After the shenanigans Boeing pulled with Bombardier and the C Series they can go pound sand

@@dmacpheraren’t you glad Airbus got them tho?

@@superskullmaster it was the best possible outcome given the situation created, but it kinda puts airbus in a weird spot with the NEO and 220-500.

@@dmacpher sounds like winning company problems. It’s like complaining about having more items on the menu that people actually want.

@@superskullmaster yeah fair point.

LCAs are obsolete. If they need that role they'll send a drone.

But yes. This thing can realistically fly around at a T:W of >2 with about 1000 lb of fuel. It's going to be on par with the Streak Eagle for initial acceleration

​@@appa609normally I agree but I think if it could be sold to poor countries that aren't going to be able to buy Reaper drones or equivalents of that size that can carry munitions. Then again I don't even know if this thing can carry munitions it's one of those projects that I thought was canned a while ago...

Without a radar it's borderline useless in peer air-to-air combat but I'm very curious if they could fit some sort of radar to it. And make it a proper light combat aircraft. A la T-50

​@@mastathrash5609I don't think they'd consider it for a combat role without a radar 😉

A true hero and thank you for sharing!

SAAB can't get enough orders to build fighters cost effectively. The F-35 abominations have mass and the US Taxpayers Debt keeping prices down.

Based on previous experience with bolts, they designed this one to not use any hardware - everything is snap together.

@@ronjon7942 And model glue.

Doesn't matter, the bolts are all from Boeing Red China, made out of cheap grainy steel and false marked. "Hey, if it looks OK, ship it!" "Where they come down, ain't my department!"

There's more to a supersonic airplane than only thrust:weight ratio. The 1.05 Mach is likely only to account for the possibility of inadvertent supersonic flight. Mach 1 is probably prohibited.

When you hit the sound barrier, the air starts behaving differently. Unless the engine is built with supersonic flight in mind, the plane will only be able to maintain supersonic speeds in a dive.

Still, just creeping out of transonic still seems a bit low; like artificially low to manage the speed spec for some marketing or military policy thing.

@@ronjon7942 It's a training aircraft. That's the military spec. Training. Trainers aren't intended to push the limits, but keep low time pilots well within a safety margin.

TA-50 was a joint US-Korea project.

Had the same feeling, commented basically the same

Thanks Scott!

Thanks for commenting, as far as I know this is the first true transatlantic joint venture.

@@PilotPhotog Thanks! And you are most welcome. You've got a great channel going. Always a pleasure to get your view on things.

@@Pincer88 thank you! Working on the next video already

I haven’t but u will check it out, thanks!

Ha HA! Excellent.

I don't see manned combat aircraft going away anytime soon either. Reduced amount? Sure, but sometimes the old mk.1 eyeball on scene just beats a drone operator sitting in a room thousands of miles away.

Early missiles were crap, modern missiles are scary and are only going to get more capable. AI is still in its infancy.

@Pouncer9000 There were still dogfights in Desert Storm and in the Falklands War when missiles were vastly improved. If the airspace becomes mixed with friendly and hostile aircraft. Desert Storm was able to identify most Iraqi aircraft because the coalition was able to attack with surprise and catch the Iraqi Airforce climbing away from their airbases.

Why would Boeing want to build that piece of China junk?

Cost cutting😂😂😂 DEI is their problem.

Saab project 1858 ("XXXX") and 518.

Huh, you're absolutely right!

F-20 looks way better than this. I bet it would be great combat trainer if it entered service, pilots would love to fly maneuverable Mach 2 capable combat trainer that has gun, radar & could carry actual armaments.

@@jayjay53313 1950's fighter with a 1980s engine. Silly in the "real world." It's time has passed.

It already did; it let go of a bunch of QC people. That way there are fewer opportunities for deficiencies to be written up.

Gripen is way too much Swedish for the US to consider buying. The T-7 is basically a Saab Project 1858 from 1976. But modernized quickly by using Saab's development software that they used to upgrade Gripen to E/F version. By slapping the Boeing name on it, the US could pretend it was American enough to buy it.

@@Merecir, if the T-7 is simply an updated 1858 then the argument that a Gripen-based trainer is too Swedish for the USAF falls apart. The USAF's T-6 turboprop trainer is a Swiss designed aircraft and the US Navy's jet trainer is a British designed aircraft, what makes you think that the USAF would be opposed to using a Swedish designed jet trainer aircraft?

What does 'Gripen-based' even mean?

@@toddbrackett4277 It is about where it is manufactured. Gripen is made all over the place, mostly in Sweden but Brazil is also involved now. While The T-7 will be built in the US by Boeing and Saab, as Saab is building a factory in the US for it as well. The T-6 is "based on" the Pilatus PC-9 but built in the US by Textron. The T-45 is "based on" BAE Systems Hawk, but built in the US by McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing). See a pattern?

@@ronjon7942, a Gripen-based trainer would use the same airframe adapted for the trainer role. Historical examples would include the F-80 which became the T-33 and the T-38 which became the F-5.

Yeah no shot they do, Boeing will get a major 4th generation related deal guaranteed to keep the MIC competitive

​@@kinggooseman5373Boeing hasn't been a real competitor since 1991.

Maybe boing will bounce.

Well said and thanks for commenting

Yes. And...?

@@ronjon7942 The video seems to depict this trainer program as the last hope for Being to score a contract with US AF/Navy after the end of the production run of the F-18. The video seems to forget about the f15-EX and also not mentioning other great Boeing endeavors such as the loyal wingman project developed in collaboration with Australia or the upcoming tanker drone for the US Navy.

It's a snap together:)

McD takes over Boeing,gets it in same situation.Where is the irony?

@@naamadossantossilva4736 The MDC St. Louis military programs are still successful while MDC is still being blamed for ruining Boing 25+ years later. You can't have it both ways.

MD was the absolute leader in USAF fighter design before the merger. They were beating LM and NG. Boeing has failed to launch a compelling new combat aircraft and is still coasting off MD products from the 90's. Airliners do not foster a culture of innovation. They foster a culture of bean counting and regulation dodging.

@@appa609 Yes that is correct up to the T-7. Boeing was the problem in fighters and MD the problem for commercial or so the narrative goes.

This fighter will also be offered for foreign military sales, very soon.

F-35A

@@appa609 I doubt it he Thunderbirds will ever use the F-35 because of how loud it is. It's a lot louder than normal fighters.

F-15EX! My guess is the Tbirds would upgrade to Vipers before they'd use the T7. Unless biden makes gas go up to $8/gal.

Like all the lies from the movies

It is also Saab, so one can hope that Boeing can learn some lessons from this program...

For that matter, there are Swedish components in the F-35. I agree; no big deal.

They're far from death, but yeah, MDC management really, really f#$ked up Boeing's culture of engineering excellence, among other things.

@@ronjon7942 I am not so sure... will they ever go belly up... no the government will always prop Boeing up through a restructuring, they are just too important. But can they survive if their current form, I about so sure about that. When I saw that they had approved the MCAS system to be tied to one mode of failure, and that the Engineering Ethics of the entire Chief Engineering office had allowed that through design reviews using "Delegated Authority", I could not believe how far this company had to have fallen to be that reckless with peoples lives. Every Engineer involved that even looked at this and did not shout from the mountaintops and refuse to allow it needs to be fired, have all licenses revoked, and criminally prosecuted in my mind. I held Delegated Authority at a Major Aerospace company and I would have NEVER dreamed to signing my name to something like that. And now to see that they have been seeing quality escapes galore from sub contractors like Spirit Aerospace and not paying the due diligence to make sure that is fixed is disturbing. The FAA needs to put the screws to Boeing and strip all Delegated Authority from them. That would be a major financial and schedule hit and could even force the company in bankruptcy, as it would force everything to be reviewed by the FAA. I hate to think of how damaging that would be but Boeing has proven that they are no longer an Ethical Engineering organization and they can not be trusted. As a further note Sprite needs to be unde3r direct FAA oversight and a new management and quality team installed, and sounds like a lot of management and quality inspectors need to see a prison cell for a few decades.

Nope. And I'll be dead well before there are routine deployments of squadrons of drones. I'm 53.

And?

Fair point and will do, thanks for the feedback!

Who doesn't say U S A F? I sometimes say 'Air Force,' but not exclusively by any means. Spelling the initials out has been an acceptable alternative for as lomg as I can remember...almost 50 years.

Probably the same reason everyone doesn't use the F-35C, it's got features and attributes that the Air Force doesn't need or want. Also the T-45 is on the way out in the near future. It may be that the Navy adopts the T-7B as stated in the video.

The T-45C is the only version the USN uses. Aside from a few at Navy Test Pilot School and Strike Test, the T-45 is not flown anywhere else in the DoD.The T-50 in my opinion seems to be a better aircraft save for cost and has combat time in the Philippines, plus Navy pilots who flew against it were impressed. The T-50A could do IFR and was weapons ready, the T-7A currently is not. Many are saying the T-50 may end up in Service anyway.

​@@calvinlee1813T-45C is the Navy/USMC advanced trainer. Far more than only a few in a test squadron.

C'mon, no one with half a brain thought a trainer aircraft comtract was the make or break of the company. Geez, man, really?