BAE Systems, Boeing and Saab have signed a teaming agreement to advance their partnership on a next generation pilot training offer for the UK, anchored by the Boeing T-7 system and committing to a new UK-based final assembly and integration facility, the companies stated.
The agreement formalises the partnership established through a letter of intent signed in November 2025, since when the three companies have started work to identify the location of a UK final assembly facility and to establish a British supply chain built on their existing industrial foundations. The partners say they are ready to offer a solution that would create hundreds of high-value jobs, positioning a UK supply chain to take a role throughout the lifecycle of an RAF T-7 programme and ensuring the UK has sovereign control over its own training requirements as it meets its next generation combat air needs.
“By bringing together this international team of leading defence companies, we are in an excellent position to support the UK’s future training requirements. Our offer represents a modern, integrated training solution which aligns with the ambition of the Defence Investment Plan, while strengthening the UK’s sovereign industrial capability,” said Charles Woodburn, Chief Executive Officer of BAE Systems, as quoted in the press release.
Steve Parker, President and Chief Executive Officer of Boeing Defense, Space and Security, called the collaboration “an important step in advancing the United Kingdom’s future fast-jet training capability,” adding: “With the T-7 as its foundation, our modern training system can help deliver sovereign pilot training solutions while supporting high-value jobs and industrial capability across the UK.” Micael Johansson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Saab, said the company was delighted to continue its co-operation with BAE Systems, with the three-way collaboration promising “to strengthen the T-7’s position for the UK as the future-proof solution for the RAF.”
The T-7 is undergoing flight testing with the US Air Force, and an initial production decision, known as Milestone C, was achieved in late April, which the release says signals the service’s confidence in the aircraft’s design and readiness. The training system combines flying with advanced simulation to enable training for the RAF’s Typhoon and F-35 frontline jets, with an adaptable design intended to let the platform and simulators evolve alongside future aircraft and mission requirements, supporting the RAF as it prepares for future combat air capability including sixth-generation platforms.
Doubles up as an excellent lightweight fighter when required
Uk would never do something that practical. We spend billions on gold plating every platform even if we only get one of them
Isn’t this already gold plated by the Americans, which is why it has had so many bumps in the road to shake off. If they solve all the problems then one hopes this might be the best option in the long run mind.
We had armed hawks in Cold War as second line of defence. Makes perfect which is why our goverment and raf will never do it.
They don’t understand “good enough” and that numbers not just quality matters
The T7 doesn’t it’s training only the T7-A can carry weapons . It’s the T7 cheap version with no weapons being talked about no surprises.
We will need the armed version for weapons training
No, why would you think that? The Hawk T2 is unarmed.
Yes, not had any TWUs in decades.
Uh no. There are even M346 version with radar. None for T7.
Price and effectiveness should be the only consideration for this platform and not UK production. Having Boeing and Saab and BAE sound like a recipe for expense.
Yeah I’m sure taking Bae out of the mix leaves Boeing as the perfect expense free asset. So far there has been little to no sign of that, just another troubled Boeing effort that’s riling Congress big time. As I say though if they can sort that out by the time we need it then great, but for me production here is an absolute must, don’t want to rely on the US for yet another lever of direct manipulation and will at least preserve some of the skills of producing training aircraft that we are allowing otherwise to slip away. Might need that in the future.
Yeah, best not support UK industry. Idiot.
Paying extra for local assembly of a foreign product ain’t supporting British industry. This is supporting more piggy’s in the trough.
It can be either it’s a choice not a necessity. France made Renault one of the biggest and most respected car companies in the World by doing it right, we made BL a joke and finally a dead duck by doing it wrong. In other words nuance is everything, Britain struggles to comprehend that.
You are wrong on this issue Jim. Yes, value for money is desirable, but in the case of defence expenditure, its contribution to the development of the economy is outstanding and, where at all technically feasible, keeping it domestic should take precedence.
Disagree. If there is industrial co- operation and assembly in the uk – then more of the money is cycled back through the UK economy and 1) is actually better for the UK exchequer and 2) high end engineering employee skills and industrial capacity in the Uk are also increased. Especially in terms of spares, maintenance and support over the life span of the system.
Getting a cheaper “off the shelf” version direct from the US just spaffs all the money into the US economy, and losing it from ours.
$23m each according to FY27 budget request.
Is that comparable to anything else like the Italian trainer?
Insanity! So that is all the UK is? an assembler for an US project which is riddled with air safety problems. Fitted with competitive products to British companies (which have proved unsafe), Major quality issues, Air Safety data shortcomings, Process issues, doesn’t work in the rain.
Is anyone seriously suggesting we take on another disastrous Boeing development? Boeing pulled this out of the US Navy program because they know it is unsafe. Look at KC46, Wedgetail, 737, 777x there is no Boeing project on time, on cost, on spec . This wiould end up being another budget busting disaster. Like the verified to 42T and low risk Ajax from GD, Like WCSP LM, like Merlin LM etc NOTE all American companies. T50 would be a better option IF UK work package can be sorted.
On this UK design nothing just bolt together an American engine to US Airframe with US systems and Avionics? The Aircraft doesn’t work and there is no sign of the safety issues being sorted in the near future. Apart from the fact we would be entirely reliant on a very flakey partner with a product where every single component is ITAR’d and none of is UK supply. BIN IT
Utter bollocks. Full of lies and misrepresentation.
My understanding is the Wedgetail problems are mostly on our side.
Agree that basically every other Boeing programme is an absolute cluster though (especially KC46)
Academic really, the Leonardo M-346 is very much the favourite to win this one. Leonardo has a huge UK defence manufacturing presence and Yeovil is ideal for final assembly before the airframe is trucked to RNAS Yeovilton or MOD Boscombe Down for final check out and first flight.
Yeovil is ideal ???? Jeesh.
I suspect you are suffering “Helicopter-Only Blindness”—the common assumption that because Yeovil has built rotary-wing aircraft for decades, it is physically or industrially incapable of touching a fast jet. Yes it is capable both industrially and politically. It is an open secret amongst the defence press and commentators that Yeovil would be the prefered build location. It has the space to absorb M-346 Final Assembly, is adjacent to the iAero Center innovation centre that has office and workshop space. Yeovil is also a key logistics hub for Leonardo in the UK with a huge warehouse facility. It has a suitable workforce as well that can be retrained on M-346 Assembly. Politically it is attractive as it would stabilise the work going through Yeovil that is currently reliant on Wildcat that is a type on borrowed time and AW149 which is shifting final assembly to that facility. Once Wildcat assembly has gone only building AW149 there adds the risk of boom and bust always a problem for the Yeovil facility, adding M-346 eases that issue. The main barrier is lack of a suitable runway but that isn’t particularly a big deal. The M-346 is modular and they can simply truck assembled airframes to a hanger at RNAS Yeovilton which has plenty of space for a flight test and check out hanger or to MOD Boscombe Down. BAE Systems literally trucks Hawk and Typhoon sub-assemblies across the UK, and F-35 centre fuselages are driven all over the globe before final mate. Trucking a modular, wingless M-346 airframe down the road approximately 5 miles to RNAS Yeovilton or 55 miles to MOD Boscombe Down is an incredibly minor logistical task. I actually see them flying them out from Yeovilton to Boscombe Down anyway for flight testing before delivery. The M-346 is already the prefered type within the RAF and used to train RAF pilots in Sardinia, politically with the huge Leonardo footprint in the UK the type is “British enough” to satisfy political concerns about its origin and there are direct synergies with the GCAP/Tempest programme.
The 345 is painfully slow – not much faster than the prop trainers
The 345 is painfully slow – not much faster than the prop trainers
What? he talks about M346 you misguide with M345? 1090kph not much faster then prop trainers?
Never mentioned the M-345, I was talking about the newer M-346 that is faster than a Hawk T2.
my bad, yes, the YAK is quicker, but F-35 has already killed one
It’s going to be really interesting to see where this goes with the RAF.
My personal preference would have been a direct purchase of the Aermacchi M-345, which is in service already and so low risk of cost overruns, and could probably be manufactured in the UK if that’s what the government of the day wants and quickly given the trajectory of the Hawk at the moment.
A single engine aircraft is the best way forward for a training aircraft with reduced maintenance costs.
Like the T-7 then 🙄
Not the M345,should be the M 346 which is the modern one.
T7 is probably the best long term option. But delivered and in service for 2030? That’s a very very tight deadline. I could see the Reds soldiering on with the Hawk T1 for a couple of years after 2030. Hopefully I’m wrong
👍👍👍
To be honest for the trainer I would go for a mature design.. the T-7 is still going through its teething problems.
If i was a betting man. I’d put my money on the M346 getting the gig.
It would be a bit ironic the RAF using what was essentially an aircraft that started life as a soviet programme.
It would. Maybe the T7 is the best option…😄
T7? Let’s not make things harder than they need to be. The UK govt look to have put a lot of effort into the Leonardo relationship which we would be foolish to betray. M346 ticks all the boxes; functional, domestic political and economic. M346 is selling well; lots of good quality jobs would be created in Yeovil. It would generate UK exports and demonstrate our strategic commitment to Europe. If I were Burnham and Streeting I would accelerate this project rather than push it into the future.