Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RJMAZ wrote:I would definitely describe a fighter version of the T-7 as 4.5 Gen. It has all of the attributes of a 4.5gen fighter in a slightly smaller package. With weapons and sensors reducing in size a smaller fighter no longer means less capable.
The T-7 has more advanced aerodynamics than the F-16. The T-7 has larger leading edge extensions and twin tails giving better post stall maneuverability. The T-7 has similar thrust to weight ratio of the other 4.5 gen fighters. In terms of dogfighting the T-7 will be up there with the best and will definitely be good enough to be called 4.5 Gen. Note the F-22, F-35 and SU-57 use a mid wing and rear tail. It is superior to a delta canard in my opinion in terms of cruising and sustained turn performance. So the T-7 has the best layout.
Avionics and radar wise the side intakes allow it to fit a F-16/Rafale/Gripen class radar. With avionics and computer processing getting much cheaper it will easy to reach the standards of what fits the definition of 4.5gen while keeping the budget down.
The F-35 sits in a clear class above the other western fighters in terms of fuel fraction. It based off decades of operations where 4th gen fighters flew around with external tanks all of the time. Having large internal fuel baked into the design is so much more efficient than external fuel tanks even conformal tanks.
The T-7 apparently has a good fuel fraction. A single seat variant would be even higher and much higher than the F-16 This would allow the smaller T-7 to carry a light weapon load further than a larger F-16 when both are on internal fuel. Even with medium loads and a pair of drop tanks the T-7 should retain a range advantage. It would only be with heavy loads would the smaller frame start to have less range but the F-16 no longer performs these missions.
The T-7 fighter variant will be able to match the performance of a F-16 Block 70 at two thirds of the weight and half the upfront and ongoing cost. That should not be surprising as it has been over 40 years since the F-16 came out.
LTEN11 wrote:You say all that, but still ignore one important thing than man says....He wants more speed and he's not going to get that from the T-7 no matter how much of a fancy spin you put on it.
RJMAZ wrote:LTEN11 wrote:You say all that, but still ignore one important thing than man says....He wants more speed and he's not going to get that from the T-7 no matter how much of a fancy spin you put on it.
He is getting that. The T-7 can clearly supercruise
Current stats have the T-7 with a thrust to weight ratio as high as the F-22 and Eurofighter which are two of the fastest fighters on the market. Being small does not mean slow.
LTEN11 wrote:RJMAZ wrote:I would definitely describe a fighter version of the T-7 as 4.5 Gen. It has all of the attributes of a 4.5gen fighter in a slightly smaller package. With weapons and sensors reducing in size a smaller fighter no longer means less capable.
...
The T-7 fighter variant will be able to match the performance of a F-16 Block 70 at two thirds of the weight and half the upfront and ongoing cost. That should not be surprising as it has been over 40 years since the F-16 came out.
You say all that, but still ignore one important thing than man says....He wants more speed and he's not going to get that from the T-7 no matter how much of a fancy spin you put on it.
RJMAZ wrote:LTEN11 wrote:You say all that, but still ignore one important thing than man says....He wants more speed and he's not going to get that from the T-7 no matter how much of a fancy spin you put on it.
He is getting that. The T-7 can clearly supercruise
Current stats have the T-7 with a thrust to weight ratio as high as the F-22 and Eurofighter which are two of the fastest fighters on the market. Being small does not mean slow.
SeamanBeaumont wrote:RJMAZ wrote:LTEN11 wrote:You say all that, but still ignore one important thing than man says....He wants more speed and he's not going to get that from the T-7 no matter how much of a fancy spin you put on it.
He is getting that. The T-7 can clearly supercruise
Current stats have the T-7 with a thrust to weight ratio as high as the F-22 and Eurofighter which are two of the fastest fighters on the market. Being small does not mean slow.
Any official source for the T-7 empty and gross weights or just your WAG...?
bikerthai wrote:So why not scale up the T-7 like what they did with the Hornet and SH. With digital manufacturing, the structure and system side would be easier.
VMCA787 wrote:The empty weight of the ET-7 is 7165lbs/3250kgs and MTOW is 12,125lbs/5500kgs.
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... ft_id=1647
RJMAZ wrote:The T-7 is already fully optimsed.
SeamanBeaumont wrote:I ask the same pesky question... Any official source for the T-7 empty and gross weights or just your WAG...?
RJMAZ wrote:bikerthai wrote:So why not scale up the T-7 like what they did with the Hornet and SH. With digital manufacturing, the structure and system side would be easier.
Scale up for what engine?
The T-7 is already fully optimsed. It is sized for the cheap, reliable and export approved F404 engine while being able to have agility, acceleration and sustained G performance that equal the best 4th and 5th gen fighters in the world.
RJMAZ wrote: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.
RJMAZ wrote:Adding weapons on the wings of the T-7 will already see performance drop below the clean trainer variant. So you definitely don't want to start scaling the design bigger with the same engine.
RJMAZ wrote:The Super Hornet gains 426kg of fuel when the rear seat is removed. Now if we assume this T-7 has the same fuel load of the T-50 2,690kg once the back seat is removed we nearly have the same internal fuel capacity of the F-16 but at two thirds of the weight. I could see the fighter variant of the T-7 keeping an empty weight below 6,000kg. There are no public weight figures for the fighter variant Serbia is getting.
Gripen 6,800kg
T-50 6,470kg
Tejas 6,560kg
F-20 5,357 kg
All use the F404 engine.
RJMAZ wrote:Now the T-7 sustains "well above" 6.5G according to Boeing. I believe the requirement was 130 degree with less than 10% loss in speed. This is already above the Eurofighter and Rafale.
kitplane01 wrote:It can't be like a twin engine Eurocanard like the Typhoon or Rafale because that's probably not very cheap.
kitplane01 wrote:The more I think about this .. the more I would have chosen different requirements.
Why be 4.5th generation. Is this plane really going to engage in BVR air-air? Don't we have F-35s? Also, 30 years from now non-stealthy planes will probably not fare well in BVR combat against a near-peer.
Why be faster? Isn't an F-16 in air-ground mode fast enough?
Basically, I want a newer A-10 or maybe a combat T-7.
RJMAZ wrote:The T-7 light fighter will be escorting the tankers and AWACS.
art wrote:Why not stick the F414 in the thing? IIRC the dimensions are the same or almost the same as the F404.
bikerthai wrote:RJMAZ wrote:The T-7 light fighter will be escorting the tankers and AWACS.
That would be wasting pilots. I see future tanker/AWACs escort will be handled by wingman drones controlled by the big birds themselves.
bt
kanye wrote:"He pointed to the Viper’s inability to receive software updates at the speed that’s desired and its lack of open-architecture software protocols that would allow it to be rapidly reconfigured."
That's a description of Gripen E and the difference from the C version. So make something similar.
Take the engine from the F16, make a more modern and aerodynamically efficient design powered with a more modern hardware and software architecture and that's the F16 replacement he wants.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:kanye wrote:"He pointed to the Viper’s inability to receive software updates at the speed that’s desired and its lack of open-architecture software protocols that would allow it to be rapidly reconfigured."
That's a description of Gripen E and the difference from the C version. So make something similar.
Take the engine from the F16, make a more modern and aerodynamically efficient design powered with a more modern hardware and software architecture and that's the F16 replacement he wants.
This is the biggest thing that modern militaries are demanding. The biggest parts of evolution are now all in sensors and avionics. The airframe will fly for a lot longer than the internals will last for. If someone snapped their fingers and made an F-16 with a full open-architecture that cost about the same as the current F-16s? Then you'd probably get a lot of buy in from various nations. The big problem with that is it's such a huge change you may as well make some airframe improvements given all the sensors and fuel modern strike aircraft are required to have. That's one of the big benefits of the F-35 after all, lots of internal fuel storage.
You also see this pluggable architecture elsewhere in the military with warships and increasing use of software defined radios. The increase in use of things like FPGAs, custom ASICs, self assembling/healing mesh networks, etc. will only push the need for open architectures even more.
I could even see such an F-16 replacement be more focused on being a command node for loyal wingmate UCAVs. Reducing the need for raw speed and agility in the crewed airframe. And even reducing the raw weapon uplift capability. That would probably help keep the price down for such an aircraft.
The biggest problem though is such a cheaper aircraft does nothing to address the training and retention costs for pilots and other military crew. There's no point in having 500 planes if you can only effectively operate 100 due to not having enough people. This is a problem most all nations are having.
kanye wrote:Take the engine from the F16, make a more modern and aerodynamically efficient design powered with a more modern hardware and sofware architecture and that's the F16 replacement he wants.
kitplane01 wrote:Some of those same people are now in favor of a combat T-7, but hated the idea of something like a combat F-50 or M-346.
It’s OK to change your mind but what did change your mind?
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.
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.
TaromA380 wrote:I really don't see how would a T-7 get to 2400 km/h speed.
RJMAZ wrote:kitplane01 wrote:Some of those same people are now in favor of a combat T-7, but hated the idea of something like a combat F-50 or M-346.
It’s OK to change your mind but what did change your mind?
No one has changed their mind. Well I certainly haven't. That post was specifically asking about the M346 and T-50. Both are still useless nothing has changed. They are both overpriced with poor bang for buck and the performance is too low to replace the F-16. Phillipines have to put in a request for F-16 because their F/A-50 is that poor.
TaromA380 wrote:I really don't see how would a T-7 get to 2400 km/h speed.
kitplane01 wrote:How would an armed but cheap T-7 be much different than a combat T-50? Same engine, similar airframe.
RJMAZ wrote:kitplane01 wrote:How would an armed but cheap T-7 be much different than a combat T-50? Same engine, similar airframe.
The same reason it won the trainer competition. Vastly cheaper and vastly more capable.
T-50 and T-7 has 14 years between first flights. The F-4 and F-15 also has 14 years between their first flights.
Computer processing power has increased by more than a 100 fold in the last 14 years. Being designed from the ground up with fewer parts and 3D printing no existing design could even match the construction or operating cost for similar capability.
While Boeing only needs to invest a small amount of money to make the T-7 combat capable any competitor would need to do a full cleansheet to be able to match it. The extra cost of a full cleansheet would have to be passed onto the customer so it could never win.
kitplane01 wrote:Any electronics you want to put into a a T-7 probably fit into a T-50.
kitplane01 wrote:I dunno. The T-50 (non-combat version) is about $40M each as per the recent deal between Korea and Indonesia (with an unknown amount of support). Probably less if you buy in bulk. And development is already paid for.
The T-7 was $9.2B for 351 aircraft, 41 simulators, and an unknown amount of support. That's $26M each, so "vastly" seems inaccurate. (Still the T-7 is surprisingly cheap.)
kitplane01 wrote:What's the combat relevant difference in airframe performance between a T-50 and a T-7? Why is the airframe "vastly" more capable?
RJMAZ wrote:kitplane01 wrote:I dunno. The T-50 (non-combat version) is about $40M each as per the recent deal between Korea and Indonesia (with an unknown amount of support). Probably less if you buy in bulk. And development is already paid for.
The T-7 was $9.2B for 351 aircraft, 41 simulators, and an unknown amount of support. That's $26M each, so "vastly" seems inaccurate. (Still the T-7 is surprisingly cheap.)
$26 million to $40 million is a huge difference. That is two third of the price. The T-7 is vastly cheaper than the T-50.
That is probably the price ratio difference between the F-15 and F-16 back in the day or the Mig-29 and SU-27. Imagine if the cheaper F-16 outperformed the more expensive F-15 in every performance metric. The F-15 production would have been cancelled on the spot.kitplane01 wrote:What's the combat relevant difference in airframe performance between a T-50 and a T-7? Why is the airframe "vastly" more capable?
For arguments sake let's say the T-7 has a 10% empty weight advantage, 10% fuel fraction advantage and a 10% aerodynamic advantage over the T-50. This seems small but the combination of all three makes a massive performance difference. This is same percentage differences between the F-4 and F-15.
Load up both the T-7 and T-50 for a combat mission with the same combat radius. The T-50 would need an external fuel tank just to match the T-7 without an external tank.
How do they both turn and accelerate in this config? You would be looking at 4g versus 6g sustained G thanks to that external tank. With acceleration through transonic from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 a small increase in drag has a huge effect on acceleration. The T-7 might do it in 1 minute and the T-50 in 3 minutes. Survivability of the T-50 plummets. A sitting duck.
Putting new avionics into the T-50 can't make it lighter, improve its internal fuel capacity or improve its agility.
bikerthai wrote:kitplane01 wrote:Any electronics you want to put into a a T-7 probably fit into a T-50.
Not necessarily. Also the T-7A is designed to have those boxes easily maintained. Can we say the same about the T-50?
kitplane01 wrote:We can say that designing for easy access has been a concept for a very long time. I bet this idea is well known in both Boeing and Korea.
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.
kitplane01 wrote:but I don’t see any reason to think the people in Boeing are smarter than the people in Korea.
RJMAZ wrote:Both are still useless nothing has changed. They are both overpriced with poor bang for buck and the performance is too low to replace the F-16. Phillipines have to put in a request for F-16 because their F/A-50 is that poor.
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.