airforcemag Talks about this late program. Already two years behind, cursed Boeing screws another plane up with unstable wing rock and other issues. They recently said it's fixed but they've said that with the KC-46 Pegasus, another troubled military tanker. Of course they still can't figure out why the V-22 Is prey has lost. 8 craft and 51 soldiers. I wish we bough the cheaper to fly better in a aspect Saab Gripen as it can swat F35s like flies.
@@eleventy-seven Where did you read that the Gripen "swats F-35's like flies"? That aside, it comes down to what you think you'll need in the future. If what you want is a relatively affordable (though how affordable it actually is in reality is fiercely debated and unclear) jet, the Gripen is a very solid platform. It absolutely compares favorably to the F-16 and other light jets. But countries that are looking at what will be more survivable when dealing with future high end threats/denied airspace, or who prioritize situational awareness and information processing, the F-35 just has some particularly strong advantages in those areas. That and at this point with so many F-35's in service it just has a better long-term upgrade economy.
@Jordon David the ignorance it takes to say a gripen can "swat f-35's" is astounding💀😂 obviously you're not educated on what 4th gen and 5th gen means in terms of military aircraft... F-35 would have already locked on, fired a missile, and neutralized any gripen before the gripen would even have a chance to get a radar signature. F-35 is far superior to a gripen in every aspect except maneuverability and top speed. Which aren't really a priority for 5th gen stealth aircraft anyways.
@Jordon David also, V-22 Osprey* were, and still are, a revolutionary design that radically deviates from prior design theory. It's only logical that teething issues and accidents would be something the aircraft has to contend with. Two functional brain cells and some basic research could've told you that though.
@@eleventy-seven Frisian Flag 2012 exercises in Holland, Finnish F-18Cs gets 100 kills and 6 loses against Eurofighter (Germany, UK), Polish new F-16 and older F-16 planes (Norway, Belgium) and Gripen (Swedish) Finland's F-18C has *16:1 kill ratio* against EuroCanards and F-16s. A no-brainer to why Finland has rejected Gripens.
I saw the TX prototype when it did a little demonstration at an airshow in 2019. Never realized it’s importance until recently now knowing the role it’s going to fill in our Air Force. Hats off to the Boeing/Saab team that willed it into reality.
Unfortunately, this video avoids mentioning major wing rock problem of T7 design. Surprisingly, Boeing has announced software fix to the wing rock design problem. The T7a design is inherently unstable and Boeing should fix the basic airframe design for safety of our new pilots.
@@hishot1078 Seemed to me the T-50 was a tad overkill in the fact that it’s is more of a light fighter first and a trainer second. Not to mention that they advertise the T-7 as being able to replicate the capabilities of 4th and 5th gen fighters. Wouldn’t the T-50 being older need some extensive modifications to fulfill that purpose?
@@BullGator-kd6ge The US T-50A is closer to FA-50 standard with optional installation of refueling kit was already flown and tested years before T-7A even made first flight. And it reduces pilot's training time to 70~80% compared to previous generation trainers. Also, pilots don't need to re-study and fly different aircraft during training because T-50 basically can do everything. It also shares parts with F-16, which reduces logistics cost significantly. So what advantages T-7A have compared to T-50A? T-7A is "believed" to be much cheaper than T-50A, but they didn't include: 1) development time & cost 2) testing time & cost 3) need more flight hours for training which costs money. And we already heard news about problems occuring during the development of T-7A, which increases risk of the program. In the end, will operating T-7A be efficient? And moreover, you can arm T-50A with weapons to use as attacker or light fighter. Anyway, T-50A is offered to USN to replace its old trainers, so let's see what will happen.
I'm a former Navy T-45A/C instructor pilot. It was a good and bad jet, very stable behind the boat but lacked thrust. It had a very low thrust to weight ratio, though not sure how important it was in the scheme of things. A fully FADEC motor would have been nice, compressor stalls were quite normal when maneuvering hard in the Goshawk. I'm liking this T-7A Redhawk thus far.
Do you think the US Navy is looking to replace it's T-45's anytime soon? (and would a navalised T-7 be a worthy successor?). Seeing as the F-35B and F-35C is are set to be the new hotness soon, is this a question the USN are thinking about? Or is the current status quo doing just well for the current situation?
@@casuallatecomer7597 What I'm hearing and maybe you have too, is the Navy may do away with carrier landings in advanced jet. Main reason being the new "Magic Carpet" system in the Rhino and F-35. I forget what it is called but it helps reduce correction by the pilot behind the boat. It is so accurate the boarding rate went up drastically, very few wave-offs and one wires. It cost a shit ton of money to used carriers for the training command and with this, the Navy would significantly reduce costs. So future carrier pilots would still do Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) but not go to the boat. A jet would still need to have carrier gear as you hit hard even when practicing. So, either the Navy goes with new advanced Goshawks, a Navy version of the T-7 (which would mean gear and other mods to it) or go with a new aircraft. My guess is one of the first two. IMO, the Goshawk needs a better motor, hands down. It needs to be fully FADEC and I would like more thrust. The T-7 has an amazing thrust to wait ratio, high performance for a training jet. Also, a T-45D or E would need enhanced avionics to keep with with 4.5 and 5th gen aircraft. IMO, go with a navy version of the T-7A, call it the T-7C. BTW, very good question!
SAAB name was only licensed to GM, the automotive part had been sold off since the 1980s and therefore not part of SAAB AB (aircraft division) for over 30 years.
Its not the same Saab. like Volvo cars and Volvo trucks is not the same Volvo. And well. Boeing is also not GM. It was Scania that sold Saab (car manufacturing) to GM after buying it from Saab (main company) decades earlier. Volvo is a very similar Story. Volvo main company sold the car manufacturing to Ford, that in turn sold it to the Chinese. It is worth saying that Saab cooperated with US manufacturing trading the radar system with a radar communication system that was classified all the way up to the 90s.
It's the official trainer to the F35 which means every country with a fleet of F35 is going to want some, sooner or later. In addition, it has the potential to become a cheap but competent supersonic multi-role fighter making it an option for those nations that can't afford the latest generation fighters, just like the F-5 was back in the day. So, yeah, I think this plane are going to become very profitable for SAAB and Boeing.
It is said, "if it looks right, it will probably be right". This looks beautiful, and should be the key trainer for years to come. As a nimble, close support, combat plane, a lot of ground troops will be very happy to see a "Red Hawk" in the sky. JR.
The F7 designation was originally assigned to the single F2Y-1 Sea Dart still on the books in 1962. The F7U Cutlass was retired from service in 1959 and was never re-designated F7
6:12 "From a modest design team, from design to a flying plane in just 3 years, by modern times that is very quickly." SR-71, Skunk Works...Are we a joke to you? (16 months)
@@avroarchitect1793 ...Kelly Johnson was touched by God in the design dept...while the machinist and techs were on speed or something to make it all happen. The Sr71 and it's family of planes are what you get when "shear genius" mixes with "it's supposed to do that" Such as the turbo-ram jet design along side the leaky fuel panels....because it needs to be that way.
I will be interesting to see if an light attack variation will come out in the same way the the f5/ t38 did seeing for smaller countries. The video showed this but having a budget for is something time will tell. I like it!!
A day late, and a dollar short. The rejected US trainer is dominating the world sales as a trainer and fighter. Maybe you didn't know the US Air Force has contracted a company to have ten FA-50 to fly as intruder aircraft during training.
Looks like a mini F/A18. Very sweet!!! I think it will do well. Still hard to beat a T38 when you consider it only costs about 6 million compared to this 19 million dollar trainer.
That's why he specified in the video the increased price is worth it. The T38 is so outdated that pilots have to waste even more valuable hours in F22 or F35 systems, just learning basics that the T7A would've already taught them. With how expensive those systems are to maintain after each flight. It will probably end up being more efficient than the T38 in the long run.
@@SuperCatacata Emulating avionics is easy and any modern trainer can do it. The T-38C has emulated an F-16C avionics suite including weapons employment since 2004. Even the Hawk T2 emulated the full panel F-35 avionics suite including a fully functional selectable F-35 and F-22 radar (with real world air to air returns of participating jets, which could also be added via a cheap pod to and any standard fighter with an empty pylon) and weapons employment via S band datalink. It also emulates all major red air jets and red air T-2 Hawks can present as them, including their radars and radar cross sections at all 3D aspects including red air weapons employment. You can also link simulators into the airborne scenario including airborne visuals via the HMS. You can even fly formation approaches and landings on real jets while in the sim. They also offered a 15G capable modular gondola simulator that currently exists (with an F-35 cockpit, but cockpits are modular and changeable in 30 mins) linked into the FoS, one at each base for
@@FFE-js2zp From the Norwegian F-35A pilot I quote _Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo_ Note why T-7A is modeled after F/A-18 Hornet
I agree the Northrop T-38 and it's brother the F-5E are two of the most beautiful fighters along with the North American Aviation's F-86F. The low hour magnificently manteined F-5Es that were repurchased from Switzerland by the Air Force and the Navy are still being flow as aggressors at NAS Fallon. I really wonder how many country's who buy the Lockheed F-35 will want to order the Saab T-7A from Boeing as a trainer. Don't believe the U. S. Navy wants anything to do with them-without a tail hook. Reportedly Boeing thinks you don't need a hook trainer to develop the essential skills to get good at landing on a pitching deck carrier in low clouds and rain.. at night. You just climb into a $80 million F-35C do a few traps on the dirt and somehow figure it out the two wire on the boat.
@@jhill4071 Totally agree, The F 86 is another of my favourite jet figters ever, looks like the evolution of the P51 . About how many countries want the T-7A, don'nt know but looks this airplane has a good package, able to do most of the training without spend money training on combat plane s, that is a huge money saving, I think, I,m not an expert,on that. .For me , aesthetics, are very important in airplanes. There is a say " If the aircraft looks good, will fly well" Take care J Hill.
The proposed combat version has a real market. Even the US would be better served in adopting something this affordable for most homeland defense missions. Outside of Alaska where you might need a legitimate interceptor, the combat version of this is more than enough to shoot down cruise missiles and a hijacked airplane. Even overseas for the light attack, CAS missing you could have 3 of these in the air for the cost of a single legacy multirole fighter. And other countries? Plenty of counties like Switzerland, etc would be better served with something like this and a squadron of F-35 as a force multiplier.
Being a trainer, I keep thinking that it would be better to install the F414 instead but without the afterburner. Train for supersonic flights using super cruise, without needing to deal with the afterburner for maintenance. Also, I doubt there would be much of a market for the F-7. The market is dominated by JAS-39C/E up top, T/FA-50 in the middle, and the JF-17 in the bottom.
I could see a situation over here where we take an F-7 version with the F414 engine and use it as an aggressor aircraft, cheaper to fly and maintain than the F-16 currently used. That would help your overseas sales somewhat. If we had done that with the F-20 (used it as an aggressor aircraft), it would be in heavy use around the world even today.
TFW, before the T-7A Redhawks became fully operational, USAF will lease some T-50s from KAI to prepare the transition of some pilots from T-38 Talons to T-7A Redhawks. Plus, the things what Boeing aspires for T-7A Redhawks like export and combat version is already a reality to the T-50s through the FA-50s. FA-50s already got export users and on its way in the integration of AIM-120 AMRAAM and Sniper targeting pod.
@@SkyshipsEng At 7:40 The Red Tails flew P51 Mustangs, according to several videos I have, and the stories of some of their veterans.... I suspect that the hawk portion of the name came from the USAF using bird names in a lot of their planes....i.e. "eagle" "falcon" "talon" "raptor".... Just my guess though. You may want to repair this at least in the description, this doesn't sound good when you are known for high quality videos.... Thank you in advance; Monte
The TX prototype actually looks like a copy of now defunct jet kit built manufacturer, Bede Jets BD-10J. Which coincidentally was located in St. Louis, and the designer actually tried to license it to McDonnel Douglas Aircraft St. Louis (1995), before the Boeing takeover. I think some of the BD-10J influenced the TX/T7
@@willberry6434 You need the number. The airframe flying hour on those f35 is going to get chew up pretty Quick if rcaf want as much air time as the cf18 fleet does.
Given that it uses the same power plant as the f/a-18 I could see countries that use the Hornets to want them as well. Also they should make a carrier capable version for the same reason eventually the us navy will need a new trainer.
This thing looks ideal for my daily commute to work. Too bad I can't afford it. Well, for my neighbors it is probably better, as they would not appreciate me taking off down the street every morning. 😂
Funny how the video describes Boeing as having a great history of building aircraft with twin vertical stabilizers noting the F-18 and F-15. Both designs came from McDonnell Douglas, not Boeing. Neat little aircraft and I'm sure it will be a great training platform but it is not cut from the same cloth as the aforementioned aircraft.
Boeing bought McDonald Douglas in 1997 and the f/a-18 began production under the Boeing name, however since the f-15 came out long before the deal was made, it maintained the McDonald Douglas title. So Boeing can use the facilities and engineers from McDonald Douglas. Hope this cleared things up a little.
@@Shock356 it's McDonnell Douglas, not Macdonald Douglas. The F/A-18 began production in 1978 by McDonnell Douglas in collaboration with Northrop (who built the aft fuselage section in California and shipped them here to St. Louis for final assembly) so it is technically NOT a Boeing design. Even the F/A-18 Super Hornet was flying before Boeing purchased McDonnell Douglas in 1997.
I don't get and never will understand the love for the T38's design. It was only the "pinnacle" for so many years because of how damn cheap it was. Not because it was the pinnacle of aviation design. It's like praising a honda civic as the pinnacle of car design because of how budget friendly and efficient it is.
IMO The Navy combat fighter community wanted an updated F-14 as the Fleet Protector because it was fast and had legs. The cost per flight hours is never compared because of the T-38. Northrop culture was heavy reliability, repairability and maintainability. Without a lot of GSE you could swap out a T-38 engine in 35-40 minutes or both in an hour. One could do the same with an F-5E. including the gas and guns. Everything was accessible.
It's sexy, it's fast, it's simple....wait hold on...stop...I have a Piper Cub... its simple to fly (restrictions apply) however my friend in the military continues to tell me that it's not the same thing. Great content as always, and props from northern Canada!
@@FFE-js2zp From Norwegian F-35A pilot I quote _Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo_
@@FFE-js2zp Hornet's canted vertical tail improves yaw (hammerhead) handling during high angle of attack and reduces RCS, hence this design idea continued into F-22A and F-35A/B/C.
i really like the Digitalized HUDS of these New Aircrafts from F-35 and onwards because of how smooth and responsive it is while being big. The level of Optimization is fit for quick response that the pilot may need during live combat exercises or emergency ones. Meanwhile, Car Industries' so-called Hypercars and Supercars that cost Millions of Dollars have the most lag and slowest framerate for their Infotainment systems.
This plane design, implementation, modularity, cost effectiveness and designed robustness is just unbelievably awesome. I can't believe the US did this, because the US are notorious for massive cost overruns on defense projects.
It's has a wing stability issue and in typical Boeing fashion is late. Just what you need in a trainer a wing rock problem and a company that's made a mess with every military plane from the Pegasus refueler to the V-22 with 51 dead and counting. Everything Boeing has touched since the original 777 is cheap garbage.
Has a similar look in appearance when looking Top down ( 08:24 ) as the J-17 Thunder, with regard to wing profile. Though from every other angle, to my eye, the T-7A Red Hawk is a real looker, a bonny jet.
Excellent and economical advanced trainer jet for air force. But with such limited MTOW of 5.5 ton, I doubt it can be developed as light fighter jet to replace F-5E (MTOW 11.2 ton) easily. Such development will call for major redesign. Even Hawk 128 has 9.1 ton MTOW.
I hadn't thought about it till they spoke about needing controls to mimic different plans, but the "glass cockpit" will revolutionize simulators as new craft will only need to update the sim program rather than build a plane specific version. And that should "knock on" to drone piloting as well. FR
Good video. I was especially impressed by the fact that you saved asking for likes and subs till the end of the video! I lost count of how many dislikes I hit because people would NOT do this! So you get a like. If I find that your video quality and requests for likes and subs are consistent, I will also sub!
Saab has done many a great works for our country. There's a lot I dislike about taxes (as everyone) but thank God some of the money finds it's way to the right programs. Can't slice an apple without cutting a few fingers right? Or something like that. God bless the USA. God bless us all.
The most recent information from the Air Force is the contract will accept no production T-7A trainers until 2025. The reason given is the seat, but I think there is more to decision than the seat. The Air Force had originally asked a third party to provide ten KAI T-50 trainers for the near future, but Boeing pulled their strings to stop that. Now we find out their is a company that is refitting the F-5 Tiger version with new electronics, and revised engines that will allow the F-5 to fly Mach 1.65 at a small cost compared to new planes.
I am a fan of the T37A, Cessena. In Vietnam, it was a vicious ground support air craft - While it wouldn’t compete with todays line up without knuckle dragging Engines, I’m told the Airplane was easy-to patch up …
This new "Trainer" still doesn't get the juice's flowing like just looking at a T38 does.. The Talon was and still is the sexyest looking Jet aircraft we fly.. I'm not taking anything away from all the other's like the Gun slinger F8 or the flying rocket F104 or even the Big nasty F4 .. The F14 or the F15 or even the F18 . the T38 still looks outrageous just sitting on the ramp ...
nice aircraft, but 20+mil dollar for trainer aircraft seems kinda high price tag, which means maintenance will be also expensive. I like the L39NG more as a budget option, tho not supersonic so slightly different category.
$6 million is the difference between the T50 and this aircraft. When you are buying 450 of these the difference equals almost $3 billion more. Another reason to build them in the USA is to use our tax dollars to employ Americans.
This is what happens when you leave an F/A-18 and a Gripen unsupervised.
Does have a “baby 18” look to it. Especially the wing design.
@@toka100 yeah, I thought this too.
Pitty it doesn't favor Mama Gripen more.
@@tarmaque exactly. Two seats and two jugs
@@tarmaque F18 > Gripen
A very elegant design and one can see the Saab influence in its' lines.
airforcemag Talks about this late program. Already two years behind, cursed Boeing screws another plane up with unstable wing rock and other issues. They recently said it's fixed but they've said that with the KC-46 Pegasus, another troubled military tanker. Of course they still can't figure out why the V-22 Is prey has lost. 8 craft and 51 soldiers. I wish we bough the cheaper to fly better in a aspect Saab Gripen as it can swat F35s like flies.
@@eleventy-seven Where did you read that the Gripen "swats F-35's like flies"? That aside, it comes down to what you think you'll need in the future. If what you want is a relatively affordable (though how affordable it actually is in reality is fiercely debated and unclear) jet, the Gripen is a very solid platform. It absolutely compares favorably to the F-16 and other light jets. But countries that are looking at what will be more survivable when dealing with future high end threats/denied airspace, or who prioritize situational awareness and information processing, the F-35 just has some particularly strong advantages in those areas. That and at this point with so many F-35's in service it just has a better long-term upgrade economy.
@Jordon David the ignorance it takes to say a gripen can "swat f-35's" is astounding💀😂 obviously you're not educated on what 4th gen and 5th gen means in terms of military aircraft... F-35 would have already locked on, fired a missile, and neutralized any gripen before the gripen would even have a chance to get a radar signature. F-35 is far superior to a gripen in every aspect except maneuverability and top speed. Which aren't really a priority for 5th gen stealth aircraft anyways.
@Jordon David also, V-22 Osprey* were, and still are, a revolutionary design that radically deviates from prior design theory. It's only logical that teething issues and accidents would be something the aircraft has to contend with. Two functional brain cells and some basic research could've told you that though.
@@eleventy-seven Frisian Flag 2012 exercises in Holland, Finnish F-18Cs gets 100 kills and 6 loses against Eurofighter (Germany, UK), Polish new F-16 and older F-16 planes (Norway, Belgium) and Gripen (Swedish)
Finland's F-18C has *16:1 kill ratio* against EuroCanards and F-16s.
A no-brainer to why Finland has rejected Gripens.
I saw the TX prototype when it did a little demonstration at an airshow in 2019. Never realized it’s importance until recently now knowing the role it’s going to fill in our Air Force. Hats off to the Boeing/Saab team that willed it into reality.
Unfortunately, this video avoids mentioning major wing rock problem of T7 design. Surprisingly, Boeing has announced software fix to the wing rock design problem. The T7a design is inherently unstable and Boeing should fix the basic airframe design for safety of our new pilots.
The fact is, USAF would have saved more money & time if they chose T-50A. Choosing T-7A was more of an attempt of saving Boeing's military sector.
@@hishot1078 Seemed to me the T-50 was a tad overkill in the fact that it’s is more of a light fighter first and a trainer second.
Not to mention that they advertise the T-7 as being able to replicate the capabilities of 4th and 5th gen fighters. Wouldn’t the T-50 being older need some extensive modifications to fulfill that purpose?
@@BullGator-kd6ge The US T-50A is closer to FA-50 standard with optional installation of refueling kit was already flown and tested years before T-7A even made first flight. And it reduces pilot's training time to 70~80% compared to previous generation trainers. Also, pilots don't need to re-study and fly different aircraft during training because T-50 basically can do everything. It also shares parts with F-16, which reduces logistics cost significantly.
So what advantages T-7A have compared to T-50A? T-7A is "believed" to be much cheaper than T-50A, but they didn't include: 1) development time & cost 2) testing time & cost 3) need more flight hours for training which costs money. And we already heard news about problems occuring during the development of T-7A, which increases risk of the program. In the end, will operating T-7A be efficient?
And moreover, you can arm T-50A with weapons to use as attacker or light fighter.
Anyway, T-50A is offered to USN to replace its old trainers, so let's see what will happen.
@@BullGator-kd6ge Also, if USAF chose T-50A, it would be in active service already.
I'm a former Navy T-45A/C instructor pilot. It was a good and bad jet, very stable behind the boat but lacked thrust. It had a very low thrust to weight ratio, though not sure how important it was in the scheme of things. A fully FADEC motor would have been nice, compressor stalls were quite normal when maneuvering hard in the Goshawk. I'm liking this T-7A Redhawk thus far.
What does “behind the boat” mean? Is that inflight refueling?
@@BosworthMcG landing on the carrier, behind the boat.
@@rElliot09 ahh I see . Thank you.
Do you think the US Navy is looking to replace it's T-45's anytime soon? (and would a navalised T-7 be a worthy successor?). Seeing as the F-35B and F-35C is are set to be the new hotness soon, is this a question the USN are thinking about? Or is the current status quo doing just well for the current situation?
@@casuallatecomer7597 What I'm hearing and maybe you have too, is the Navy may do away with carrier landings in advanced jet. Main reason being the new "Magic Carpet" system in the Rhino and F-35. I forget what it is called but it helps reduce correction by the pilot behind the boat. It is so accurate the boarding rate went up drastically, very few wave-offs and one wires. It cost a shit ton of money to used carriers for the training command and with this, the Navy would significantly reduce costs. So future carrier pilots would still do Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) but not go to the boat. A jet would still need to have carrier gear as you hit hard even when practicing. So, either the Navy goes with new advanced Goshawks, a Navy version of the T-7 (which would mean gear and other mods to it) or go with a new aircraft. My guess is one of the first two.
IMO, the Goshawk needs a better motor, hands down. It needs to be fully FADEC and I would like more thrust. The T-7 has an amazing thrust to wait ratio, high performance for a training jet. Also, a T-45D or E would need enhanced avionics to keep with with 4.5 and 5th gen aircraft. IMO, go with a navy version of the T-7A, call it the T-7C.
BTW, very good question!
Glad to see Saab actually still has a good relationship with a US company . Despite what GM did to the automotive branch. Lol.
See how long this lasts, I expect a US takeover of this aircraft and technology at some point.
SAAB name was only licensed to GM, the automotive part had been sold off since the 1980s and therefore not part of SAAB AB (aircraft division) for over 30 years.
Its not the same Saab. like Volvo cars and Volvo trucks is not the same Volvo. And well. Boeing is also not GM.
It was Scania that sold Saab (car manufacturing) to GM after buying it from Saab (main company) decades earlier.
Volvo is a very similar Story. Volvo main company sold the car manufacturing to Ford, that in turn sold it to the Chinese.
It is worth saying that Saab cooperated with US manufacturing trading the radar system with a radar communication system that was classified all the way up to the 90s.
Superb video. Great to see another excellent segment from you!
This thing is badass!
It's the official trainer to the F35 which means every country with a fleet of F35 is going to want some, sooner or later. In addition, it has the potential to become a cheap but competent supersonic multi-role fighter making it an option for those nations that can't afford the latest generation fighters, just like the F-5 was back in the day. So, yeah, I think this plane are going to become very profitable for SAAB and Boeing.
I wonder if France will still make a 5th gen fighter or buy the F-35 my bet is they make domestically
@@erichvonmanstein6876 who the fuck said it would, they said they would need it to train the pilots FOR the multirole fighters
@@spartainwarrior6445 there little man i took it down you can stop crying now
@@erichvonmanstein6876 you assume what people want too much, goodbye
Yeah, I don't think so. This aircraft is gonna be operating in US service only.
It is said, "if it looks right, it will probably be right". This looks beautiful, and should be the key trainer for years to come. As a nimble, close support, combat plane, a lot of ground troops will be very happy to see a "Red Hawk" in the sky. JR.
The F7 designation was originally assigned to the single F2Y-1 Sea Dart still on the books in 1962. The F7U Cutlass was retired from service in 1959 and was never re-designated F7
6:12
"From a modest design team, from design to a flying plane in just 3 years, by modern times that is very quickly."
SR-71, Skunk Works...Are we a joke to you?
(16 months)
Skunk Works runs off of black magic as far as engineering goes.
@@avroarchitect1793 ...Kelly Johnson was touched by God in the design dept...while the machinist and techs were on speed or something to make it all happen. The Sr71 and it's family of planes are what you get when "shear genius" mixes with "it's supposed to do that"
Such as the turbo-ram jet design along side the leaky fuel panels....because it needs to be that way.
Love seeing the tribute to the red tails.
Excellent video as always!! good work
I will be interesting to see if an light attack variation will come out in the same way the the f5/ t38 did seeing for smaller countries. The video showed this but having a budget for is something time will tell. I like it!!
A day late, and a dollar short. The rejected US trainer is dominating the world sales as a trainer and fighter. Maybe you didn't know the US Air Force has contracted a company to have ten FA-50 to fly as intruder aircraft during training.
5:17 Saab designed the JAS 39 Gripen which is more than worthy of noting here.
This is more advanced than many militaries front line fighters.
Looks like a mini F/A18. Very sweet!!! I think it will do well. Still hard to beat a T38 when you consider it only costs about 6 million compared to this 19 million dollar trainer.
The T-38 fleet cost $750,000 each.
That's why he specified in the video the increased price is worth it.
The T38 is so outdated that pilots have to waste even more valuable hours in F22 or F35 systems, just learning basics that the T7A would've already taught them.
With how expensive those systems are to maintain after each flight. It will probably end up being more efficient than the T38 in the long run.
@@SuperCatacata
Emulating avionics is easy and any modern trainer can do it. The T-38C has emulated an F-16C avionics suite including weapons employment since 2004. Even the Hawk T2 emulated the full panel F-35 avionics suite including a fully functional selectable F-35 and F-22 radar (with real world air to air returns of participating jets, which could also be added via a cheap pod to and any standard fighter with an empty pylon) and weapons employment via S band datalink. It also emulates all major red air jets and red air T-2 Hawks can present as them, including their radars and radar cross sections at all 3D aspects including red air weapons employment.
You can also link simulators into the airborne scenario including airborne visuals via the HMS. You can even fly formation approaches and landings on real jets while in the sim. They also offered a 15G capable modular gondola simulator that currently exists (with an F-35 cockpit, but cockpits are modular and changeable in 30 mins) linked into the FoS, one at each base for
@@SuperCatacata Good point. I have to agree.
@@FFE-js2zp From the Norwegian F-35A pilot
I quote
_Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo_
Note why T-7A is modeled after F/A-18 Hornet
Still, for me , the T-38 is one of the most beautifull jet fighters around
I agree the Northrop T-38 and it's brother the F-5E are two of the most beautiful fighters along with the North American Aviation's F-86F. The low hour magnificently manteined F-5Es that were repurchased from Switzerland by the Air Force and the Navy are still being flow as aggressors at NAS Fallon.
I really wonder how many country's who buy the Lockheed F-35 will want to order the Saab T-7A from Boeing as a trainer. Don't believe the U. S. Navy wants anything to do with them-without a tail hook.
Reportedly Boeing thinks you don't need a hook trainer to develop the essential skills to get good at landing on a pitching deck carrier in low clouds and rain.. at night. You just climb into a $80 million F-35C do a few traps on the dirt and somehow figure it out the two wire on the boat.
@@jhill4071 Totally agree, The F 86 is another of my favourite jet figters ever, looks like the evolution of the P51 .
About how many countries want the T-7A, don'nt know but looks this airplane has a good package, able to do most of the training without spend money training on combat plane s, that is a huge money saving, I think, I,m not an expert,on that. .For me , aesthetics, are very important in airplanes. There is a say " If the aircraft looks good, will fly well" Take care J Hill.
Crew chiefed F5E's as AGGRESSOR at Nellis AFB; 57th AMU/64th TFG, Las Vegas NV, 1980-1983. Good times. Fond memories.
@@carfvallrightsreservedwith6649 i will give a lot in order to fly in one of those birds!
It looks an awful lot like the MIG 28 though
She's a beauty , can't wait to build one in 1:48 th scale ! Who will be the first company to model one ??
From the moment I laid eyes on the T-X, I knew it was the winner. And loved it ever since. Still do and consider it my favorite trainer type.
The proposed combat version has a real market. Even the US would be better served in adopting something this affordable for most homeland defense missions. Outside of Alaska where you might need a legitimate interceptor, the combat version of this is more than enough to shoot down cruise missiles and a hijacked airplane. Even overseas for the light attack, CAS missing you could have 3 of these in the air for the cost of a single legacy multirole fighter.
And other countries? Plenty of counties like Switzerland, etc would be better served with something like this and a squadron of F-35 as a force multiplier.
@@RT804 The T-X does indeed have potential waiting to be unleashed, now it's up to time to see if it will be fullfilled.
Being a trainer, I keep thinking that it would be better to install the F414 instead but without the afterburner. Train for supersonic flights using super cruise, without needing to deal with the afterburner for maintenance.
Also, I doubt there would be much of a market for the F-7. The market is dominated by JAS-39C/E up top, T/FA-50 in the middle, and the JF-17 in the bottom.
You forgot the politics, not everyone will be allowed to choose.
@@BobSaint The F-7 is American. If there's an option that comes off the table first, it's the F-7.
Listen man we’ll take anything over our baby J-85s that together only produce 3300 lbs of thrust
Uncle Sam will fix all that with some foreign aid
I could see a situation over here where we take an F-7 version with the F414 engine and use it as an aggressor aircraft, cheaper to fly and maintain than the F-16 currently used. That would help your overseas sales somewhat. If we had done that with the F-20 (used it as an aggressor aircraft), it would be in heavy use around the world even today.
Always Been A Lover Of Trainor Aircraft!
"Mom, can we get an F-14?"
"No, we have F-14 at home."
F-14 at home: 4:30
It looks like a legacy hornet don’t know how it even remotely looks like a f-14
TFW, before the T-7A Redhawks became fully operational, USAF will lease some T-50s from KAI to prepare the transition of some pilots from T-38 Talons to T-7A Redhawks.
Plus, the things what Boeing aspires for T-7A Redhawks like export and combat version is already a reality to the T-50s through the FA-50s. FA-50s already got export users and on its way in the integration of AIM-120 AMRAAM and Sniper targeting pod.
Finally a new mig 28 😂😂😂
Yes and no.... Mig 28 is an EXACT copy of F5E 😂
Yes) For the Top Gun 3)
@@SkyshipsEng We will call that movie: Top Gun "Goose"
@@SkyshipsEng
At 7:40
The Red Tails flew P51 Mustangs, according to several videos I have, and the stories of some of their veterans....
I suspect that the hawk portion of the name came from the USAF using bird names in a lot of their planes....i.e. "eagle" "falcon" "talon" "raptor".... Just my guess though.
You may want to repair this at least in the description, this doesn't sound good when you are known for high quality videos....
Thank you in advance;
Monte
@@raulxavier1271 you don’t think we know that?
The TX prototype actually looks like a copy of now defunct jet kit built manufacturer, Bede Jets BD-10J. Which coincidentally was located in St. Louis, and the designer actually tried to license it to McDonnel Douglas Aircraft St. Louis (1995), before the Boeing takeover. I think some of the BD-10J influenced the TX/T7
I think it more closely resembles older 1950s and 1960s style fighter jets.
There is much of SAAB Gripen in this TX7, not just the single engine…
just gonna mention that the f404 isn't used in modern production gripens nor hornets as both planes e/f models use the larger GE f414
Yes, the f404 is a legacy Hornet engine, but to his credit he didn’t say “Super Hornet”.
They might upgrade the engine in the Fighter Attack version...
Beautiful plane. Can’t wait to see it rolled out in numbers. Canada should buy these
Might be good idea to develop of mutirole config to replace those flying antique CF18. Lol
@@林振华-t4v f-35 is replacing it…
@@willberry6434 You need the number. The airframe flying hour on those f35 is going to get chew up pretty Quick if rcaf want as much air time as the cf18 fleet does.
What a funny looking goat of a plane. Like a toady frog. The birds laugh at it and the air cries when it takes off.
Brilliant! Thank you for an excellent presentation.
My grandad was a Tuskegee airman
Awesome
😎💜
Given that it uses the same power plant as the f/a-18 I could see countries that use the Hornets to want them as well. Also they should make a carrier capable version for the same reason eventually the us navy will need a new trainer.
T-7A's F404 engine is similar to USAF F-117A's F404 but without afterbunners.
@@valenrn8657 wait, I don't quite get it. is it the T7A or F117A that doesn't have an afterburner?
@@innocentpasserby9632 F-117A's GE F404 engines don't have afterburners.
Gripen also uses F-404.
Honestly the best video on the Red Hulk I've seen good job
Red Hawk*
This thing looks ideal for my daily commute to work. Too bad I can't afford it. Well, for my neighbors it is probably better, as they would not appreciate me taking off down the street every morning. 😂
Funny how the video describes Boeing as having a great history of building aircraft with twin vertical stabilizers noting the F-18 and F-15. Both designs came from McDonnell Douglas, not Boeing. Neat little aircraft and I'm sure it will be a great training platform but it is not cut from the same cloth as the aforementioned aircraft.
Boeing bought McDonald Douglas in 1997 and the f/a-18 began production under the Boeing name, however since the f-15 came out long before the deal was made, it maintained the McDonald Douglas title. So Boeing can use the facilities and engineers from McDonald Douglas. Hope this cleared things up a little.
@@Shock356 it's McDonnell Douglas, not Macdonald Douglas. The F/A-18 began production in 1978 by McDonnell Douglas in collaboration with Northrop (who built the aft fuselage section in California and shipped them here to St. Louis for final assembly) so it is technically NOT a Boeing design. Even the F/A-18 Super Hornet was flying before Boeing purchased McDonnell Douglas in 1997.
So if it has AESA radar then it compete with T-50 & JF-17
How will fare against gripen?
Awesome video! Nice job!
Thanks for another great one Sky!
Funny how this is a new and more advanced aircraft, but the T-38 it's replacing is still way cooler.
T38/F5 is the pinnacle of Trainer/Light fighter design.
I don't get and never will understand the love for the T38's design. It was only the "pinnacle" for so many years because of how damn cheap it was. Not because it was the pinnacle of aviation design.
It's like praising a honda civic as the pinnacle of car design because of how budget friendly and efficient it is.
IMO The Navy combat fighter community wanted an updated F-14 as the Fleet Protector because it was fast and had legs. The cost per flight hours is never compared because of the T-38. Northrop culture was heavy reliability, repairability and maintainability. Without a lot of GSE you could swap out a T-38 engine in 35-40 minutes or both in an hour. One could do the same with an F-5E. including the gas and guns. Everything was accessible.
Excellent story and video!
Thank You for your work!
Good thing SAAB are involved. At least you will know that what they build will hold together in the air.
Great! I've been waiting for your contents!
It's sexy, it's fast, it's simple....wait hold on...stop...I have a Piper Cub... its simple to fly (restrictions apply) however my friend in the military continues to tell me that it's not the same thing. Great content as always, and props from northern Canada!
Its not the same as a CF-18.
Props, Piper Cub... Good joke)
All we want is a trainer that doesn't purposely kill pilots
Sweet looking airplane.
They should use these on real attack missions when there is already air superiority. Much cheaper to use.
I agree the T-38 needs replacement as it is long in the tooth but nothing will ever be as sexy as the area ruled fuselage.
F-35A Block 3F has both F/A-18 (high AoA) and F-16 handling, hence T-7 resembles a smaller Hornet.
It resembles the Hornet because it’s a Boeing jet. They actually thought the USAF liked the Hornet. So dumb.
@@FFE-js2zp From Norwegian F-35A pilot
I quote
_Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo_
@@FFE-js2zp Hornet's canted vertical tail improves yaw (hammerhead) handling during high angle of attack and reduces RCS, hence this design idea continued into F-22A and F-35A/B/C.
@@valenrn8657
Twin tails are for twin engines, not centerline mounted, with one engine out. They are also favorable for stealth. The T-7 has neither.
@@FFE-js2zp A single vertical tail is useless during high AoA.
Very interesting and informative. Thanx. 👍
Excellent film footage and sound. Great commentary.
Great, now I wanna buy one.
This would look great in Thunderbird colors!
Rear half of this aircraft is produced by SAAB in West Lafayette, Indiana near the Purdue University Airport.
funny because given the V-stab layout I'd figure Boeing would be handling that part.
@@avroarchitect1793 Its not that difficult to build V-Stab.
It looks like like a cross between the navy trainer t45 Goss hawk and the f18
i really like the Digitalized HUDS of these New Aircrafts from F-35 and onwards because of how smooth and responsive it is while being big. The level of Optimization is fit for quick response that the pilot may need during live combat exercises or emergency ones. Meanwhile, Car Industries' so-called Hypercars and Supercars that cost Millions of Dollars have the most lag and slowest framerate for their Infotainment systems.
great aviation content sir👍
Looks like a nice aircraft.
This plane design, implementation, modularity, cost effectiveness and designed robustness is just unbelievably awesome.
I can't believe the US did this, because the US are notorious for massive cost overruns on defense projects.
M j
Thank you kindly for listening
Impressive!
It's has a wing stability issue and in typical Boeing fashion is late. Just what you need in a trainer a wing rock problem and a company that's made a mess with every military plane from the Pegasus refueler to the V-22 with 51 dead and counting. Everything Boeing has touched since the original 777 is cheap garbage.
@@eleventy-seven I venture to guess nothing could be worse than the F-104 "Widowmaker".
@@eleventy-seven You are correct about Boeing.
@@eleventy-seven Here's some interesting stats. www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA200/RRA257-1/RAND_RRA257-1.pdf
Boeing can't even manage to design a trainer without the Smorgasborders showing them how it's done.
At 12:50 mark "This is too much, even for the Pentagon."
Challenge accepted.
The Scorpion is a very strange plane, really. Half A-10 - half F-14
F-20 Tigershark anyboby?
Pretty much
Has a similar look in appearance when looking Top down ( 08:24 ) as the J-17 Thunder, with regard to wing profile. Though from every other angle, to my eye, the T-7A Red Hawk is a real looker, a bonny jet.
What a sick acrobatics plane it would be!
Two questions: will this end up as a combat aircraft? Also, will this be released as a civilian aircraft?
Unlikely to be civilian. Would not that difficult to arm it with weapons to make it combat ready.
Is this a kind of new Talon?
Light, graceful and beautiful. Planes just seem to be getting heavier and heavier these days otherwise...
Excellent and economical advanced trainer jet for air force. But with such limited MTOW of 5.5 ton, I doubt it can be developed as light fighter jet
to replace F-5E (MTOW 11.2 ton) easily. Such development will call for major redesign. Even Hawk 128 has 9.1 ton MTOW.
Sky! Great as always!Thanks for helping us US goofs in mph lol!✈️🛩️I want a kiddy TX!!
Great job!
I hadn't thought about it till they spoke about needing controls to mimic different plans, but the "glass cockpit" will revolutionize simulators as new craft will only need to update the sim program rather than build a plane specific version. And that should "knock on" to drone piloting as well. FR
I hope I get to see these flying around Lackland AFB in San Antonio soon.
This plane looks really cool. Does it have the ability to supercruise?
No, it doesn't
Good video. I was especially impressed by the fact that you saved asking for likes and subs till the end of the video! I lost count of how many dislikes I hit because people would NOT do this! So you get a like. If I find that your video quality and requests for likes and subs are consistent, I will also sub!
The nose landing gear on the F-16 actually rotates 90 degrees as it retracts.
Saab has done many a great works for our country. There's a lot I dislike about taxes (as everyone) but thank God some of the money finds it's way to the right programs. Can't slice an apple without cutting a few fingers right? Or something like that. God bless the USA. God bless us all.
The most recent information from the Air Force is the contract will accept no production T-7A trainers until 2025. The reason given is the seat, but I think there is more to decision than the seat. The Air Force had originally asked a third party to provide ten KAI T-50 trainers for the near future, but Boeing pulled their strings to stop that. Now we find out their is a company that is refitting the F-5 Tiger version with new electronics, and revised engines that will allow the F-5 to fly Mach 1.65 at a small cost compared to new planes.
Welcome back
So being a red hawk, are we going to make its scream the stock sound for that of an eagle?
Beautiful plane!
Malaysia is watching..✌️😊✌️🇲🇾
Why didn't Boeing participate in Malaysian Air Force's tender for trainer aircrafts??
I am a fan of the T37A, Cessena. In Vietnam, it was a vicious ground support air craft - While it wouldn’t compete with todays line up without knuckle dragging Engines, I’m told the Airplane was easy-to patch up …
This new "Trainer" still doesn't get the juice's flowing like just looking at a T38 does.. The Talon was and still is the sexyest looking Jet aircraft we fly.. I'm not taking anything away from all the other's like the Gun slinger F8 or the flying rocket F104 or even the Big nasty F4 .. The F14 or the F15 or even the F18 . the T38 still looks outrageous just sitting on the ramp ...
what FIRE CONTROL RADAR can fit on this plane?
Wing lock???
Cool! I want one !🍻
How long before the navy adopts this trainer to replace the T 45? seems only natural as their primary aerial ordnance platform is the F/A 18e.
It's cool how worldwide this project was lockheed working with japan, boeing working with saab, Bae and grunmann. All Kinda neat
nice aircraft, but 20+mil dollar for trainer aircraft seems kinda high price tag, which means maintenance will be also expensive. I like the L39NG more as a budget option, tho not supersonic so slightly different category.
It looks like a new F-5 freedom fighter with twin tail fins.
Is it supersonic or not ?
Excellent.
Cool! 😍
How different is it from the Korean T50
$6 million is the difference between the T50 and this aircraft. When you are buying 450 of these the difference equals almost $3 billion more. Another reason to build them in the USA is to use our tax dollars to employ Americans.
@@Chris_at_Home makes sense. Although the others can be made in the US too. I was only asking because my country chone the Korean one instead
Chose*
The T-50 is a half-fighter. It is much heavier and more expensive. The USAF doesn’t need it’s performance
@@GeN56YoS You know you can edit your original comment and don't need to add another with a correction, don't you?
Single engine is the best way to go for a combat aircraft, it’ll be disastrous as a trainer.