Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:12 pm

Devilfish wrote:
Meanwhile, the belligerent giant across the puddle is wantonly annexing every coral outcrop above the water in the Philippines' EEZ. To wait for the T-7A to morph into a killer HAWK would be catastrophic. Why can't Boeing accept humble pie and cooperate on the Gripen E and market it through FMS? I realize that there are contractual prohibitions between Brazil and Sweden against this but all stand to gain by it...why stifle it with diplomatic mumbo jumbo :?: First among those are countries without a minimum credible defense posture. Heck, if it's good enough for Brazil and Sweden, it sure would be great for the Philippines.


kelval wrote:
Because you need to feed the US "militarindustrial" lobby.


The Philippines could buy from Sweden. Sweden would be very happy to sell. And in fact this has already happen that other nations were able to buy Swedish fighters without the help of Washington lobbyists.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:14 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
No one knows the performance numbers for the T-7. They are not published. So to say they are “vastly” better than the T-50 is just guessing.

Thousands of people know the numbers from multiple countries. There has been a big international sales campaign. There is definitely no guessing by me but you will have to wait for your Wikipedia link.


You have secret knowledge? Maybe that's true (I don't know you) , but most people on the internet who claim secret knowledge ...
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7558
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:20 am

art wrote:
Why not buy the Gripen E direct from Sweden if you need a better than FA-50/Gripen C fighter fast and you/Sweden can finance it?

And there's the rub. I think some geopolitical considerations come into play here. Biggest hurdles are the F414 derived Volvo RM14+ engine and other advanced components in the Gripen E are U.S. sourced or have high U.S. content. Secondly, SAAB may not yet be in a position to offer bridge financing as the combined enterprise is barely off the ground and needs to fill its production capacity to generate funds. Thirdly, unsure if they're willing to commit early production runs and price it competitively for export to achieve this. What is certain though is the Philippines is not exactly awash with cash, to put it mildly.


kitplane01 wrote:
The Philippines could buy from Sweden. Sweden would be very happy to sell. And in fact this has already happen that other nations were able to buy Swedish fighters without the help of Washington lobbyists.

That much is obvious...the media pretty much play up the number of Gripen Cs that would be attainable vs the competition.....

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... 2-aircraft
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:13 am

Devilfish wrote:
art wrote:
Why not buy the Gripen E direct from Sweden if you need a better than FA-50/Gripen C fighter fast and you/Sweden can finance it?

And there's the rub. I think some geopolitical considerations come into play here. Biggest hurdles are the F414 derived Volvo RM14+ engine and other advanced components in the Gripen E are U.S. sourced or have high U.S. content. Secondly, SAAB may not yet be in a position to offer bridge financing as the combined enterprise is barely off the ground and needs to fill its production capacity to generate funds. Thirdly, unsure if they're willing to commit early production runs and price it competitively for export to achieve this. What is certain though is the Philippines is not exactly awash with cash, to put it mildly.


I'm sure the US has never refused to sell an F404 or F414 to any Gripen customer that Saab has or wants. This is just not a problem.

Nor do I think the US government is willing to finance Saab aircraft.

These things you're writing about .. can you find an example that actually happened to Saab?

Now if Saab tried to sell to North Korea ... the Swedish government would stop it before the US government could.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2556
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:40 am

Devilfish wrote:
Why can't Boeing accept humble pie and cooperate on the Gripen E and market it through FMS?

I think the armed T-7 with an APG-83 will nearly match the Gripen E performance yet cost nearly half as much to purchase. The T-7 will set a new benchmark in terms of value for money.

Value for money is very important this is why the F-35 wins often. Let's take four different fighters.

Fighter A: Performance 100%, cost $80 mil
Fighter B: Performance 80%, cost $100 mil
Fighter C: Performance 40% cost $60 mil
Fighter D: Performance 40%, cost $40 mil

Now which fighter would you buy? Option A and D are the only ones worth considering. High end air forces are selecting Fighter A nearly every time. I'll let you work out what fighter that is. Fighter D will be AESA T-7 perfect for smaller air forces.



kitplane01 wrote:
You have secret knowledge? Maybe that's true (I don't know you) , but most people on the internet who claim secret knowledge ...

Just because it isn't on Wikipedia for you doesn't make it secret knowledge. Watching the live stream of the Dubai airshow had lots of information. Dan Draeger the chief test pilot for T-7 did a good presentation. Two points stood out. The T-7 has already reached 28 degrees angle of attack in testing and is still very stable thanks to the twin canted tails. The T-7 matches the best front line fighters in terms of roll rate, turn rate and G (his words). So that is vastly superior to the T-50.

And one of the Boeing business guys mentioned that multiple countries are requesting the light fighter variant from Europe and Asia. Boeing already has the light fighter variant ready to go according to him.

To me it seems Boeing believes the market is big enough that they will produce the light fighter regardless of a USAF order. Commonality with the T-7 trainer variant will be high enough to make it a logical low cost development that Boeing should self fund.
.
bikerthai wrote:
I wonder if the general isn't just grand standing.

He saw what could be done with the T-7A. So he make the statement setting up congress for the PR battle to come knowing full well that the F/T-7A is the airplane that is closest to what he wants and probably quickest to field.

This would have been entirely initiated by Boeing.

A little back story. The USAF planned back in 2018 to refurbish or SLEP over 800 F-16's to make the fleet last until 2048. Now the contract has not been awarded yet as lots of research has to be done on what parts should be replaced to get the required service life. In the meantime 72 low milage F-16's are already planned to have APG-83 AESA upgrades with the first few already operational.

Boeing has told the USAF that it can provide a brand new fighter jet based on the T-7 for not much more than cost of refurbing an F-16. Boeing would have provided data that the hourly operating cost saving would quickly cover the extra purchase price.

The USAF unfortunately has to run a competition. Lockheed will probably enter the FA-50 to atleast keep Boeing's price honest. The FA-50 sold at cost price could never beat Boeing on price. It would be awesome if Lockheed and Northrop pull a full cleansheet design with the same low production cost techniques. They could beat Boeing on capability by adding a bit of budget stealth.

kitplane01 wrote:
I'm sure the US has never refused to sell an F404 or F414 to any Gripen customer that Saab has or wants. This is just not a problem.

It doesn't work like that. Sweden would have a list of countries before starting a sales campaign. There are no doubt plenty of countries Sweden wish they could sell to but are on the naughty list.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:07 am

RJMAZ wrote:


kitplane01 wrote:
You have secret knowledge? Maybe that's true (I don't know you) , but most people on the internet who claim secret knowledge ...

Just because it isn't on Wikipedia for you doesn't make it secret knowledge. Watching the live stream of the Dubai airshow had lots of information. Dan Draeger the chief test pilot for T-7 did a good presentation. Two points stood out. The T-7 has already reached 28 degrees angle of attack in testing and is still very stable thanks to the twin canted tails. The T-7 matches the best front line fighters in terms of roll rate, turn rate and G (his words). So that is vastly superior to the T-50.


You wrote the T-7 has "vastly" better performance than the T-50.

What's the top speed of the T-7? What's the combat range (any configuration you want) of the T-7?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:09 am

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I'm sure the US has never refused to sell an F404 or F414 to any Gripen customer that Saab has or wants. This is just not a problem.

It doesn't work like that. Sweden would have a list of countries before starting a sales campaign. There are no doubt plenty of countries Sweden wish they could sell to but are on the naughty list.


To what country will Sweden sell a top line fighter, but is too naught for the US?
 
art
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:36 am

Devilfish wrote:
art wrote:
Why not buy the Gripen E direct from Sweden if you need a better than FA-50/Gripen C fighter fast and you/Sweden can finance it?

And there's the rub. I think some geopolitical considerations come into play here. Biggest hurdles are the F414 derived Volvo RM14+ engine and other advanced components in the Gripen E are U.S. sourced or have high U.S. content. Secondly, SAAB may not yet be in a position to offer bridge financing as the combined enterprise is barely off the ground and needs to fill its production capacity to generate funds. Thirdly, unsure if they're willing to commit early production runs and price it competitively for export to achieve this. What is certain though is the Philippines is not exactly awash with cash, to put it mildly.


kitplane01 wrote:
The Philippines could buy from Sweden. Sweden would be very happy to sell. And in fact this has already happen that other nations were able to buy Swedish fighters without the help of Washington lobbyists.

That much is obvious...the media pretty much play up the number of Gripen Cs that would be attainable vs the competition.....

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... 2-aircraft


I don't understand the reservation about US content in Gripen E if Philippines is interested in F-16.

SAAB has orders for 60 Gripen E for Sweden and 36 for Brazil (but some of those to be built in Brazil). SAAB might secure orders from Canada and from Finland but the prospects are not very good IMO. I think that SAAB would welcome a smallish order from Philippines with open arms. The way I see it is that a deal for Gripen would be a good fit for both countries - Gripen E could be delivered fairly quickly by postponing some deliveries to Swedish air force, Philippine pilots could be part-trained on Gripen C initially to speed the process.

Alternatively a Gripen C lease might be possible if funds are too short to buy something better.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2556
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:39 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
You wrote the T-7 has "vastly" better performance than the T-50.

What's the top speed of the T-7?

Top speed is the most irrelevant specification. Asking this question first up I assume you think it is an important specification. So you are either trolling or you have no understanding of how fighter jets operate.

A high top speed simply means it has variable intakes. It has no connection to subsonic or transonic acceleration which is the most important specifications.

Stealth or low maintenance fighters use fixed intakes. These have to be tuned to a certain speed range. It is VERY rare for a fighter to go near Mach 2 so fixed intakes are definitely the way to go.

The F-35 for example out accelerates most fighters that have a Mach 2+ top speed despite being listed at only Mach 1.6. The F-22 has a much lower top speed than the F-15 but the F-22 out accelerates the Eagle easily.

The Rafale also has fixed intakes which is why it has a lowish top speed of Mach 1.8. Yet it has fast transonic acceleration.

The T-7 test pilot said it matches the performance of front line fighters. So that is "vastly" better than the T-50. The top speed of the T-7 might only be Mach 1.6 but it could still replace the F-16 in every mission and be vastly better than the FA-50.

kitplane01 wrote:
What's the combat range (any configuration you want) of the T-7?

It is being marketed as an F-16 replacement. Combat range will have to be similar to the F-16.

40 years of aerodynamic and structural improvements should allow a fighter two thirds the weight to have similar combat range. But you'll have to wait until someone puts it on Wikipedia.

kitplane01 wrote:
To what country will Sweden sell a top line fighter, but is too naught for the US?

Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Taiwan.
 
art
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:07 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
To what country will Sweden sell a top line fighter, but is too naught for the US?

Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Taiwan.

Turkey?? They are updating their F-16's
Egypt?? Ordered Rafales. Could buy Tejas
Pakistan?? Would make a sale to India impossible. In any event Pakistan has no money
Taiwan?? They are updating their F-16's

Anyone interested in buying T-7 light fighter development apart from US, possibly? I would think quite a few countries.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2556
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:26 pm

art wrote:
Turkey?? They are updating their F-16's
Egypt?? Ordered Rafales. Could buy Tejas
Pakistan?? Would make a sale to India impossible. In any event Pakistan has no money
Taiwan?? They are updating their F-16's

Exactly. Updating their F-16's because they can't buy anything better. Buying the Rafale because they can't buy US hardware. :bigthumbsup:

In countries that have sensitive neighbours it is best to upgrade existing fighters instead of buying a new aircraft type. It looks less aggressive.

art wrote:
Anyone interested in buying T-7 light fighter development apart from US, possibly? I would think quite a few countries.
Huge list. Probably 50% of the world's countries fit into one of these categories of buyers

1) A country that until now could never afford a BVR multi role jet fighter.

2) Previous Russian only operator. They purchased Russian because it was cheap decades ago.

3) Previous French or Russian buyer that is not allowed high end US technology. The T-7 will be export friendly with no secret US tech inside with an old engine.

4) Eurocanard or F-35 operators would buy T-7 light fighters and trainer models for the low end fight and to keep flight hours down on the expensive equipment.
 
art
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:57 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
art wrote:
Anyone interested in buying T-7 light fighter development apart from US, possibly? I would think quite a few countries.
Huge list. Probably 50% of the world's countries fit into one of these categories of buyers

1) A country that until now could never afford a BVR multi role jet fighter.

2) Previous Russian only operator. They purchased Russian because it was cheap decades ago.

3) Previous French or Russian buyer that is not allowed high end US technology. The T-7 will be export friendly with no secret US tech inside with an old engine.

4) Eurocanard or F-35 operators would buy T-7 light fighters and trainer models for the low end fight and to keep flight hours down on the expensive equipment.

Worth Boeing offering a modified T-7 design to USAF. If they don't choose it, make it as a private venture. I guess they would sell several hundred ex-US over a couple of decades.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 6:14 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
You wrote the T-7 has "vastly" better performance than the T-50.

What's the top speed of the T-7?

Top speed is the most irrelevant specification. Asking this question first up I assume you think it is an important specification. So you are either trolling or you have no understanding of how fighter jets operate.

A high top speed simply means it has variable intakes. It has no connection to subsonic or transonic acceleration which is the most important specifications.

Stealth or low maintenance fighters use fixed intakes. These have to be tuned to a certain speed range. It is VERY rare for a fighter to go near Mach 2 so fixed intakes are definitely the way to go.

The F-35 for example out accelerates most fighters that have a Mach 2+ top speed despite being listed at only Mach 1.6. The F-22 has a much lower top speed than the F-15 but the F-22 out accelerates the Eagle easily.

The Rafale also has fixed intakes which is why it has a lowish top speed of Mach 1.8. Yet it has fast transonic acceleration.

The T-7 test pilot said it matches the performance of front line fighters. So that is "vastly" better than the T-50. The top speed of the T-7 might only be Mach 1.6 but it could still replace the F-16 in every mission and be vastly better than the FA-50.

kitplane01 wrote:
What's the combat range (any configuration you want) of the T-7?

It is being marketed as an F-16 replacement. Combat range will have to be similar to the F-16.

40 years of aerodynamic and structural improvements should allow a fighter two thirds the weight to have similar combat range. But you'll have to wait until someone puts it on Wikipedia.

kitplane01 wrote:
To what country will Sweden sell a top line fighter, but is too naught for the US?

Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Taiwan.


The T-7 numbers are not publicly available. You don’t know them. So when you said it has “vastly” better performance than the T-50 you really don’t know.

Sone marketing video on YouTube saying “about the same as …” is not a reasonable way to discover the performance abilities of a plane that does not exist.

(And yes I know how inlets work).
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 6:19 pm

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:
To what country will Sweden sell a top line fighter, but is too naught for the US?

Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Taiwan.


We are selling new F-16s to Taiwan. We have sold them to Egypt and Turkey. I bet we’d sell them an engine

I doubt Sweden will sell to Pakistan.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7558
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:31 pm

art wrote:
I don't understand the reservation about US content in Gripen E if Philippines is interested in F-16.

Simply put, approvals could run into a bunch of red tape which might favor the competition.

art wrote:
I think that SAAB would welcome a smallish order from Philippines with open arms. The way I see it is that a deal for Gripen would be a good fit for both countries - Gripen E could be delivered fairly quickly by postponing some deliveries to Swedish air force, Philippine pilots could be part-trained on Gripen C initially to speed the process.

It would indeed be a synergistic arrangement were it to happen. The PAF gets the quite advanced Gripen E with its smart munitions and sensors, minus the operational burden of a heavier fighter - thus ensuring that there are funds left to hone pilot proficiency flying the actual platform, supplemented by hours on the FA-50 (AT-50 before conscription to new role) to keep them current...and maybe a simulator that may come after a Gripen E order.

This then begs the question..."could SAAB underbid LM with its FMS backing and huge installed base?" Failing those, SAAB's best bet remains the Gripen C, perhaps with their retiring Argus surveillance platform thrown in to sweeten the offer.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:45 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
You wrote the T-7 has "vastly" better performance than the T-50.

What's the top speed of the T-7?

Top speed is the most irrelevant specification. Asking this question first up I assume you think it is an important specification. So you are either trolling or you have no understanding of how fighter jets operate.

A high top speed simply means it has variable intakes. It has no connection to subsonic or transonic acceleration which is the most important specifications.

Stealth or low maintenance fighters use fixed intakes. These have to be tuned to a certain speed range. It is VERY rare for a fighter to go near Mach 2 so fixed intakes are definitely the way to go.

The F-35 for example out accelerates most fighters that have a Mach 2+ top speed despite being listed at only Mach 1.6. The F-22 has a much lower top speed than the F-15 but the F-22 out accelerates the Eagle easily.

The Rafale also has fixed intakes which is why it has a lowish top speed of Mach 1.8. Yet it has fast transonic acceleration.

The T-7 test pilot said it matches the performance of front line fighters. So that is "vastly" better than the T-50. The top speed of the T-7 might only be Mach 1.6 but it could still replace the F-16 in every mission and be vastly better than the FA-50.

kitplane01 wrote:
What's the combat range (any configuration you want) of the T-7?

It is being marketed as an F-16 replacement. Combat range will have to be similar to the F-16.

40 years of aerodynamic and structural improvements should allow a fighter two thirds the weight to have similar combat range. But you'll have to wait until someone puts it on Wikipedia.

kitplane01 wrote:
To what country will Sweden sell a top line fighter, but is too naught for the US?

Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Taiwan.


The T-7 numbers are not publicly available. You don’t know them. So when you said it has “vastly” better performance than the T-50 you really don’t know.

Some marketing video on YouTube saying “about the same as …” is not a reasonable way to discover the performance abilities of a plane that does not exist.

(And yes I know how inlets work).


The USAF chose the T-7 with its training system over the T-50, that indicates that its performance was at least satisfactory and by value the T-7 was the least cost. No protests of the award says it was not close. Now lets see how the next two RFP's for the Navy and Air Force higher level trainers.

It will be quite enticing to the Air Force to have a light fighter / trainer at nearly every base with fighters currently. A lot of patrol flights could be used for training hours in the cheap plane, possibly half of a pilots hours - saving thousands per flight hour.

I sense that Boeing considers the T-7 specs (and the MQ-25) to be trade secrets, DOD is happy with this as well but I am sure the Chinese and Russian know the specs already. It should be pretty easy to peg some performances, the landing gear is a variant of a current fighter's gear so the gear's MTOW and MLW can be deduced. The engine is currently in many fighters so its performance is also known. The T-7 surely has a high thrust to weight ratio, where the 2nd seat is can become a mix of fuel tank and weapon system volume. The possibilities are there.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:37 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Top speed is the most irrelevant specification. Asking this question first up I assume you think it is an important specification. So you are either trolling or you have no understanding of how fighter jets operate.

A high top speed simply means it has variable intakes. It has no connection to subsonic or transonic acceleration which is the most important specifications.

Stealth or low maintenance fighters use fixed intakes. These have to be tuned to a certain speed range. It is VERY rare for a fighter to go near Mach 2 so fixed intakes are definitely the way to go.

The F-35 for example out accelerates most fighters that have a Mach 2+ top speed despite being listed at only Mach 1.6. The F-22 has a much lower top speed than the F-15 but the F-22 out accelerates the Eagle easily.

The Rafale also has fixed intakes which is why it has a lowish top speed of Mach 1.8. Yet it has fast transonic acceleration.

The T-7 test pilot said it matches the performance of front line fighters. So that is "vastly" better than the T-50. The top speed of the T-7 might only be Mach 1.6 but it could still replace the F-16 in every mission and be vastly better than the FA-50.


It is being marketed as an F-16 replacement. Combat range will have to be similar to the F-16.

40 years of aerodynamic and structural improvements should allow a fighter two thirds the weight to have similar combat range. But you'll have to wait until someone puts it on Wikipedia.


Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Taiwan.


The T-7 numbers are not publicly available. You don’t know them. So when you said it has “vastly” better performance than the T-50 you really don’t know.

Some marketing video on YouTube saying “about the same as …” is not a reasonable way to discover the performance abilities of a plane that does not exist.

(And yes I know how inlets work).


The USAF chose the T-7 with its training system over the T-50, that indicates that its performance was at least satisfactory and by value the T-7 was the least cost. No protests of the award says it was not close. Now lets see how the next two RFP's for the Navy and Air Force higher level trainers.

It will be quite enticing to the Air Force to have a light fighter / trainer at nearly every base with fighters currently. A lot of patrol flights could be used for training hours in the cheap plane, possibly half of a pilots hours - saving thousands per flight hour.

I sense that Boeing considers the T-7 specs (and the MQ-25) to be trade secrets, DOD is happy with this as well but I am sure the Chinese and Russian know the specs already. It should be pretty easy to peg some performances, the landing gear is a variant of a current fighter's gear so the gear's MTOW and MLW can be deduced. The engine is currently in many fighters so its performance is also known. The T-7 surely has a high thrust to weight ratio, where the 2nd seat is can become a mix of fuel tank and weapon system volume. The possibilities are there.


I totally agree with all this. (Except the part that no protests means it was not close. Actually no protest means they could not find a rule that was broken.). But really, we agree.

It would not surprise me if the T-7 had better performance than the T-50. It seems cheaper than the T-50 too. But I don't think it's reasonable to call the T-50 "totally useless" and the T-7 "vastly better" at this point.
 
User avatar
SeamanBeaumont
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:12 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:36 pm

kitplane01 wrote:

I totally agree with all this. (Except the part that no protests means it was not close. Actually no protest means they could not find a rule that was broken.). But really, we agree.

It would not surprise me if the T-7 had better performance than the T-50. It seems cheaper than the T-50 too. But I don't think it's reasonable to call the T-50 "totally useless" and the T-7 "vastly better" at this point.

Well we can agree on something. Boeing underbid T-7 to win the contract. Nowhere has the USAF said T-7 is going to replace F-16, it is a load of unsourced rubbish being peddled here about performance and capability from someone wrong so many times previously except for the clock is right twice a day...

The concept being put forward for an Advanced Trainer is for changing the current pilot training program by running the final portion closer to or collocated with the gaining unit. It results in the new pilots being able to train up and not move so much, line pilots be able to continue to gain hours for basic flight quals and local red air being run on a cheaper per hour airframe. The same thing happens at B-2 and F-22, pilots get additional hours in the T-38 to keep them proficient and in the case of F-22 run red air against themselves.

Even chance the T-50 or the T-7 could win the Advanced Trainer selection especially given the timeframe the USAF wants them in. Boeing will have enough problems delivering the T-7 to the schedule to replace current T-38 let along adding another 150 jets to the build will be difficult while T-50 has a hot production that could easily be scaled.

The rest of Brown’s change my mind every week is about reducing F-35 sustainment costs by floating a new aircraft. It won’t happen, there is not enough money in the budget for it given every else that has to happen.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:59 pm

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

I totally agree with all this. (Except the part that no protests means it was not close. Actually no protest means they could not find a rule that was broken.). But really, we agree.

It would not surprise me if the T-7 had better performance than the T-50. It seems cheaper than the T-50 too. But I don't think it's reasonable to call the T-50 "totally useless" and the T-7 "vastly better" at this point.

Well we can agree on something..


:smile:

I'm also curious if Boeing underbid the contract. That's what lots of reports said, but of course Boeing is not releasing internal numbers. (But I also guess the answer is yes.)
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4508
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:21 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
sense that Boeing considers the T-7 specs (and the MQ-25) to be trade secrets,


The T-7 spec is not a trade secret. Not sure if a trainer is falls under ITAR regulations although certain aspect of the training probably is.

What is a trade secret that allowed Boeing to underbid the T-7A and the MQ-25 is their digital design and manufacturing process that allow them quickly assemble aircraft components (30 minutes for the forward and aft section on the first frames). This process more complicated than merely using CAD for all aspect of of the design and manufacturing process (which the Chinese can easily copy), but also include the analytical underpinning that allow them to use the process (which can be aquired but more difficult to implement).


SeamanBeaumont wrote:
Boeing will have enough problems delivering the T-7 to the schedule to replace current T-38 let along adding another 150 jets to the build will be difficult while T-50 has a hot production that could easily be scaled.


It is this digital manufacturing process that they are banking on that will make it easier for them to scale up the rate.

Note that military rates are rather benign compared to commercial rate. So if they do get into a crunch, they can always leverage their commercial infrastructure, including sub tier suppliers to accommodate the rate.

bt
 
User avatar
SeamanBeaumont
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:12 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:12 am

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
Boeing will have enough problems delivering the T-7 to the schedule to replace current T-38 let along adding another 150 jets to the build will be difficult while T-50 has a hot production that could easily be scaled.


It is this digital manufacturing process that they are banking on that will make it easier for them to scale up the rate.

Note that military rates are rather benign compared to commercial rate. So if they do get into a crunch, they can always leverage their commercial infrastructure, including sub tier suppliers to accommodate the rate.

bt[/quote]
We will wait and see. Digital design didn't find the wing rock issues but FRP delayed a year. Then you have this,
officials told Air Force Magazine on June 16 there is an “inherent schedule risk because of the aggressive nature of the program’s schedule.”

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

ie the schedule is already tight...
'I also don't think commercial rates are something Boeing wants anyone to focus on right now.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4508
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:42 am

The wing rock is a design issue, not a manufacturing scaling issue. And perhaps it is the digital design that allowed them to get to a resolution quickly. :optimist:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
also don't think commercial rates are something Boeing wants anyone to focus on right now.


Kind of mind boggling. Imagine how much metal they have to cut to have a rate of 1 737 per day. There will be a point in the near future they will have no 737 on the production line except the P-8 which is at one every 3 weeks.

But if they have the capacity to do one 737 per day, surely they can work any T-7 A rate. Note that it would not be the final assembly capacity rather the various machine shop suppliers that will be the bottle neck.

bt
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7558
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:56 pm

Thought I'd attempt a summary of some of the posts..... :spin:


RJMAZ wrote:
Scale up for what engine? [.....] If you scale it up and keep the same engine all performance numbers reduce. If you scale it up and fit an F-16 class engine you will no longer get the cost savings.

This.....
art wrote:
Why not stick the F414 in the thing? IIRC the dimensions are the same or almost the same as the F404.


RJMAZ wrote:
Why is everyone insisting on using F-16 class engines? The whole point is to save money on the low end fight versus operating older F-16's. The smaller the fighter the better when it comes to operating costs with everything else being equal. An cleansheet F-16 class fighter might never pay for itself as the cost savings would be too small.

You don't have to scale up everything...just tweak the design to fit the F414 engine as described below.....
angad84 wrote:
That said, given Saab's involvement with the T-7, this programme has the best shot at up-engineing (it's a word) this aircraft. Hell, if Saab's been smart -- and the rear fuselage is their baby -- they've designed those margins in from the get go.

And that's probably what the General has seen possible with the T-7.

RJMAZ wrote:
Anything bigger than the T-7 or with a purchase price over $40 million could never provide a financial saving over just operating F-16's until they fall apart. This is why ideas of beefing up the design and using the F414 is actually hurting the business case. The purchase price needs to be half that of a new build F-16 or Gripen E.

As you have said, but with a slight variation by me.....
RJMAZ wrote:
Or take the F414 F404, make a modern and aerodynamic efficient design powered with a modern hardware and software architecture and that's the F-16 replacement he wants.

Using the F404 may not result in the performance you're looking for...while the F414 may just require a few spots beefed up. Wonder what has become of the RNGR replacement aesa radar proposed for the F-16 before? And given that this "FA-7" would almost entirely be a Boeing product, marketing it through FMS would take care of the competitive price aspect. Is there a "non-compete" clause with SAAB's Gripen E somewhere? :scratchchin:
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:05 am

The general said "clean sheet". And the FA-7, though cool and awesome, would not be that.

Also, inserting a new engine would also require redoing the inlets, and probably some software changes. And because you're increasing thrust and changing the exterior lines of the airplane, some flight testing. All possible, but not super easy.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7558
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Thu Dec 09, 2021 2:55 am

kitplane01 wrote:
The general said "clean sheet". And the FA-7, though cool and awesome, would not be that.

Something radically different? I wonder how far they could deviate from the T-7's actual design without busting the budget -- unless this is a bone thrown Boeing's way so costs don't matter as much?

kitplane01 wrote:
Also, inserting a new engine would also require redoing the inlets, and probably some software changes.

Are the current inlets too small for the bumped-up thrust or otherwise would be at an awkward angle for the F414? And since they're talking of open architecture, won't software changes already be on the menu?

kitplane01 wrote:
And because you're increasing thrust and changing the exterior lines of the airplane, some flight testing. All possible, but not super easy.

I think flight testing would be required anyway - but it's not like they'd be doing anything major like adding conformal tanks. In any case, Boeing & SAAB would've loads of T-7 aerodynamic data as a jump off point.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2556
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Fri Dec 10, 2021 6:10 am

kitplane01 wrote:
We are selling new F-16s to Taiwan. We have sold them to Egypt and Turkey. I bet we’d sell them an engine

I doubt Sweden will sell to Pakistan.

Your post didn't age well regarding Turkey. Less than a week later..

TF-X may not receive US Congress approval for supply of GE F110 engine


https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/12 ... sian-tech/

They can't even buy an engine for a tank.

https://www.meta-defense.fr/en/2021/11/ ... ltay-tank/

Now if only we could fast forward a couple years and I'd have articles for the other countries. But for now take my word for it.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Fri Dec 10, 2021 6:19 am

Devilfish wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:
Also, inserting a new engine would also require redoing the inlets, and probably some software changes.

Are the current inlets too small for the bumped-up thrust or otherwise would be at an awkward angle for the F414? And since they're talking of open architecture, won't software changes already be on the menu?


I'm assuming to make more thrust the engine needs more air.

Open software architecture can mean about 1,000 different things, from a virtual machine based approach to software to just a marketing buzzword. But whatever it means, they will not have written the software for the engine/plane interface until they decide to install the engine.

But for the bigger picture, of course it's possible to put an F414 into a T-7.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Air Force Boss Wants Clean-Sheet Fighter That’s Less Advanced Than F-35 To Replace F-16

Fri Dec 10, 2021 6:24 am

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
We are selling new F-16s to Taiwan. We have sold them to Egypt and Turkey. I bet we’d sell them an engine

I doubt Sweden will sell to Pakistan.

Your post didn't age well regarding Turkey. Less than a week later..

TF-X may not receive US Congress approval for supply of GE F110 engine


https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/12 ... sian-tech/


That's true, my post didn't age well. Good spot.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: art, kurtverbose, ssteve and 11 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos