Purpose-built trainer aircraft are distinctly different from their in-service combat counterparts.
The whole point of trainers is low cost per hour to fly airframe, and none of the fancy software needed to integrate modern smart munitions (since they're not needed).
The T-7A is estimated to cost ~$20M and cost ~$3000-5000/hr to fly instead of $20000-30000/hr
No they cost 10 times as much and can take less abuse from new people at the stick, trainers are designed for less than optimal use and are less prone to crashing and burning because of operator error
> By November 2023, the USAF was actively considering the possibility of turning the T-7 into an armed combat aircraft. Conceptually dubbed the F-7, such a jet could provide roughly the same capability as a fourth-generation fighter which could maintain force numbers as F-16s are retired, and could replace older Northrop F-5 and Dornier Alpha Jet platforms on the export market.
The T-50A likely cost more since the original T-50 costs about $21M, roughly the same as the T-7A, but so the upgraded T-50 likely clocked in closer to $25-30M. And I can't find operating cost estimates for the T-50 but it wouldn't shock me if they exceeded the T-7A. The RFI/RFP for the program outlined that ongoing costs were a significant factor of consideration.
Investors driving decisions. Its all about short term profit margins and bailing before the crash.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>https://news.yahoo.com/boeing-pushes-back-t-7-141502298.html
GAO raised concerns in its 2023 report about potential increased risk from having the T-7′s development, testing and production phases overlapping.
The original RFI/RFP certainly had a fighter variant, and even a carrier-launched variant in consideration, but the jet trainer was still the main focus for the program.
That concept has been revisited time and again with things like the Textron Scorpion and bronco and each time abandoned because by the time you spend all that effort training a proper pilot, you may as well give them a proper plane on the off chance they need the capability to do proper plane things.
on top of that, such a job is increasingly done by drones anyway, which require no risk or time from a human pilot to bomb people.
The T7a uses an F/A 18 engine, which allows GE to keep making replacements for them for a long time at a reasonable rate >a few
Try a few thousand
The T38 is, what, over 60 years old? The F16 isn't much younger. If they're gonna get another 50 years out of this program, it's worth investing into it
>Wouldn't be cheaper to just repurpose a few two seat F-16s to this task?
KAI's T-50 serves that purpose, unfortunately, even that lost to the plane in your OP.
At least the T-50 has a LIFT version (TA-50) and a light Multirole version (FA-50), not the first time a fighter was made based on a trainer (F-5 from T-38 and the A-29/EMB-314 Super Tucano from EMB-312)
No. You have to be a qualified pilot before you can train in the F-16.
Bro they have several trainers in service now. The only thing stupid about this is the F- variant and the gratuitous pandering to blacks
t. shit taste in aircraft colors
Purpose-built trainer aircraft are distinctly different from their in-service combat counterparts.
The whole point of trainers is low cost per hour to fly airframe, and none of the fancy software needed to integrate modern smart munitions (since they're not needed).
The T-7A is estimated to cost ~$20M and cost ~$3000-5000/hr to fly instead of $20000-30000/hr
You're forgetting that trainer aircraft are also designed to be in service for long periods of time.
No they cost 10 times as much and can take less abuse from new people at the stick, trainers are designed for less than optimal use and are less prone to crashing and burning because of operator error
Can we make these into Sperry tier insurgent stompers? You don't need RWR, Data link, GPS, or stealth to drop bombs on Toyota Hiluxs and PKM's.
> By November 2023, the USAF was actively considering the possibility of turning the T-7 into an armed combat aircraft. Conceptually dubbed the F-7, such a jet could provide roughly the same capability as a fourth-generation fighter which could maintain force numbers as F-16s are retired, and could replace older Northrop F-5 and Dornier Alpha Jet platforms on the export market.
NEAT. Honestly the techmaxxxing simply to be used to curbstomp shitskins is some absolute MIC frickery, which is why I said Sprey.
FA-50 is much better and still made by Lockmart.
Then why didn't they choose it?
The T-50A likely cost more since the original T-50 costs about $21M, roughly the same as the T-7A, but so the upgraded T-50 likely clocked in closer to $25-30M. And I can't find operating cost estimates for the T-50 but it wouldn't shock me if they exceeded the T-7A. The RFI/RFP for the program outlined that ongoing costs were a significant factor of consideration.
To give Boeing a contract so each of the big three could have a slice of pie.
Northrup B-21 and LGM-35
Boeing KC-46 and T-7
Lockheed a hell of a lot.
The problem is Boeing even managing to frick this program up with SAABs help.
Oof make this post then go to check T-7 news, find yet another delay.....
https://news.yahoo.com/boeing-pushes-back-t-7-141502298.html
frick's sake, what is wrong with Boeing
Investors driving decisions. Its all about short term profit margins and bailing before the crash.
>https://news.yahoo.com/boeing-pushes-back-t-7-141502298.html
GAO raised concerns in its 2023 report about potential increased risk from having the T-7′s development, testing and production phases overlapping.
F-35 all over again. 🙂
everyone involved in USAF who didn't START with this path needs to be sacked with loss of all pension, and probably a decade in prison in solitary.
Also, it should be less "new but only 4th gen fighter" as multi-role full spectrum combat jet to do everything except top-tier air-2-air.
Radar picket, A2A missile truck, mini-tanker, ASW(give the 2nd seat something to do) including buoy drops and lite torps, stand-off ground attack.
The original RFI/RFP certainly had a fighter variant, and even a carrier-launched variant in consideration, but the jet trainer was still the main focus for the program.
That concept has been revisited time and again with things like the Textron Scorpion and bronco and each time abandoned because by the time you spend all that effort training a proper pilot, you may as well give them a proper plane on the off chance they need the capability to do proper plane things.
on top of that, such a job is increasingly done by drones anyway, which require no risk or time from a human pilot to bomb people.
>render
disgusting
We need a new Super Tweet
The T7a uses an F/A 18 engine, which allows GE to keep making replacements for them for a long time at a reasonable rate
>a few
Try a few thousand
The T38 is, what, over 60 years old? The F16 isn't much younger. If they're gonna get another 50 years out of this program, it's worth investing into it
>underbids you
nothing personal, which is probably why textron will never get a contract.
If they made the intakes square it'd be a baby tomcat almost
I wish there is a chance the Textron program gets revived. Good light attack aircraft in my opinion.
>Wouldn't be cheaper to just repurpose a few two seat F-16s to this task?
KAI's T-50 serves that purpose, unfortunately, even that lost to the plane in your OP.
At least the T-50 has a LIFT version (TA-50) and a light Multirole version (FA-50), not the first time a fighter was made based on a trainer (F-5 from T-38 and the A-29/EMB-314 Super Tucano from EMB-312)