🚀 Install Star Trek Fleet Command for FREE now t2m.io/PilotPhotog and enter the promo code WARPSPEED to unlock 10 Epic Shards of Kirk, enhancing your command instantly! How to easily redeem the promo code 👉 stfcgift.com/
If Boeing want to sell a light fighter version based on T-7 they must act quickly, because their direct opponent which is KAI/Lockheed Martin T-50 is already on the same route and way ahead.
Not only KAI, the Aermacchi M-346 is another competitor that’s had some prominent buyers recently in Israel and Singapore. Poland said “screw it” and just bought both the FA-50 and the M-346. With KAI and Alenia Aermacchi already established in the market of cheap, quality trainers/light attack jets, there isn’t much room for the F-7. I doubt the USAF will be interested in them, they just want the T-7 trainers.
According to the published specs, the T-7 's takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio is about1.4(!). Assuming low wing loading (likely) and high-alpha capability (also likely), the T-7 is going to be a WVR MONSTER in its (presumably upcoming) aggressor and/or lightweight fighter roles.
But yes. This thing can realistically fly around at a T:W of >2 with about 1000 lb of fuel. It's going to be on par with the Streak Eagle for initial acceleration
@@appa609normally I agree but I think if it could be sold to poor countries that aren't going to be able to buy Reaper drones or equivalents of that size that can carry munitions. Then again I don't even know if this thing can carry munitions it's one of those projects that I thought was canned a while ago...
Without a radar it's borderline useless in peer air-to-air combat but I'm very curious if they could fit some sort of radar to it. And make it a proper light combat aircraft. A la T-50
When I was a paramedic here in north Florida, one of my regulars was a former Tuskegee Airman. One of the most gentle spirits I’ve ever met and he and Joe Frazier (HW Boxing Champion) are still the only two men I have met who have bigger hands than me. The pilot’s were bigger than Joe’s and Joe’s were bigger than honey baked hams!!! My Tuskegee Airman went on to his reward about ten years ago with his wife of 63 years at his side. He kept a LOT of his WWII swag in a beautiful shadow box that now sits in his great grandson’s home office. RIP Mr. P!
We have a very strong defense presence here in Colorado Springs, and our company are Federal contractors. The passenger department of Boeing has its own struggles, but the defense department Boeing apparently is doing quite well… This is what we hear, but cannot substantiate. So it’s good to hear videos like this to get a bigger picture of boing situation in the marketplace.
I work on an airbase and fuel the T38c on a daily basis. My fellow truckers and I can't wait for the Redhawk! So exciting. Best job in the world, if you ask me!
The only problem for this aircraft, at least in the international market, is the M346, which is already in production and service and offers training and attack capabilities.
@@t.buitano5093 yes but the m346 is subsonic. It maybe doesnt seem that much of a difference at first but if you want a low cost frontline fighter you need it to be supersonic. Airbus Spain and Leonardo (allegedly) are partnering to develop a supersonic version of the m346 to replace Spanish F5 as training aircraft. Maybe then the T7A will have a viable comercial competitor.
Doesn't matter, the bolts are all from Boeing Red China, made out of cheap grainy steel and false marked. "Hey, if it looks OK, ship it!" "Where they come down, ain't my department!"
It should be noted that both the JAS-39E and the F-39E/F if the Brazilian Air Force are flying with the GE F414 engines (or Swedish licensed built version). The JAS-39E, F-39E/F versions are like the F/A-18A, B, C. & D versions are to the F-A-18E/F/G. The JAS-39E and the Brazilian versions are bigger, and more capable than the legacy JAS-39A, B, C, & D variants. They have updated avionics, electronics and sensor systems. They also carry greater amount of fuel, increasing their combat radius tremendously.
Item that may be of interest; the Phantom II F-4D vs the Spey Phantom F-4K/M. I was told the Angle-of-Attack was more critical in the J-79 than the Spey versions. Geoff Who is a fan of Fighters That Never Were, i.e. Grumman F-11 Super Tiger with the re-heat Spey and the F-18L land based light weight version.
There's something weird about its performance numbers. How is a 12klb plane with 17 klb of thrust only capable of Mach 1.05? What's limiting it so severely?
There's more to a supersonic airplane than only thrust:weight ratio. The 1.05 Mach is likely only to account for the possibility of inadvertent supersonic flight. Mach 1 is probably prohibited.
When you hit the sound barrier, the air starts behaving differently. Unless the engine is built with supersonic flight in mind, the plane will only be able to maintain supersonic speeds in a dive.
Still, just creeping out of transonic still seems a bit low; like artificially low to manage the speed spec for some marketing or military policy thing.
@@ronjon7942 It's a training aircraft. That's the military spec. Training. Trainers aren't intended to push the limits, but keep low time pilots well within a safety margin.
Considering that the T-7 is 3 years late, it’s Boeing last chance to show US military that it can design new planes! F-15EX & F-18 block 3 were inherited from McDonald-Douglas.
The way things are going for Boeing I'll be amazed if they survive to the end of the decade. The cost cutting they've initiated has now compromised their safety record. No way I'd want to fly in a Boeing product now. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that thinking.
The missile didn't end dogfights, and AI drones won't end manned military flight. This could be an excellent export fighter that's cheap to operate but can interface with the latest weaponry.
@Pouncer9000 There were still dogfights in Desert Storm and in the Falklands War when missiles were vastly improved. If the airspace becomes mixed with friendly and hostile aircraft. Desert Storm was able to identify most Iraqi aircraft because the coalition was able to attack with surprise and catch the Iraqi Airforce climbing away from their airbases.
Boeing T-7A and KAI FA-50 are not direct competitor. MTOW of T-7A is about 5.5 metric ton, FA-50 is about 12.3 metric ton (more than double of T-7A) So they are positioned in completely opposite end of spectrum. Designed for different objectives and roles. FA-50 is model light fighter jet to replace aging F-5E or Mirage-III or Mig-21. T-7A is model trainer to replace aging T-38 or Hawk trainer. They are the best in their class.
Gripen is way too much Swedish for the US to consider buying. The T-7 is basically a Saab Project 1858 from 1976. But modernized quickly by using Saab's development software that they used to upgrade Gripen to E/F version. By slapping the Boeing name on it, the US could pretend it was American enough to buy it.
@@Merecir, if the T-7 is simply an updated 1858 then the argument that a Gripen-based trainer is too Swedish for the USAF falls apart. The USAF's T-6 turboprop trainer is a Swiss designed aircraft and the US Navy's jet trainer is a British designed aircraft, what makes you think that the USAF would be opposed to using a Swedish designed jet trainer aircraft?
@@toddbrackett4277 It is about where it is manufactured. Gripen is made all over the place, mostly in Sweden but Brazil is also involved now. While The T-7 will be built in the US by Boeing and Saab, as Saab is building a factory in the US for it as well. The T-6 is "based on" the Pilatus PC-9 but built in the US by Textron. The T-45 is "based on" BAE Systems Hawk, but built in the US by McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing). See a pattern?
@@ronjon7942, a Gripen-based trainer would use the same airframe adapted for the trainer role. Historical examples would include the F-80 which became the T-33 and the T-38 which became the F-5.
with all the boeing commercial jets shitting the bed lately, they're on the ropes. much of these issues are probably out of boeings hands, like the door plug not being installed, but all of these things, including that, the auto trim or whatever was going wrong in the 737max, and the wheel that came off on at the airport recently, should all be included in boeing's training and certification materials handed to customers, airport staff, etc.
Sure, after it's gone over budget four times and has been delayed til after Starliner actually carries a passenger. It should be operational right around when NGAD is.
I can't say for certain but it's my understanding that Boeing keeps its commercial and military branches separate, so if it's civil aviation branch dies it doesn't necessarily mean the military will as well, unless the trouble bleeds into the E-7 and P-8 programs but I haven't heard of that happening. Also, doesn't Boeing already have a fighter production contract with the F-15EXs it's building for the US? Will be interesting to see how a light-fighter/attack variant would do seeing as it'll be going up against successful types like the FA-50 and M-346.
They ought to be pitching this thing to the USAF for homeland airspace defence. The geography of the continental US means it is not going to face incursion from hostile airforces. So homeland defence is basically about shooting down wayward airliners ala 9/11 or escorting cessnas which violate a no-fly zone. Assuming that they can keep the unit cost and, crorocally, the cost per flight hour down, an F-7 could do those missions more than competently. Pop in a small AESA radar +/- a FLIR, pop a couple of sidewinders on the wings and you've got a cheap airframe more than capable of doing the job that is currently done by things like F-15s and the like. The cost to complete that mission would go way down and the training costs would be reduced as well. For more complex jobs, like intercepting Russian bombers menacing Alaska, thats where the F-7 vould really shine with that second seat. The backseater is the drone controller, running an entire swarm of drone wingmen. These things can have the AMRAAMs, the advanced EW, higher fidelity radrs etc. etc. offboard that turn the F-7 into a proper warfighter. Splitting the USAF into two tiers frees the higher tier US Fighters to become basically purely expeditionary, and it gives a lower cost solution (vs an F-35, which is expensive and massively overspecced for these jobs) to these low-risk but neccessary airspace defence missions even as a lot of the older airframes eventually age out.
The T-7 is the only aircraft in the US inventory which can adequately replace the F-16 for the Thunderbirds. It is my opinion that this fact alone will keep the T-7 alive
F-20 looks way better than this. I bet it would be great combat trainer if it entered service, pilots would love to fly maneuverable Mach 2 capable combat trainer that has gun, radar & could carry actual armaments.
A lot to like about its heritage - the Gripen is an impressive aircraft. Boeing has had a lot of rough breaks lately; perhaps this will give Boeing a chance to look good? That said, almost a YEAR ago, Boeing-Sabb announced they were going to JV on creating the "GLSDB" a munition assembled from old components and tweaked with GPS etc, by their JV. And that has been DELAYED, and delayed and delayed. I want to see GLSDB for Ukraine before any F7! Could you investigate and update us on GLSDB?
@@ronjon7942 The video seems to depict this trainer program as the last hope for Being to score a contract with US AF/Navy after the end of the production run of the F-18. The video seems to forget about the f15-EX and also not mentioning other great Boeing endeavors such as the loyal wingman project developed in collaboration with Australia or the upcoming tanker drone for the US Navy.
At this point I would not trust Boeing to design a trash can. It is a travesty what the current management have done to what was once the greatest aircraft company in the World. RIP Boeing.
@@ronjon7942 I am not so sure... will they ever go belly up... no the government will always prop Boeing up through a restructuring, they are just too important. But can they survive if their current form, I about so sure about that. When I saw that they had approved the MCAS system to be tied to one mode of failure, and that the Engineering Ethics of the entire Chief Engineering office had allowed that through design reviews using "Delegated Authority", I could not believe how far this company had to have fallen to be that reckless with peoples lives. Every Engineer involved that even looked at this and did not shout from the mountaintops and refuse to allow it needs to be fired, have all licenses revoked, and criminally prosecuted in my mind. I held Delegated Authority at a Major Aerospace company and I would have NEVER dreamed to signing my name to something like that. And now to see that they have been seeing quality escapes galore from sub contractors like Spirit Aerospace and not paying the due diligence to make sure that is fixed is disturbing. The FAA needs to put the screws to Boeing and strip all Delegated Authority from them. That would be a major financial and schedule hit and could even force the company in bankruptcy, as it would force everything to be reviewed by the FAA. I hate to think of how damaging that would be but Boeing has proven that they are no longer an Ethical Engineering organization and they can not be trusted. As a further note Sprite needs to be unde3r direct FAA oversight and a new management and quality team installed, and sounds like a lot of management and quality inspectors need to see a prison cell for a few decades.
The MDD merger seems to have kept all the wrong parts ie MDDs attitude to Civil aviation and Boeings acumen for fighters (X32 anyone?). They threw out the baby and kept the bathwater. The T7 also faces huge export competition from the Korean KF21 which is already available. Interesting times for Boeing.
The military programs are the successes (after development issues) for them, propping the commercial side. That is ironic considering the elative position of the companies prior to the MDC buyout.
@@naamadossantossilva4736 The MDC St. Louis military programs are still successful while MDC is still being blamed for ruining Boing 25+ years later. You can't have it both ways.
MD was the absolute leader in USAF fighter design before the merger. They were beating LM and NG. Boeing has failed to launch a compelling new combat aircraft and is still coasting off MD products from the 90's. Airliners do not foster a culture of innovation. They foster a culture of bean counting and regulation dodging.
I doubt manned trainners will go away. Drones have their advantages, but nations like China have been working on ways to make to beat those systems while also making a net to make their jets look like civilian airliners.
I don't see manned combat aircraft going away anytime soon either. Reduced amount? Sure, but sometimes the old mk.1 eyeball on scene just beats a drone operator sitting in a room thousands of miles away.
they made a little hornet, with one engine from a bigger hornet.... lots of similar things going on there, not surprised it won. EDIT: But no hornet main gear, cant have that rough as guts Navy design on a USAF delicate flower......
It would be so great if Saab and Boeing would both get a lifeline out of this and decided to work together more often. Both are great companies (Boeing incorporating renowned names as McDonnelDouglas, as well) having delivered so many great jets. And if I'm not mistaken, the T-7 is the first true transatlantic joint venture, isn't it? In times like these, I'd like to see much more of that.
Boeing needs MIT engineers at top level management... İf you want to destroy a world class engineering company, hire Harvard MBA 's. Boeing needs to return to its roots, Engineering !!!
I don't know why everyone makes such a big deal about the development of the T7. Or why they say it shares DNA with Saab. There's nothing revolutionary about it. Yeah sure some components are from Sweden but all you have to do is USE YOUR EYES. It's quite literally a miniaturized Super Hornet with a single engine. They just made the tried and true Hornet airframe smaller. That's why it's so reliable and how it was manufactured so fast.
Like the homage to the red tails. They saved so many other crews with their bravery and skill. Wish they were given more respect, just as an aviation enthusiast. They kept our boys safe, and were ruthless and bold. Many a man owe their lives to them.
SAAB, Sweden saved Boeing... and US military aviation... Few will accept that statement, but without the Scandinavian expertise, implying a whole doctrine of aerial operations under austere conditions, F-35 squadrons would continue to avoid maintaining cost intensive mission capability while reverting to an early Cold War airframe as reference for 5th generation air power... (the T-7 is a digitally designed, easily upgraded, so to speak airborne digital simulator, immersing pilots in the experience of RADAR warning signals and simulated contacts) The T-7 is possibly the most thoughtful procurement since the F-22A - which the Air Force really wanted, but couldn't afford to operate in the numbers, it needed. The sensibly modernized and reliable Boeing/Northrop Grumman F/A-18E/F EA-18G Super Hornet/Growler will cease production in 2027 (due to a last minute, low scale production run), having never been the 'lightweight' replacement of the F-14A/B/D (a more heavily armed, faster and enduring interceptor), it was contracted to be - but *the T-7 could be the F-5G/F-20 that should have been* - hopefully, a lightweight fighter, done right when the F-35 will still balance 'the bleeding edge' and any NGAD-like airframe production may still screech along the same fiscal reality as the F-22.
well, I think the F-5 is unbeatable in terms of weapons and dog-fighting capabilities... The F-5 NG/BR today are the most advanced and, perhaps, it would be better for EMBRAER to license its production of 100 units, more than for Brazil to buy the AT-7...!
Boeing has also messed up its space program, the T7 is really their saviour as the only one department succeeding in something. But this also means an opportunity for SAAB, the Gripen was ruled out of Ukraine's fighter options because it cannot be produced in the scale needed. JAS-39 E/F is a great 4,5 gen fighter but Sweden cannot produce it fast enough and the market has still to see how the localized production in Brazil pans out. An alliance with Boeing can close those production gaps and help in selling it.
They should call the fighter version the "Spitfire" I just wonder how close they can get to "Kick the tires, light the fires" maintenance and availability.
NATO is glad to use the Goshawk trainer. It can simulate several kinds of aircraft. The ability to do that makes it a fearsome little aircraft. That rear end is like an F-18. Man, I bet those jets can maneuver.
Who doesn't say U S A F? I sometimes say 'Air Force,' but not exclusively by any means. Spelling the initials out has been an acceptable alternative for as lomg as I can remember...almost 50 years.
🚀 Install Star Trek Fleet Command for FREE now t2m.io/PilotPhotog and enter the promo code WARPSPEED to unlock 10 Epic Shards of Kirk, enhancing your command instantly! How to easily redeem the promo code 👉 stfcgift.com/
If Boeing want to sell a light fighter version based on T-7 they must act quickly, because their direct opponent which is KAI/Lockheed Martin T-50 is already on the same route and way ahead.
Not only KAI, the Aermacchi M-346 is another competitor that’s had some prominent buyers recently in Israel and Singapore. Poland said “screw it” and just bought both the FA-50 and the M-346. With KAI and Alenia Aermacchi already established in the market of cheap, quality trainers/light attack jets, there isn’t much room for the F-7. I doubt the USAF will be interested in them, they just want the T-7 trainers.
Boeing seems to have everything going wrong for them right now. Self Inflicted or not.
After the shenanigans Boeing pulled with Bombardier and the C Series they can go pound sand
@@dmacpheraren’t you glad Airbus got them tho?
@@superskullmaster it was the best possible outcome given the situation created, but it kinda puts airbus in a weird spot with the NEO and 220-500.
@@dmacpher sounds like winning company problems. It’s like complaining about having more items on the menu that people actually want.
@@superskullmaster yeah fair point.
According to the published specs, the T-7 's takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio is about1.4(!). Assuming low wing loading (likely) and high-alpha capability (also likely), the T-7 is going to be a WVR MONSTER in its (presumably upcoming) aggressor and/or lightweight fighter roles.
LCAs are obsolete. If they need that role they'll send a drone.
But yes. This thing can realistically fly around at a T:W of >2 with about 1000 lb of fuel. It's going to be on par with the Streak Eagle for initial acceleration
@@appa609normally I agree but I think if it could be sold to poor countries that aren't going to be able to buy Reaper drones or equivalents of that size that can carry munitions. Then again I don't even know if this thing can carry munitions it's one of those projects that I thought was canned a while ago...
Without a radar it's borderline useless in peer air-to-air combat but I'm very curious if they could fit some sort of radar to it. And make it a proper light combat aircraft. A la T-50
@@mastathrash5609I don't think they'd consider it for a combat role without a radar 😉
The only thing that will save Boeing is a change in top management: a change from accountants to engineers.
When I was a paramedic here in north Florida, one of my regulars was a former Tuskegee Airman. One of the most gentle spirits I’ve ever met and he and Joe Frazier (HW Boxing Champion) are still the only two men I have met who have bigger hands than me. The pilot’s were bigger than Joe’s and Joe’s were bigger than honey baked hams!!!
My Tuskegee Airman went on to his reward about ten years ago with his wife of 63 years at his side. He kept a LOT of his WWII swag in a beautiful shadow box that now sits in his great grandson’s home office. RIP Mr. P!
A true hero and thank you for sharing!
We have a very strong defense presence here in Colorado Springs, and our company are Federal contractors. The passenger department of Boeing has its own struggles, but the defense department Boeing apparently is doing quite well… This is what we hear, but cannot substantiate. So it’s good to hear videos like this to get a bigger picture of boing situation in the marketplace.
I wonder if Saab is more than a little worried Boeing is going to screw them with their incompetence?
I work on an airbase and fuel the T38c on a daily basis. My fellow truckers and I can't wait for the Redhawk! So exciting. Best job in the world, if you ask me!
If the T7A in its combat configuration offers the same as the F5 family offered, it could get as much succes as the f5 did. I really wish so
The only problem for this aircraft, at least in the international market, is the M346, which is already in production and service and offers training and attack capabilities.
@@t.buitano5093 yes but the m346 is subsonic. It maybe doesnt seem that much of a difference at first but if you want a low cost frontline fighter you need it to be supersonic. Airbus Spain and Leonardo (allegedly) are partnering to develop a supersonic version of the m346 to replace Spanish F5 as training aircraft. Maybe then the T7A will have a viable comercial competitor.
@@sergiom9958 fa50 has already established itself in the market we'll see how it fare in the export market
Perhaps, a lot of future proofing was baked into this cake.
Did Boeing install all the bolts and check them twice for proper torque, installation and part numbers?
Based on previous experience with bolts, they designed this one to not use any hardware - everything is snap together.
@@ronjon7942 And model glue.
Doesn't matter, the bolts are all from Boeing Red China, made out of cheap grainy steel and false marked. "Hey, if it looks OK, ship it!" "Where they come down, ain't my department!"
It should be noted that both the JAS-39E and the F-39E/F if the Brazilian Air Force are flying with the GE F414 engines (or Swedish licensed built version). The JAS-39E, F-39E/F versions are like the F/A-18A, B, C. & D versions are to the F-A-18E/F/G. The JAS-39E and the Brazilian versions are bigger, and more capable than the legacy JAS-39A, B, C, & D variants. They have updated avionics, electronics and sensor systems. They also carry greater amount of fuel, increasing their combat radius tremendously.
SAAB can't get enough orders to build fighters cost effectively. The F-35 abominations have mass and the US Taxpayers Debt keeping prices down.
Item that may be of interest; the Phantom II F-4D vs the Spey Phantom F-4K/M. I was told the Angle-of-Attack was more critical in the J-79 than the Spey versions. Geoff Who is a fan of Fighters That Never Were, i.e. Grumman F-11 Super Tiger with the re-heat Spey and the F-18L land based light weight version.
I haven't followed this development. Thanks so much Tog.
Thanks Scott!
Hopefully we get them to replace our Hawk 127 trainers here in Australia
I work at the place that makes the red paint for the T-7. I also ran an order of the paint for the T-7.
There's something weird about its performance numbers. How is a 12klb plane with 17 klb of thrust only capable of Mach 1.05? What's limiting it so severely?
There's more to a supersonic airplane than only thrust:weight ratio.
The 1.05 Mach is likely only to account for the possibility of inadvertent supersonic flight. Mach 1 is probably prohibited.
When you hit the sound barrier, the air starts behaving differently. Unless the engine is built with supersonic flight in mind, the plane will only be able to maintain supersonic speeds in a dive.
Still, just creeping out of transonic still seems a bit low; like artificially low to manage the speed spec for some marketing or military policy thing.
@@ronjon7942 It's a training aircraft. That's the military spec. Training.
Trainers aren't intended to push the limits, but keep low time pilots well within a safety margin.
Wait, doesn't Boeing have a fighter contract once the F-18 ends with the F-15 Eagle II?
Had the same feeling, commented basically the same
T-7A have strong competitor from Korea T-50 in the international market.
a new 787 variant (maybe), the F-15EX and the t-7 are all good contenders for a liferaft for boeing
American ta-50/fa-50.
TA-50 was a joint US-Korea project.
Considering that the T-7 is 3 years late, it’s Boeing last chance to show US military that it can design new planes! F-15EX & F-18 block 3 were inherited from McDonald-Douglas.
One might say the company that made the X32 shouldn't make any more fighter planes.
Ha HA! Excellent.
Time for Boeing to have domestic competition. Monopolies aren’t allowed in any other industry.
Hey Photog have you heard of Red Six's ATARS? It's a pretty cool training system
I haven’t but u will check it out, thanks!
Boeing agrees to be the exclusive builder of Comac C919 in the western hemisphere.
Why would Boeing want to build that piece of China junk?
Hope Boeing nailed this jet aircraft in the market 👍
T-7 Red Hawk is silly ! S.Korea FA-50 can do 👍
The way things are going for Boeing I'll be amazed if they survive to the end of the decade. The cost cutting they've initiated has now compromised their safety record.
No way I'd want to fly in a Boeing product now. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that thinking.
Cost cutting😂😂😂
DEI is their problem.
Excellent video. Thank you.
This should be the next replacement for the f 16s for the thunderbirds
The missile didn't end dogfights, and AI drones won't end manned military flight. This could be an excellent export fighter that's cheap to operate but can interface with the latest weaponry.
Early missiles were crap, modern missiles are scary and are only going to get more capable. AI is still in its infancy.
@Pouncer9000 There were still dogfights in Desert Storm and in the Falklands War when missiles were vastly improved. If the airspace becomes mixed with friendly and hostile aircraft. Desert Storm was able to identify most Iraqi aircraft because the coalition was able to attack with surprise and catch the Iraqi Airforce climbing away from their airbases.
Boeing T-7A and KAI FA-50 are not direct competitor. MTOW of T-7A is about 5.5 metric ton, FA-50 is about 12.3 metric ton (more than double of T-7A) So they are positioned in completely opposite end of spectrum. Designed for different objectives and roles. FA-50 is model light fighter jet to replace aging F-5E or Mirage-III or Mig-21. T-7A is model trainer to replace aging T-38 or Hawk trainer. They are the best in their class.
surely the object of a trainer is to be manned.............to train men ???
Pressing ❌ to doubt
The US govmermt will not let boing go down.
Yeah no shot they do, Boeing will get a major 4th generation related deal guaranteed to keep the MIC competitive
@@kinggooseman5373Boeing hasn't been a real competitor since 1991.
Maybe boing will bounce.
Every textbook in 2043: the red tails won WW2 with some support from every other unit
Like all the lies from the movies
Technically speaking the Griffin wasn’t just made by Saab it was always made by BAE.
They should have selected T-50/FA50
Heard Boeing is looking at a split.
Why didn't Boeing/Saab build a Gripen-based trainer🤔
Gripen is way too much Swedish for the US to consider buying.
The T-7 is basically a Saab Project 1858 from 1976. But modernized quickly by using Saab's development software that they used to upgrade Gripen to E/F version.
By slapping the Boeing name on it, the US could pretend it was American enough to buy it.
@@Merecir, if the T-7 is simply an updated 1858 then the argument that a Gripen-based trainer is too Swedish for the USAF falls apart.
The USAF's T-6 turboprop trainer is a Swiss designed aircraft and the US Navy's jet trainer is a British designed aircraft, what makes you think that the USAF would be opposed to using a Swedish designed jet trainer aircraft?
What does 'Gripen-based' even mean?
@@toddbrackett4277 It is about where it is manufactured. Gripen is made all over the place, mostly in Sweden but Brazil is also involved now.
While The T-7 will be built in the US by Boeing and Saab, as Saab is building a factory in the US for it as well.
The T-6 is "based on" the Pilatus PC-9 but built in the US by Textron.
The T-45 is "based on" BAE Systems Hawk, but built in the US by McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing).
See a pattern?
@@ronjon7942, a Gripen-based trainer would use the same airframe adapted for the trainer role.
Historical examples would include the F-80 which became the T-33 and the T-38 which became the F-5.
with all the boeing commercial jets shitting the bed lately, they're on the ropes. much of these issues are probably out of boeings hands, like the door plug not being installed, but all of these things, including that, the auto trim or whatever was going wrong in the 737max, and the wheel that came off on at the airport recently, should all be included in boeing's training and certification materials handed to customers, airport staff, etc.
TBH, I was surprised to see Air Force choose a plane that looks just like a Navy jet. T-7 is like baby F-18.
Saab project 1858 ("XXXX") and 518.
Huh, you're absolutely right!
I wonder if a T-38/F-20 hybrid with a new, larger wing that would keep the wing loading down to that of the T-38, would have been competitive?
Sure, after it's gone over budget four times and has been delayed til after Starliner actually carries a passenger. It should be operational right around when NGAD is.
I can't say for certain but it's my understanding that Boeing keeps its commercial and military branches separate, so if it's civil aviation branch dies it doesn't necessarily mean the military will as well, unless the trouble bleeds into the E-7 and P-8 programs but I haven't heard of that happening.
Also, doesn't Boeing already have a fighter production contract with the F-15EXs it's building for the US?
Will be interesting to see how a light-fighter/attack variant would do seeing as it'll be going up against successful types like the FA-50 and M-346.
They ought to be pitching this thing to the USAF for homeland airspace defence. The geography of the continental US means it is not going to face incursion from hostile airforces. So homeland defence is basically about shooting down wayward airliners ala 9/11 or escorting cessnas which violate a no-fly zone.
Assuming that they can keep the unit cost and, crorocally, the cost per flight hour down, an F-7 could do those missions more than competently. Pop in a small AESA radar +/- a FLIR, pop a couple of sidewinders on the wings and you've got a cheap airframe more than capable of doing the job that is currently done by things like F-15s and the like. The cost to complete that mission would go way down and the training costs would be reduced as well.
For more complex jobs, like intercepting Russian bombers menacing Alaska, thats where the F-7 vould really shine with that second seat. The backseater is the drone controller, running an entire swarm of drone wingmen. These things can have the AMRAAMs, the advanced EW, higher fidelity radrs etc. etc. offboard that turn the F-7 into a proper warfighter.
Splitting the USAF into two tiers frees the higher tier US Fighters to become basically purely expeditionary, and it gives a lower cost solution (vs an F-35, which is expensive and massively overspecced for these jobs) to these low-risk but neccessary airspace defence missions even as a lot of the older airframes eventually age out.
Can the T-7 be enhanced with stealth material and design, AESA radar .. etc ?
Boeing's marketshare Is WAAAY to large for them to go anywhere. They might have a bad year or two profit wise but they aren't going to fade away.
Would there be a non-manned trainer? Who are you going to train in such a thing?
The T-7 is the only aircraft in the US inventory which can adequately replace the F-16 for the Thunderbirds. It is my opinion that this fact alone will keep the T-7 alive
This fighter will also be offered for foreign military sales, very soon.
F-35A
@@appa609 I doubt it he Thunderbirds will ever use the F-35 because of how loud it is. It's a lot louder than normal fighters.
F-15EX! My guess is the Tbirds would upgrade to Vipers before they'd use the T7. Unless biden makes gas go up to $8/gal.
Looks a very handy tool im very intrested in it hawk fighter
What about the new f15ex
Reminded me of the F-20 Tigershark.
F-20 looks way better than this. I bet it would be great combat trainer if it entered service, pilots would love to fly maneuverable Mach 2 capable combat trainer that has gun, radar & could carry actual armaments.
@@jawarakf 1950's fighter with a 1980s engine. Silly in the "real world." It's time has passed.
The F-15 EX is.
Hope they make it a light attack aircraft
It looks like the daughter of an F-18 and J-39
A lot to like about its heritage - the Gripen is an impressive aircraft. Boeing has had a lot of rough breaks lately; perhaps this will give Boeing a chance to look good? That said, almost a YEAR ago, Boeing-Sabb announced they were going to JV on creating the "GLSDB" a munition assembled from old components and tweaked with GPS etc, by their JV. And that has been DELAYED, and delayed and delayed. I want to see GLSDB for Ukraine before any F7! Could you investigate and update us on GLSDB?
F-15 EX!
Well, it has less bolts and washers to lose 😂😝
It's a snap together:)
Doesn't Boeing still have a contract with the Air Force for the F-15EX?
Yes. And...?
@@ronjon7942 The video seems to depict this trainer program as the last hope for Being to score a contract with US AF/Navy after the end of the production run of the F-18. The video seems to forget about the f15-EX and also not mentioning other great Boeing endeavors such as the loyal wingman project developed in collaboration with Australia or the upcoming tanker drone for the US Navy.
No this plane cannot! But my great-uncle Lenny from pre-World war II Dorchester Mass could. He had cops on the payroll and a stable of Women.
we also have the kai T50
Not unless Boing can improve its quality control attitude's
It already did; it let go of a bunch of QC people. That way there are fewer opportunities for deficiencies to be written up.
Thumb down for the embedded and overly long commercial.
At this point I would not trust Boeing to design a trash can. It is a travesty what the current management have done to what was once the greatest aircraft company in the World. RIP Boeing.
They're far from death, but yeah, MDC management really, really f#$ked up Boeing's culture of engineering excellence, among other things.
@@ronjon7942 I am not so sure... will they ever go belly up... no the government will always prop Boeing up through a restructuring, they are just too important. But can they survive if their current form, I about so sure about that. When I saw that they had approved the MCAS system to be tied to one mode of failure, and that the Engineering Ethics of the entire Chief Engineering office had allowed that through design reviews using "Delegated Authority", I could not believe how far this company had to have fallen to be that reckless with peoples lives. Every Engineer involved that even looked at this and did not shout from the mountaintops and refuse to allow it needs to be fired, have all licenses revoked, and criminally prosecuted in my mind. I held Delegated Authority at a Major Aerospace company and I would have NEVER dreamed to signing my name to something like that.
And now to see that they have been seeing quality escapes galore from sub contractors like Spirit Aerospace and not paying the due diligence to make sure that is fixed is disturbing.
The FAA needs to put the screws to Boeing and strip all Delegated Authority from them. That would be a major financial and schedule hit and could even force the company in bankruptcy, as it would force everything to be reviewed by the FAA. I hate to think of how damaging that would be but Boeing has proven that they are no longer an Ethical Engineering organization and they can not be trusted.
As a further note Sprite needs to be unde3r direct FAA oversight and a new management and quality team installed, and sounds like a lot of management and quality inspectors need to see a prison cell for a few decades.
Armed T-7s will get clobbered by the FA-50 on the international market
They already have everything else. Give them more. Boeing I mean.
The MDD merger seems to have kept all the wrong parts ie MDDs attitude to Civil aviation and Boeings acumen for fighters (X32 anyone?). They threw out the baby and kept the bathwater. The T7 also faces huge export competition from the Korean KF21 which is already available. Interesting times for Boeing.
It's Boeing, so I think we all know how this program will go.
It is also Saab, so one can hope that Boeing can learn some lessons from this program...
The military programs are the successes (after development issues) for them, propping the commercial side. That is ironic considering the elative position of the companies prior to the MDC buyout.
McD takes over Boeing,gets it in same situation.Where is the irony?
@@naamadossantossilva4736 The MDC St. Louis military programs are still successful while MDC is still being blamed for ruining Boing 25+ years later. You can't have it both ways.
MD was the absolute leader in USAF fighter design before the merger. They were beating LM and NG. Boeing has failed to launch a compelling new combat aircraft and is still coasting off MD products from the 90's. Airliners do not foster a culture of innovation. They foster a culture of bean counting and regulation dodging.
@@appa609 Yes that is correct up to the T-7. Boeing was the problem in fighters and MD the problem for commercial or so the narrative goes.
I doubt manned trainners will go away. Drones have their advantages, but nations like China have been working on ways to make to beat those systems while also making a net to make their jets look like civilian airliners.
I don't see manned combat aircraft going away anytime soon either. Reduced amount? Sure, but sometimes the old mk.1 eyeball on scene just beats a drone operator sitting in a room thousands of miles away.
they made a little hornet, with one engine from a bigger hornet.... lots of similar things going on there, not surprised it won. EDIT: But no hornet main gear, cant have that rough as guts Navy design on a USAF delicate flower......
Idk, in asia this jet will fight hard with more established FA-50 from South Korea. Maybe Saudi/ other Middle East country would buy??
It would be so great if Saab and Boeing would both get a lifeline out of this and decided to work together more often. Both are great companies (Boeing incorporating renowned names as McDonnelDouglas, as well) having delivered so many great jets. And if I'm not mistaken, the T-7 is the first true transatlantic joint venture, isn't it? In times like these, I'd like to see much more of that.
Thanks for commenting, as far as I know this is the first true transatlantic joint venture.
@@PilotPhotog Thanks! And you are most welcome. You've got a great channel going. Always a pleasure to get your view on things.
@@Pincer88 thank you! Working on the next video already
Boeing needs MIT engineers at top level management... İf you want to destroy a world class engineering company, hire Harvard MBA 's.
Boeing needs to return to its roots, Engineering !!!
I don't know why everyone makes such a big deal about the development of the T7. Or why they say it shares DNA with Saab.
There's nothing revolutionary about it.
Yeah sure some components are from Sweden but all you have to do is USE YOUR EYES. It's quite literally a miniaturized Super Hornet with a single engine. They just made the tried and true Hornet airframe smaller. That's why it's so reliable and how it was manufactured so fast.
For that matter, there are Swedish components in the F-35. I agree; no big deal.
Like the homage to the red tails. They saved so many other crews with their bravery and skill. Wish they were given more respect, just as an aviation enthusiast. They kept our boys safe, and were ruthless and bold. Many a man owe their lives to them.
Well said and thanks for commenting
isn't boeing makig F-15EX?
SAAB, Sweden saved Boeing... and US military aviation...
Few will accept that statement, but without the Scandinavian expertise, implying a whole doctrine of aerial operations under austere conditions, F-35 squadrons would continue to avoid maintaining cost intensive mission capability while reverting to an early Cold War airframe as reference for 5th generation air power... (the T-7 is a digitally designed, easily upgraded, so to speak airborne digital simulator, immersing pilots in the experience of RADAR warning signals and simulated contacts)
The T-7 is possibly the most thoughtful procurement since the F-22A - which the Air Force really wanted, but couldn't afford to operate in the numbers, it needed.
The sensibly modernized and reliable Boeing/Northrop Grumman F/A-18E/F EA-18G Super Hornet/Growler will cease production in 2027 (due to a last minute, low scale production run), having never been the 'lightweight' replacement of the F-14A/B/D (a more heavily armed, faster and enduring interceptor), it was contracted to be - but *the T-7 could be the F-5G/F-20 that should have been* - hopefully, a lightweight fighter, done right when the F-35 will still balance 'the bleeding edge' and any NGAD-like airframe production may still screech along the same fiscal reality as the F-22.
Drones will never replace 100% of a fleet. Poor nations will likely never get to the point where they can field drones for national defense.
Nope. And I'll be dead well before there are routine deployments of squadrons of drones. I'm 53.
I think to be competitive as a fighter/attack plane, the T-7 would need to upgrade its engines to the F414 used in the Super Hornet.
Boeing doesnt deserve to be saved.
There was talks ages ago about Saab joining Tempest.
Replacing the T-38?
**harumph**
Fatboi there will never replace the Talon in my eyes.😢
Trainer platforms really seem like the low hanging fruit of aviation development. If there’s a way to screw or up, Boeing will find it.
So they went straight up diversity and inclusion stunting and brave to get the contract knowing how woke the military is right now. Smart move! 😂😂😂😂😂
well, I think the F-5 is unbeatable in terms of weapons and dog-fighting capabilities... The F-5 NG/BR today are the most advanced and, perhaps, it would be better for EMBRAER to license its production of 100 units, more than for Brazil to buy the AT-7...!
bye! Adopted child by mistake.....
Unmanned is a bad path to go
Boeing has also messed up its space program, the T7 is really their saviour as the only one department succeeding in something.
But this also means an opportunity for SAAB, the Gripen was ruled out of Ukraine's fighter options because it cannot be produced in the scale needed.
JAS-39 E/F is a great 4,5 gen fighter but Sweden cannot produce it fast enough and the market has still to see how the localized production in Brazil pans out.
An alliance with Boeing can close those production gaps and help in selling it.
Clickbait. Boing isn't going anywhere they own the F15
And?
They should call the fighter version the "Spitfire" I just wonder how close they can get to "Kick the tires, light the fires" maintenance and availability.
All hype, no new substance
NATO is glad to use the Goshawk trainer. It can simulate several kinds of aircraft. The ability to do that makes it a fearsome little aircraft. That rear end is like an F-18. Man, I bet those jets can maneuver.
Iran can copy this. Best for usa aircraft.
Boeings dead, they just don’t know it yet.
I love your videos. I do but, can you stop spelling out U S A F and just say US Air Force? I mean, you wouldn't say U S A for US Army would you?
Fair point and will do, thanks for the feedback!
Who doesn't say U S A F? I sometimes say 'Air Force,' but not exclusively by any means. Spelling the initials out has been an acceptable alternative for as lomg as I can remember...almost 50 years.
the last airfoce jet by boeing,