faster than a drone. Im not saying that wont change, but right now drones best skills are flying high and straight. The technology simply isnt there yet.

Look at easier tasks for automation. Railroads, even in very rural areas, are still manned. An Australian mine just started a long distance automated train with total separation. It's up and running but less than 1% of rail is fully automated. Highway trucks still are not there. Both far less risk, much easier tasks, far fewer variables than civil or general aviation. Put it in the war zone where just seconds are available for a proper response or its over.

It's time to consider and respond to automation and drones, look at the leap of the past 2 decades. Imagine 2 decades from now.

kitplane01 wrote:

Why do fighters have more situational awareness? 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.

I guess we are taking about two levels of drones.

The first level is what we currently have where the drone is manually controlled by an operator an the operator have to look through a camera. Its like driving a car using your dash cam vs looking out the front wind shield with periferal vision through the side. Situation awareness is much better looking out the wind shield.

The second level of drones will be the wing man type drones. I do not disagree that these will probably out perform any pilot. But the tech that goes into these drones will be controlled and only certain countries will be able to obtain that tech. Similar to why certain countries are allowed to buy F-35s and why others are only allowed F-16s.

bt

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?

This might be the first confirmed interest by a foreign Government in acquisition of the T-7A? Serbia needs to replace ageing G-4 and J-22 aircraft and interestingly enough per the quote below may see the T-7A in service as a light attack aircraft more than an advanced trainer. I think the Yak-130 might be a better fit for Serbia and likely cheaper to acquire given their relations with Russia and the amount of Russian aircraft they have in service.

Serbia notes interest in Boeing-Saab T-7A Red Hawk jets

The Boeing-Saab T-7A Red Hawk is one of the options that Serbia is considering as a replacement for its existing jet trainer and light attack fleets.

Speaking on national TV on 25 July, a senior government official said that aircraft could replace both the SOKO G-4 Super Galeb (Super Seagull) advance trainer and light attack platform and the SOKO J-22 Orao (Eagle) ground attack jets that, despite ongoing modernisation efforts, are due for retirement.

Serbia has expressed interest for the acquisition of 20 T-7A jets, the acting assistant minister for material resources in the Serbian defence ministry, Nenad Miloradović, said.

...

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... -hawk-jets

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.

Boeing responds to Australian trainer RFI with T-7 information

Boeing says it has responded to Australia’s request for information (RFI) related to acquiring a replacement for the BAE Systems Hawk 127.

“The T-7, which is scalable, interoperable and configurable, is ideally suited to address the Royal Australian Air Force’s [RAAF’s] next-generation frontline fast-jet aircraft training requirements,” says Boeing.

...

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 51.article

Ozair wrote:

Yak-130 might be a better fit for Serbia and likely cheaper to acquire given their relations with Russia and the amount of Russian aircraft they have in service.

Some times a trainer is more than a trainer. Serbia, like the rest of the Balkan state would prefer to align with the West economicaly, If they can tie the purchase with some industrial off-sets or discount on some Commercial aircrafts, then in the long run the extra cost may be worth the price.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Why do fighters have more situational awareness? 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.

I guess we are taking about two levels of drones.

The first level is what we currently have where the drone is manually controlled by an operator an the operator have to look through a camera. Its like driving a car using your dash cam vs looking out the front wind shield with periferal vision through the side. Situation awareness is much better looking out the wind shield.

The second level of drones will be the wing man type drones. I do not disagree that these will probably out perform any pilot. But the tech that goes into these drones will be controlled and only certain countries will be able to obtain that tech. Similar to why certain countries are allowed to buy F-35s and why others are only allowed F-16s.

bt

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.

I still think one can get better decision making from a pair of soldiers in a quiet room connected to all the relevant networks, with room to spread out maps and charts. Why do you want the drone to be piloted by a fighter pilot who has his own plane to fly, and would have to split his attention?

Also, I doubt the tech will be controlled. None of the electronics involved are specialized, and all (except the high bandwidth satellite links) can be bought with a credit card from ebay. Writing the software is hard, but the West does not have a monopoly on software developers.