@@RickClifton That depends what you are planning to use it for. In a mixed airforce it would certainly work. But USAF wouldn’t buy Meteor missiles. So it’s just theoretical scenario.
Saab got a contract for a concept study by FMV in Mars this year ( 2024 ) They are to produce a prototype in a few years and Saab is hiring as we speak to develop what comes after JAS. There is a few articles ( al in Swedish ) out there also if you follow the money you can c that something is going on. But it’s shrouded in secrecy. My guess is if it follows the path that Gripen did back in its early development we will know more in between 2030-2035
The narrator says that there is no reason a trainer cannot make a good fighter. But, there are usually many reasons, such as not being designed to take battle damage, not structurally designed to carry weapons nor electronically designed to support weapons, and not capable of supersonic speed. A revised version of the outstanding Saab JAS 39 Grippen fighter would make a lot more sense than redesigning a trainer to try to make a fighter. But, it is probably a moot point, because the most sensible future fighters are going to be drones.
Put a couple of tons of ordinance on a T7 and it's going to fly like a brick. That's why there's a 'T' there. If you want to make it an 'F' you basically have to just design an entirely new aircraft and make it look the same.
I can't speak to the stability of the aircraft or what permitted g-limit would be structurally safe, but with 2 metric tons worth of ordinance (4400 lbs) the T7 would have a thrust to weight ratio of 1.05 at sea level, which doesn't quite sound like a 'brick' to me... Comparitively, the F-16 "only" musters a thrust to weight ratio of about 0.96 (with the not so insignificant fact that it at the same time also carries 50% more fuel internally) Clearly a significant range disadvantage for the T-7 still although it's probably much better the 2/3 of that of the F-16 (if we're taking fuel consumption and aerodynamic forces etc. into consideration)
@pi.actual : You don't know what you're talking about. T-7 has the same capacity as the F-5. Yet F-5 only have a total 10,000 lbs thrust with its 2 engines, while T-7 has a 17,000 lbs engine. Northrup built the F-20 by upgrading the F-5 design with a 17,000 lbs engine. F-20 could carry more weapons, fly faster and have a wider combat radius. Same can be expected of a T-7 single-seat fighter variant.
Following the pattern of the T37 to the A37, a light attack variant could take some of the load off of the f16s and take on some of the attack scenarios that don’t require the low intensity COIN operations that the new air tractor/ sky warden would be required for or the hardened targets that are usually the ones that the flying brrrrrt machine would tackle. This also means that like with the A37 in Vietnam, the platform will be familiar to everyone trained in them so that even bomber and cargo pilots can quickly get into the fight with ground attacks if there are the available pilots and planes to perform the missions
9 місяців тому+1
It could probably be possible to add a cannon, a few hard points for missiles and a suitable radar, and perform some policing operations. Much more cost-efficient for most operations than an F-35. So in a way, it makes sense.
So you'd have an updated F-5... That is why the F-20 couldn't compete with the F-16 in the first place... If you want a replacement for the F-16 just build more F-16s....
Would probably be cheaper to convert the T-7 into a fighter-trainer then to design and build an entirely new F-16. The F-16 despite being americas "budget fighter" is still very expensive with flight hour costs almost double that of SAAB's Gripen, so if the USAF are expecting very low operating costs for the T7 (which it is designed for), that would certainly make up for lack of ability (e.g. T7 has 75% of combat utility for only 50% of the cost compared to the F16). Also the F-16 wouldn't solely be replaced by the then 'F7' but by the combination of F7s and F35s (and F15s perhaps), so whilst the hypothetical F7 wouldn't be able to do everything an F-16 would, the F35 can (and much more) so you'd get a healthy mix for a less bankrupting price tag. The F35 is THE fighter for the US military going forwards and various other fighter jets will be used to support the F35 in different ways (tactically or economically). Those are some of my thoughts atleast...
F-16 is 1970's airframe. Time to move on. On the other hand, the NASA-designed F-5 was well ahead of its time. That's why the F-5 based F-20 can outperform the F-16 and can still be produced cheaper.
Ok so take the engine and radar/ fire control and as much of the f35 as possible and design a 4th generation + fighter around that. At least the maintenance for it should be somewhat simplified
F-7 to replace the F-16? Heck no. Maybe it's time for the Northrop F-20 Tigershark to make a reappearance. That would be a much better replacement. Just update the avionics to modern standards.
F-20 is a better fighter than the F-16. Corrupt politics and greed for money prevented the F-20 to be sold overseas. The US government did not want the F-20 to compete with F-16s overseas, so it failed financially.
Manufacture them here in the Philippines and employ Filipinos to make the assembly cost further more cheaper. Aside from lower labor cost, much of the raw materials needed are also available in the country in a much cheaper prices. The Philippines is a known producer and exporter of microchips for cellphones and computers. So parts for T7's avionics will never be a problem. I do believe an advance jet Fighter version of T7 will be a formidable MRF that will surpassed PAF's and the DND's expections because T7's maker are also the makers of formidable fighters like the Jas 39 Gripen (Saab) and the F15EX (Boeing). So why not go for it?😊
Cheaper labor does not lower the price of jet fighters. Once you develop the Filipino technicians and engineers to the level that they can build war planes, and build factories that make them, your production cost would be the same as the original. But the huge benefit for building them here is that we can build more in times of war, even if other countries would not or cannot supply us with these planes.
The F16 should be the next trainer. Save the T 7 money. Build a T-16. I’ve heard they are easy to fly from people that have flown them. There is already a 2 seat version. There problem solved! You are welcome!
@@jensolsson9666 They can likely buy licensing for it for it, but yeah you are right. So they will do something that is substantially less effective. Pissing away money on useless military contracts is the american way after all. For example, the littoral ships
T 7 red hawk is not that diffrent from a Saab jas 39 gripen. Its even based on it and SAAB is a partner with Boeing in this project. From the outside it kind of looks like Sweden just did a technological transfer in exchange for the US to start to produce its own version of the gripen aircraft. Which is very good for both Sweden and the us. The US gets the most cost effective aircraft that you can get. Of course an f35 would beat a jas gripen but do you need a f35 to be able to everything? I think that the best fleet you can have is a mixed one with both f35 and jas gripen or some american built version of it. Jas E-F version will outperform the F16 in so many ways
T-7 is a better aerodynamic platform design than the T-50. The first prototype of the T-7 was designed and built in 2016. T-50 was based on the F-16 1970s design.
I'm hoping you can take some of these jets that you got in the mothball Fleet and make a remote control and do something with them cuz it's just a waste of material sitting out there in Arizona at this point what I see here you're making so many different 6th generation how you going to stock up these parts realistically Manufacturing in this country sucks
Whatabout an F35 and T-7 vs 2 F-16s? In the case of USAF acquiring 'F-7s' it would obviously not be to single-handedly replace the F-16 1:1, but instead as a combination with the F-35
F-36 King Snake??? idk about that... NGAD technology demonstrators are in testing at Area 51....so I think there's ok plan to replace the F-16. The TF-7 variant would be VERY limited in capability in payload and range.
@pwj579 : Of course, because a T-7 variant would be a Light Combat Aircraft, like the versatile F-5 . Its limited payload can be compensated with more accurate munitions and faster turn-around time between missions.
Although they might share similar design philosophies, considering that the T-7's technology isn't classified (mandated by USAF) I wouldn't think theres much Gripen inside of the T-7
Saab and Boeing could get together to make an advanced Gripen a suitable replacement
Gripen E is already being built.
@@ghostviggen, as its delivered, the Gripen E might be 70% suitable for the U.S... Maybe.
@@RickClifton That depends what you are planning to use it for. In a mixed airforce it would certainly work. But USAF wouldn’t buy Meteor missiles. So it’s just theoretical scenario.
An 'advanced' Gripen ... bro what ?
The Gripen E would arguably be the second most advanced fighter in the US military (after the F35)
Saab got a contract for a concept study by FMV in Mars this year ( 2024 )
They are to produce a prototype in a few years and Saab is hiring as we speak to develop what comes after JAS.
There is a few articles ( al in Swedish ) out there also if you follow the money you can c that something is going on.
But it’s shrouded in secrecy.
My guess is if it follows the path that Gripen did back in its early development we will know more in between 2030-2035
The whole reason for F-35 was to replace the F-16
Why did they pick this over the KAI-50? At least that one is a pretty capable light attack fighter that can hold a lot of varied ordinance.
Because the deal was for a Trainer.
because korean jet looks ugly
I honestly don't understand why the US hasn't started to update all of our F16s to the block 70/72 model? Seems like a no brainer...
The narrator says that there is no reason a trainer cannot make a good fighter. But, there are usually many reasons, such as not being designed to take battle damage, not structurally designed to carry weapons nor electronically designed to support weapons, and not capable of supersonic speed. A revised version of the outstanding Saab JAS 39 Grippen fighter would make a lot more sense than redesigning a trainer to try to make a fighter. But, it is probably a moot point, because the most sensible future fighters are going to be drones.
Put a couple of tons of ordinance on a T7 and it's going to fly like a brick. That's why there's a 'T' there. If you want to make it an 'F' you basically have to just design an entirely new aircraft and make it look the same.
I can't speak to the stability of the aircraft or what permitted g-limit would be structurally safe, but with 2 metric tons worth of ordinance (4400 lbs) the T7 would have a thrust to weight ratio of 1.05 at sea level, which doesn't quite sound like a 'brick' to me...
Comparitively, the F-16 "only" musters a thrust to weight ratio of about 0.96 (with the not so insignificant fact that it at the same time also carries 50% more fuel internally)
Clearly a significant range disadvantage for the T-7 still although it's probably much better the 2/3 of that of the F-16 (if we're taking fuel consumption and aerodynamic forces etc. into consideration)
@pi.actual : You don't know what you're talking about. T-7 has the same capacity as the F-5. Yet F-5 only have a total 10,000 lbs thrust with its 2 engines, while T-7 has a 17,000 lbs engine. Northrup built the F-20 by upgrading the F-5 design with a 17,000 lbs engine. F-20 could carry more weapons, fly faster and have a wider combat radius. Same can be expected of a T-7 single-seat fighter variant.
Following the pattern of the T37 to the A37, a light attack variant could take some of the load off of the f16s and take on some of the attack scenarios that don’t require the low intensity COIN operations that the new air tractor/ sky warden would be required for or the hardened targets that are usually the ones that the flying brrrrrt machine would tackle.
This also means that like with the A37 in Vietnam, the platform will be familiar to everyone trained in them so that even bomber and cargo pilots can quickly get into the fight with ground attacks if there are the available pilots and planes to perform the missions
It could probably be possible to add a cannon, a few hard points for missiles and a suitable radar, and perform some policing operations. Much more cost-efficient for most operations than an F-35. So in a way, it makes sense.
Boeing-Saab T-7 Red Hawk.
So you'd have an updated F-5... That is why the F-20 couldn't compete with the F-16 in the first place... If you want a replacement for the F-16 just build more F-16s....
Would probably be cheaper to convert the T-7 into a fighter-trainer then to design and build an entirely new F-16. The F-16 despite being americas "budget fighter" is still very expensive with flight hour costs almost double that of SAAB's Gripen, so if the USAF are expecting very low operating costs for the T7 (which it is designed for), that would certainly make up for lack of ability (e.g. T7 has 75% of combat utility for only 50% of the cost compared to the F16). Also the F-16 wouldn't solely be replaced by the then 'F7' but by the combination of F7s and F35s (and F15s perhaps), so whilst the hypothetical F7 wouldn't be able to do everything an F-16 would, the F35 can (and much more) so you'd get a healthy mix for a less bankrupting price tag. The F35 is THE fighter for the US military going forwards and various other fighter jets will be used to support the F35 in different ways (tactically or economically). Those are some of my thoughts atleast...
F-16 is 1970's airframe. Time to move on.
On the other hand, the NASA-designed F-5 was well ahead of its time. That's why the F-5 based F-20 can outperform the F-16 and can still be produced cheaper.
Only airplane that can replace an F16 is another F16.
They need a plane that compliments the F35, there's no reason to think it has to look anything like an F16.
Ok so take the engine and radar/ fire control and as much of the f35 as possible and design a 4th generation + fighter around that. At least the maintenance for it should be somewhat simplified
F-7 to replace the F-16? Heck no. Maybe it's time for the Northrop F-20 Tigershark to make a reappearance. That would be a much better replacement. Just update the avionics to modern standards.
F-20 is a better fighter than the F-16. Corrupt politics and greed for money prevented the F-20 to be sold overseas. The US government did not want the F-20 to compete with F-16s overseas, so it failed financially.
Why not look at the F-20 Tiger Shark again?
One word answer: NO.
JAS 39E made by Saab and Boeing would be an idea replacement for the F16...
Looks like a good unmanned wingman aircraft.
No way they sell 2700 of this plane
Manufacture them here in the Philippines and employ Filipinos to make the assembly cost further more cheaper. Aside from lower labor cost, much of the raw materials needed are also available in the country in a much cheaper prices. The Philippines is a known producer and exporter of microchips for cellphones and computers. So parts for T7's avionics will never be a problem. I do believe an advance jet Fighter version of T7 will be a formidable MRF that will surpassed PAF's and the DND's expections because T7's maker are also the makers of formidable fighters like the Jas 39 Gripen (Saab) and the F15EX (Boeing). So why not go for it?😊
Cheaper labor does not lower the price of jet fighters. Once you develop the Filipino technicians and engineers to the level that they can build war planes, and build factories that make them, your production cost would be the same as the original. But the huge benefit for building them here is that we can build more in times of war, even if other countries would not or cannot supply us with these planes.
The F16 should be the next trainer. Save the T 7 money. Build a T-16. I’ve heard they are easy to fly from people that have flown them. There is already a 2 seat version. There problem solved! You are welcome!
Love it. Poops about to hit the fan. Make lots of them.
No, it's small, and underpowered. It's subsonic.
Isn’t the newest F16 variant mor expensive than a F35.
Is Viper subsonic fighter?
Use a Gripen E fuselage, larger engine, insted of the Gripen C fuselage used in T7.
Make it a one seater.
It will be a light and cheap craft.
At that point just get the Gripen
@@gups4963 it is US. They can not get get something forigin…
@@jensolsson9666 I get that, but it is idiotic
@@gups4963 yup, but since it will generate jobs in US that is all the reasons they need.
@@jensolsson9666 They can likely buy licensing for it for it, but yeah you are right. So they will do something that is substantially less effective. Pissing away money on useless military contracts is the american way after all. For example, the littoral ships
Would rather have the Kingsnake idea.
Or when Sweden joins NATO, we can get Gripens.
Will the F-7 have AESA also?
Isn't this plane just a trainer?
They plan on making it a light fighter jet called the F7
T 7 red hawk is not that diffrent from a Saab jas 39 gripen. Its even based on it and SAAB is a partner with Boeing in this project. From the outside it kind of looks like Sweden just did a technological transfer in exchange for the US to start to produce its own version of the gripen aircraft. Which is very good for both Sweden and the us. The US gets the most cost effective aircraft that you can get. Of course an f35 would beat a jas gripen but do you need a f35 to be able to everything? I think that the best fleet you can have is a mixed one with both f35 and jas gripen or some american built version of it. Jas E-F version will outperform the F16 in so many ways
They are 2 completely different planes. Not going to work.
I wonder how is the T-7 Red Hawk vs the Korean T-50 Golden Eagle.. or the FA-50 light attack variant of the T-50
t-50 looks so ugly
T-7 is a better aerodynamic platform design than the T-50. The first prototype of the T-7 was designed and built in 2016.
T-50 was based on the F-16 1970s design.
I'm hoping you can take some of these jets that you got in the mothball Fleet and make a remote control and do something with them cuz it's just a waste of material sitting out there in Arizona at this point what I see here you're making so many different 6th generation how you going to stock up these parts realistically Manufacturing in this country sucks
T-7 Red Hawk has all the potential to be upgraded into a highly capable fighter aircraft that can surpass the ageing 1970s designed F-16.
No matter how remarkable T-7 it is, when deal air-air combat with F-16……
It stands no chance to land on tarmac again.😂
Whatabout an F35 and T-7 vs 2 F-16s?
In the case of USAF acquiring 'F-7s' it would obviously not be to single-handedly replace the F-16 1:1, but instead as a combination with the F-35
US Military, just buy the Gripen E, make Sweden rich and you get the 2nd best aircraft in the world.
Sheesh 🇨🇦
Put in some extra seats and it might replace the Boeing 737
F-36 King Snake??? idk about that... NGAD technology demonstrators are in testing at Area 51....so I think there's ok plan to replace the F-16.
The TF-7 variant would be VERY limited in capability in payload and range.
@pwj579 : Of course, because a T-7 variant would be a Light Combat Aircraft, like the versatile F-5 . Its limited payload can be compensated with more accurate munitions and faster turn-around time between missions.
Boeing-Saab T-7 Red Hawk have lot of technology from Saab Gripen.
Although they might share similar design philosophies, considering that the T-7's technology isn't classified (mandated by USAF) I wouldn't think theres much Gripen inside of the T-7
The T-7 is a MUCH better looking aircraft than the X-32's pig of a plane
I like
But is it gonna dog fight a sukhoi 35..
Are you talking about the Very Radar Observable Su35 only DogFighting deep within Russia or Belarus AirSpace?
Un-structured. Bla-bla-bla
dominate
huh?
loose the AI text-to-speech narative! its lazy, void of interest and has too many spelling mistakes!
Griffen.