T-7A Red Hawk - trainer for the future

[@ddanielsandberg]

This is what happens when you leave an F/A-18 and a Gripen unsupervised.

[@toka100]

Does have a “baby 18” look to it. Especially the wing design.

[@casuallatecomer7597]

@@toka100 yeah, I thought this too.

[@tarmaque]

Pitty it doesn't favor Mama Gripen more.

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

@@tarmaque exactly. Two seats and two jugs

[@kingwein89]

@@tarmaque F18 > Gripen

[@toka100]

Glad to see Saab actually still has a good relationship with a US company . Despite what GM did to the automotive branch. Lol.

[@maryrafuse3851]

See how long this lasts, I expect a US takeover of this aircraft and technology at some point.

[@dcanmore]

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.

[@matsv201]

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.

[@rElliot09]

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.

[@BosworthMcG]

What does “behind the boat” mean? Is that inflight refueling?

[@rElliot09]

@@BosworthMcG landing on the carrier, behind the boat.

[@BosworthMcG]

@@rElliot09 ahh I see . Thank you.

[@casuallatecomer7597]

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?

[@rElliot09]

@@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!

[@jimcabezola3051]

Superb video. Great to see another excellent segment from you!

[@jonathanryan5860]

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.

[@KRW628]

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

[@christoffermonikander2200]

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.

[@spartainwarrior6445]

I wonder if France will still make a 5th gen fighter or buy the F-35 my bet is they make domestically

[@spartainwarrior6445]

@@erichvonmanstein6876 who the fuck said it would, they said they would need it to train the pilots FOR the multirole fighters

[@erichvonmanstein6876]

@@spartainwarrior6445 there little man i took it down you can stop crying now

[@spartainwarrior6445]

@@erichvonmanstein6876 you assume what people want too much, goodbye

[@0w784g]

Yeah, I don't think so. This aircraft is gonna be operating in US service only.

[@Manny32V]

Finally a new mig 28 😂😂😂

[@raulxavier1271]

Yes and no.... Mig 28 is an EXACT copy of F5E 😂

[@SkyshipsEng]

Yes) For the Top Gun 3)

[@flexairz]

@@SkyshipsEng We will call that movie: Top Gun "Goose"

[@montecorbit8280]

@@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

[@TheWizardGamez]

@@raulxavier1271 you don’t think we know that?

[@heathb4319]

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]

Skunk Works runs off of black magic as far as engineering goes.

[@heathb4319]

@@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.

[@Manniefield]

This thing is badass!

[@survivalguyfyi5718]

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.

[@FFE-js2zp]

The T-38 fleet cost $750,000 each.

[@SuperCatacata]

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.

[@FFE-js2zp]

@@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

[@survivalguyfyi5718]

@@SuperCatacata Good point. I have to agree.

[@valenrn8657]

@@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

[@MardukTheSunGodInsideMe]

Love seeing the tribute to the red tails.

[@shwngbr]

This is more advanced than many militaries front line fighters.

[@MrGtubedude]

My grandad was a Tuskegee airman

[@erichvonmanstein6876]

Awesome

[@stardude2006]

😎💜

[@skylem5373]

Excellent video as always!! good work

[@kindnuguz]

5:17 Saab designed the JAS 39 Gripen which is more than worthy of noting here.

[@ABCantonese]

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.

[@BobSaint]

You forgot the politics, not everyone will be allowed to choose.

[@ABCantonese]

@@BobSaint The F-7 is American. If there's an option that comes off the table first, it's the F-7.

[@michaelh.9686]

Listen man we’ll take anything over our baby J-85s that together only produce 3300 lbs of thrust

[@sh7de553]

Uncle Sam will fix all that with some foreign aid

[@henricusrealms8411]

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.

[@efromhb]

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.

[@Shock356]

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.

[@mikekoop1171]

@@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.

[@paulsteaven]

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.

[@jessicacolegrove4152]

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.

[@valenrn8657]

T-7A's F404 engine is similar to USAF F-117A's F404 but without afterbunners.

[@innocentpasserby9632]

@@valenrn8657 wait, I don't quite get it. is it the T7A or F117A that doesn't have an afterburner?

[@valenrn8657]

@@innocentpasserby9632 F-117A's GE F404 engines don't have afterburners.

[@brothergrimaldus3836]

Gripen also uses F-404.

[@johnkochen7264]

Good thing SAAB are involved. At least you will know that what they build will hold together in the air.

[@CyberSystemOverload]

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.

[@Colaholiker]

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. 😂

[@willberry6434]

Beautiful plane. Can’t wait to see it rolled out in numbers. Canada should buy these

[@林振华-t4v]

Might be good idea to develop of mutirole config to replace those flying antique CF18. Lol

[@willberry6434]

@@林振华-t4v f-35 is replacing it…

[@林振华-t4v]

@@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.

[@jhill4071]

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.

[@valenrn8657]

F-35A Block 3F has both F/A-18 (high AoA) and F-16 handling, hence T-7 resembles a smaller Hornet.

[@FFE-js2zp]

It resembles the Hornet because it’s a Boeing jet. They actually thought the USAF liked the Hornet. So dumb.

[@valenrn8657]

@@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_

[@valenrn8657]

@@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.

[@FFE-js2zp]

@@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.

[@valenrn8657]

@@FFE-js2zp A single vertical tail is useless during high AoA.

[@frankgaleon5124]

The Scorpion is a very strange plane, really. Half A-10 - half F-14

[@johnasbury3261]

Honestly the best video on the Red Hulk I've seen good job

[@einundsiebenziger5488]

Red Hawk*

[@wheelsofafrica]

Brilliant! Thank you for an excellent presentation.

[@bret9741]

This is a very very simple trainer in a modern design digital world. It really is wha the Air Force needed. Forgive me for blathering but Im getting old. I’m proud of the Aircraft of my fathers and my generation. Between the two of us, we have watched every US aircraft to make it into the sky. To me the older generation aircraft were beautiful. Maybe slide rules and hand drawing made the design more personal Then the T-38, F-4, F-15, F-100 f-15 were just beautiful aircraft. If I had been am able to influence the design, I would have changed a few things. (1) a canopy like the T-38 that could be Left open until takeoff. It gets very very hot in a flight suite while on the ground during the warm months, 115-20 degrees is common in Florida, Texas etc. (A operating APU can help this as bleed air off a single idled engine isn’t enough to cool a cockpit. Plus…. The split front lift canopy just looks sooo amazing when taxiing. The thunderbirds utilize the synchronized opening and closing on the F-4 and T-38 to wow the audience. Lol I’m so vain. (2). I’d would have used two smaller engines. Yep, a little more expensive but it saves lives and aircraft. Look at the F-16, vs F-15 engine failure loss rates. (3) I would have made the aircraft a little nicer looking, more balanced.to me the cockpit is too big for the front end of the aircraft. This aircraft looks very good from above/below, from behind and from head on. But it’s a bit off balance from the side. Of course my aircraft would require more maintenance hours, higher initial cost, and it would cost more to operate. But figure on loosing one T-7 to engine failure / bird strike every 250,000 hours and you’ll lose one airframe for every 1000 pilots per year. Since they will have 2 pilots that means the potential death of two crewmen every 6 months if the ejection seats aren’t enough. Overall, it’s a good thing I’m not in charge of the design. This platform will be an massive improvement for the military. The fact is, this aircraft has the potential to save the Air Force millions of dollars and it will be extremely flexible in the ability to to train likes going to bother fighters and bombers.

[@kdrapertrucker]

Rear half of this aircraft is produced by SAAB in West Lafayette, Indiana near the Purdue University Airport.

[@avroarchitect1793]

funny because given the V-stab layout I'd figure Boeing would be handling that part.

[@ghostviggen]

@@avroarchitect1793 Its not that difficult to build V-Stab.

[@bonobonorman9658]

There is much of SAAB Gripen in this TX7, not just the single engine…

[@denniscashell2407]

All we want is a trainer that doesn't purposely kill pilots

[@jinenjuce]

"Mom, can we get an F-14?" "No, we have F-14 at home." F-14 at home: 4:30

[@pooferfish2850]

It looks like a legacy hornet don’t know how it even remotely looks like a f-14

[@billsixx]

Boeing can't even manage to design a trainer without the Smorgasborders showing them how it's done.

[@Petriefied0246]

Two questions: will this end up as a combat aircraft? Also, will this be released as a civilian aircraft?

[@bighands69]

Unlikely to be civilian. Would not that difficult to arm it with weapons to make it combat ready.

[@mr.peter.l.k]

Thank you kindly for listening

[@robbyowen9107]

Thanks for another great one Sky!

[@joshschneider9766]

What a sick acrobatics plane it would be!

[@lorenzodunn3226]

Excellent film footage and sound. Great commentary.

[@aldenroswell8504]

It's cool how worldwide this project was lockheed working with japan, boeing working with saab, Bae and grunmann. All Kinda neat

[@e.sstudios1015]

Great! I've been waiting for your contents!

[@BoxheadHakx]

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.

[@peterzimmerman1114]

Light, graceful and beautiful. Planes just seem to be getting heavier and heavier these days otherwise...

[@fredericrike5974]

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

[@MSPhysicsForFun]

great aviation content sir👍

[@williehayes1729]

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 …

[@drownthedays]

Great, now I wanna buy one.

[@horacehall6531]

It looks like a new F-5 freedom fighter with twin tail fins.

[@Homoprimatesapiens]

Very interesting and informative. Thanx. 👍

[@chrisbynum4940]

I hope I get to see these flying around Lackland AFB in San Antonio soon.

[@petermarsh5762]

Made in Sacheon South Korea.

[@andreww1225]

They should use these on real attack missions when there is already air superiority. Much cheaper to use.

[@xote316]

This plane looks really cool. Does it have the ability to supercruise?

[@floopyc1428]

No, it doesn't

[@rolandrivera3004]

PAF is better to have that kinds of air assets..ASAP..but be sure have prepared good pilots too..

[@ginacalabrese3869]

The nose landing gear on the F-16 actually rotates 90 degrees as it retracts.

[@heavenburnt9055]

I'm an air dummy, and dont know a lot. But that sounds very agile, at low speeds.

[@davidsherman7868]

The Tuskegee airmen, who painted the tails of their aircraft red, flew mostly, if not exclusively, P-51 Mustang. Especially in the European theater. They were not known to fly in the Pacific theater, where P-40 Warhawks were known as the Flying Tigers, which flew out of Tailand.

[@TD402dd]

I like your answer about the Pacific, but when the Tuskegee airmen first went to Europe they only flew the P-40. Later the Army gave them the early generation of P-51 which I like the best. It didn't really matter because the plane they flew was exceptional. The later editions of P-51 had the bubble top not for more speed by for better visibility to see the enemy.

[@tomascastillo4676]

This airplane covers the requirements of many countries with límited defense budgets that don't need super expensive 5 generation jets. Lights, lethal and cheap. With just 2 billion dollars a country could cover it's entire airspace with a very Modern aircraft.

[@Scroapy]

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.

[@TD402dd]

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.

[@donlucchese7280]

Great job!

[@thelovertunisia]

Is this a kind of new Talon?

[@anthonyhunt701]

Sky! Great as always!Thanks for helping us US goofs in mph lol!✈️🛩️I want a kiddy TX!!

[@paddy1952]

Good video as usual, but you might want to research the Tuskeegee Airmen story a bit more thoroughly. You got that part of the story somewhat wrong. You might also wish to take a look at Km to Miles conversion, 1000 miles being 1600 kms. These are small criticisms, but it's either right or it's not.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

It’s literally an F/A-18 mixed with an F-16 and a very slight dash of an F-35. It even has the Airbrakes of the F-16

[@nathanfugate8210]

Excuse me, but you are incorrect. The T-7A IS supersonic, with a top speed of 808mph, or Mach 1.22.

[@tetraxis3011]

Later in the video he says it is supersonic

[@spinynorman887]

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!

[@kevinbarry71]

Welcome back

[@donluasco7115]

Looks like a baby F/A-18

[@kel50pp]

It is supersonic!

[@hyundaii40]

Wing lock???

[@FFE-js2zp]

Single engine is the best way to go for a combat aircraft, it’ll be disastrous as a trainer.

[@GeN56YoS]

How different is it from the Korean T50

[@Chris_at_Home]

$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.

[@GeN56YoS]

@@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

[@GeN56YoS]

Chose*

[@frankgaleon5124]

The T-50 is a half-fighter. It is much heavier and more expensive. The USAF doesn’t need it’s performance

[@einundsiebenziger5488]

@@GeN56YoS You know you can edit your original comment and don't need to add another with a correction, don't you?

[@selindenizcebi9952]

Turkish Aerospace TAI Hurjet is a very advanced one too…

[@FlyZzii]

Is it supersonic or not ?

[@sasquatchhadarock968]

No in-flight meals here, best bring your own food

[@jeffpalmer5502]

Cool! I want one !🍻

[@md.moinulislam9467]

Cool aircraft....

[@Suprahampton]

Wouldn't mind seeing the RAF Red Arrows flying them

[@danielolivier1149]

F-20 Tigershark anyboby?

[@danieltynan5301]

Pretty much

[@nasigorengpecelesteh1506]

Nice for 1 engine jet..

[@loneranger5349]

Talked about every plane except the red hawk.

[@FindersKeepers88]

good

[@mzhenf]

Is this plane available for sale as private jet?

[@mindtraveller100]

Not supersonic? So, why the hell did they put an afterburner to it?

[@paulbade3566]

Nice sales pitch for Boeing's marketing program.

[@maximme]

what FIRE CONTROL RADAR can fit on this plane?

[@ytn00b3]

T-7A is supersonic?

[@abuhurairahkent-horizon3497]

Project Dragon BAll-Quest!3 engines:double and single stabilishment!push stop

[@dunkin254]

Please do F-4 Phantom vidya

[@Ac1DMoDz]

It is super sonic

[@overbank56]

Well, as long as the AF got what it wanted.

[@tm502010]

Cool! 😍

[@lovacable]

How does it compares to Yak-130 or L-15?

[@auro1986]

the f5 of the 21st century

[@petesmith9472]

I HAVE to have one.

[@indigocolossus]

Imagine this as a personal jet.

[@kurtl8425]

Something for Tom Cruise to spend all that Top Gun 2 money on.

[@ttrestle]

It almost looks like a Talon or T2 mixed with a F-18 Hornet.

[@i-love-space390]

FYI - The T-7A is a replacement for the T-38. It IS supersonic. That's a real rookie mistake in your script.