Saab has started assembly production of its section of the T-7A aircraft, the advanced trainer developed and produced together with Boeing for the United States Air Force.

Saab is responsible for the development and production of the aft fuselage section for the advanced trainer, with seven aft units being produced in Linköping, Sweden for final assembly at Boeing’s U.S. facility in St. Louis, Missouri.

“In little over a year since we signed the EMD contract, we are starting production of our part of the T-7A jet. This achievement is possible due to the great collaboration between Saab and Boeing, and it is an honour to be part of this programme for the United States Air Force,” says Jonas Hjelm, head of Saab business area Aeronautics.

The work is being performed in Linkoping, Sweden, after which future production of Saab’s part for the T-7A will be moved to a new US site in West Lafayette, Indiana.

The Saab facility in West Lafayette is an important part of Saab’s growth strategy in the United States, say the firm.

Boeing is the designated prime contractor for the T-7A advanced pilot training system acquisition by the U.S. Air Force. Saab and Boeing developed the aircraft with Saab as a risk-sharing partner.

George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison

20 COMMENTS

        • Yes with a New Generation of Jet Training Aircraft now available the Hawk has fallen down the pecking order quite somewhat.Any future order for the Red Arrows could prove very interesting – who’d be a Politician ?.

          • I think the MoD will eventually just place another order for a batch of Hawk T2s (aka Advanced Jet Trainer), less the fancy avionics not needed by the “Reds” ….. and BAE will call it the Hawk 166.
            I think Hawk users (Australia, as an example) are improving their fleets through upgrades, rather than going for outright replacements.

          • That would be the ideal option Alan but reading previous threads on this site it seems the RAF aren’t that keen on more Hawks.

          • Alan, actually you are half correct regarding what’s happening here in Oz.

            Yes the RAAFs fleet of Hawk 127s have all recently been upgraded, but there is also a project to start looking at their future replacement too. The project (with a budget allowance of A$4b-A$5b), is due to start in the mid 2020s and complete around 2033.

            The RAAFs Hawks will certainly have another good 10 years service life ahead of them.

            As for their eventual replacement, I would reasonably imagine that the T-7A will be right up there as a top contender for the future training system for the RAAFs fast jet fleet of F-35A, Growler and Super Hornet.

            Cheers,

      • Well there’s no British option in the running is there. There’s plenty of Jet trainers to choose from globally if we can’t be bothered to develop our own.

          • The only reason Qatar bought the Hawk and Typhoon for that matter was to reinforce its relationship with the UK at a time when it was at odds with it neighbours.

          • Hi Expat, But geopolitics plays a big part in all major defence deals; for instance in buying F-15, Rafale and Typhoon (an incoherent purchase in fleet logistical terms), tiny Qatar was clearly buying “political insurance” in key western capitals. And with the Hawk, Britain still had a credible advanced trainer to offer as part of a defence package.
            Most of those advanced fighters will probably site idle in a hangar in the desert! At least Qatari pilots will probably get to fly the Hawk!

        • I wouldn’t say we can’t be bothered but its hard to justify the R&D if the improvements are so marginal and Hawk has a proven reputation. If the systems are still state of the art why change the air frame unless there are long term savings from reduced maintenance etc. When export clients run competitions for this stuff price is a huge factor and a newly developed trainer will be much more expensive to recoup the R&D.
          Saying that the Germans developed an amazing looking Jet trainer in the early 2000’s just never went ahead with it it but looks like a baby stealth fighter. https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mako/

          • The problem with the hawk is its also costs a lot to manufacture and maintain. A new design can utilise better manufacturing techniques and be engineered to reduce maintenance. I believe the T7A will cost less than the hawk.

      • I’m going to be really harsh here. The Aeralis does not offer any benefits or advantages over the current advanced Hawk, it is basically a revamped Aplhajet. The Hawk can be armed, the Aeralis in it current guise cannot. It’s all very well simulating gunning, and other weapon uses, but they don’t reflect the true feeling of using the weapons.

        In today’s advanced jet market, there are a plethora of choices from the advanced lead-in trainers like the Redhawk to the basic Hawk. The Auralis uses refined aerodynamics first seen on the Alphajet built in the 70’s. Yes, its modular, but it cannot compete against designs using advanced aerodynamics as used with the M346 or Redhawk. In most major competitions between the Alphajet and the Hawk, the Hawk would run rings around the Alphajet, which is one of the reasons why the Hawk has be so successful as a light fighter. It may not have the high alpha ability as its competitors, but its aerodynamically clean, so in sustained turns it losses very little speed, which makes it a very good dogfighter. These designs being fly by wire can be programmed to mimic the performance of other aircraft.

        Like the Aeralis, the M346 and Redhawk include an embedded tactical training system that emulates radar, targeting pods, weapons, and electronic warfare systems. However, these two aircraft also use this system as its weapon computer, so it can interface with various munitions and other equipment actually being carried on board, such as reconnaissance pods. The M346 can just about break the sound-barrier in a dive just like the Hawk, the Redhawk however, can do Mach 1.2 straight and level, the Aeralis cannot. This is one of the reasons the M346 lost the competition for the Talon replacement.

        All these aircraft, however have issues, especially if you primary fighter is a close coupled canard delta winged aircraft, like a Typhoon. This is because the aircraft’s main method of controlling pitch is in front of your centre of gravity. With these type of configurations you have more pitch authority and when married to an unstable setup, where your centre of gravity and centre of pressure are very close together, generates an aircraft where the pilot is the limitation. However, when landing your actual pitch attitude is much steeper which is inherent with delta winged designs compared to a traditional layout. Therefore, a traditional laid out aircraft with the elevator behind the main wing will handle differently to one one that has a canard. Modern digital flight controls can only mimic this so far. A lead-in fighter must be able to get close to the aerodynamic performance of your primary fighter. In the past we used to use two seat fighter aircraft used as lead-in trainers as the performance difference between say the Hawk and Typhoon was so vast. Today we are predominantly using simulators to fill this option and have mitigated the risk by increased simulator time. But simulators can only do so much, they lack the feel of flying, the need for situational awareness or how the aircraft reacts after using it weapons.

        The Aeralis concept is novel. By changing the main wings from straight to swept you can change the fundamental properties of the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft. The thought being you can use the same aircraft as a basic trainer then change the wings to become a lead-in trainer. The problem here is that if you replace both types of aircraft, you should do a 1 for 1 swap otherwise you will hold up the throughput of trainees.

    • The Boeing/Saab T7A Redhawk is the US’s new lead-in fighter trainer. It has to behave much like the USAF’s front line fighters, so F15, F16, F22 and F35s. These aircraft have a broad range of performances between each type, with the F22 capable of seriously outdoing the others. Therefore, this aircraft has been designed with a number of key factors, so there’s not such a massive jump to their current fighter aircraft compared to other trainer aircraft, especially the T38 Talon that proceeded it.
      Firstly the wing is set reasonably high, this is generate more lift, but also makes it slightly more stable. The wing has next to no dihedral or anhedral that would generate in-built stability. It has massive ailerons for increased roll control. However, they have fitted massive LERX (leading edge extensions) to the wing’s leading edge/airframe joint (almost a copy of the F18’s). These really have two functions, to generate large vortices at high angles of attack. These generate more lift and prevents the wing from stalling. The other thing they do is due to the vortices they generate. At high angles of attack the airframe can effectively blank the fin and rudder, significantly reducing its effectiveness. By placing a pair of fins in the vortex stream coming off the LERX you now have much more control. On the wing’s leading edge they have fitted slats which combined by the trailing edge flaps means the wing generates lift at high angles of attack. Like the Talon, the Redhawk can go supersonic to Mach 1.2. This is another area where having twin fins can be beneficial as you get better stability at supersonic speeds. It also helps with air to air refuelling, where the twin fins help keep you more stable when in the wake of a larger aircraft.
      Like the Talon that proceeded it, it will be a phenomenal dogfighter, shame it’s got a naff engine!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here