>challenges >delays
How can you fail with a fricking trainer?
Also I don't get why even have a dedicated jet trainer these days instead of using two seat versions of fighter planes. With fly by wire, fighters are not difficult to fly. T-7 is going to be about the same as any other modern fighter. Why have a dedicated trainer air frame instead of just more F-16D for commonality win?
...Unless T-7 is the new F-16. But then T-7 nose is too small for a good radar. T-7 is Boeing-Saab but they should FULLY unite with Sweden to build like billion Gripens for training and light fighter then send them all to Ukraine, then build another billion and send them to Taiwan. Make it the fighter of the free world. (F-16 is nice but the low intake makes it need an impeccably clean runway so Gripen it is)
>>Also I don't get why even have a dedicated jet trainer these days instead of using two seat versions of fighter planes
Because we don't want to pay $60M+ each for a trainer?
T-7A is around $21M each.
removing the combat systems from the F-16 doesn't magically make it significantly cheaper to produce, and trying to make a new cheaper F-16 using the same or similar manufacturing lines likey would take 5-8 years and cost your a billion dollars, and you'd still end up with a $40-50M F-16 derivative.
the gripen intakes are about the same height off the ground as the f16 intake. f16 is just overwhelmingly marketed to countries that can afford massive airfields. lockheed doesnt really talk about it being able to take off from highways as much as the swedes because they make more money selling the support equipment with it.
>>Also I don't get why even have a dedicated jet trainer these days instead of using two seat versions of fighter planes
Because we don't want to pay $60M+ each for a trainer?
T-7A is around $21M each.
removing the combat systems from the F-16 doesn't magically make it significantly cheaper to produce, and trying to make a new cheaper F-16 using the same or similar manufacturing lines likey would take 5-8 years and cost your a billion dollars, and you'd still end up with a $40-50M F-16 derivative.
They would need to remove the useless radar and missile hardware than add some guns to make it a real cost effective plane.
Related
I bet you have a Star Wars reference for everything, don't you homosexual?
I shot my photon torpedoes into your womprat mom' exhaust port, b***h ass homie
Go back
The plane is named after a George Lucas movie though
we should use them for combat
They're thinking about it
>challenges
>delays
How can you fail with a fricking trainer?
Also I don't get why even have a dedicated jet trainer these days instead of using two seat versions of fighter planes. With fly by wire, fighters are not difficult to fly. T-7 is going to be about the same as any other modern fighter. Why have a dedicated trainer air frame instead of just more F-16D for commonality win?
...Unless T-7 is the new F-16. But then T-7 nose is too small for a good radar. T-7 is Boeing-Saab but they should FULLY unite with Sweden to build like billion Gripens for training and light fighter then send them all to Ukraine, then build another billion and send them to Taiwan. Make it the fighter of the free world. (F-16 is nice but the low intake makes it need an impeccably clean runway so Gripen it is)
>>Also I don't get why even have a dedicated jet trainer these days instead of using two seat versions of fighter planes
Because we don't want to pay $60M+ each for a trainer?
T-7A is around $21M each.
removing the combat systems from the F-16 doesn't magically make it significantly cheaper to produce, and trying to make a new cheaper F-16 using the same or similar manufacturing lines likey would take 5-8 years and cost your a billion dollars, and you'd still end up with a $40-50M F-16 derivative.
the gripen intakes are about the same height off the ground as the f16 intake. f16 is just overwhelmingly marketed to countries that can afford massive airfields. lockheed doesnt really talk about it being able to take off from highways as much as the swedes because they make more money selling the support equipment with it.
why can't they add a drop down grille and filtered side intakes like a MiG and let F-16s fly off any reasonably straight flat surface
HATO jets aren't made for real combat, they will be lucky to get off the ground.
They would need to remove the useless radar and missile hardware than add some guns to make it a real cost effective plane.
get the frick back in your grave Boyd you son of a b***h
A new design would be needed. Besides removing the worthless electronics it needs a second engine; like this:
>jet engines
useless overcomplicated crap, we should have stuck with props.
All real air combat happens a subsonic speeds, you might be right for close range interceptors.
>not using flying stealth Himars
its not kino enough
SEXXXXXOOOOOOOOOO with frogfoot
Y-ou too.
is it using F-16 landing gear?
tandem wienerpits ruin the look of smol planes
If they ever make a fighter variant it might be a single seater. But it's a jet trainer, it basically needs to be a 2 seater to do its job.
it looks like a F/A-18 made for twinks
Perfect for me
Pretty much every jet trainer looks good.
T-38 is cooler in every way.
I agree. T-38s are some good looking planes but these little guys are a very worthy successor. Now if only they’d make a single-seater combat variant…
>Boeing
Yikes
Me too. Like a baby fighter jet.