>https://breakingdefense.com/2026/06/t7-red-hawk-air-force-trainer-secret-struggles-investigation/Among this investigation’s findings:>The first 82 T-7 aircraft are projected to fly with a “serious” airworthiness risk. >Sources familiar with the program are concerned that attempts to get the T-7 to the fleet faster could increase risk for junior pilots.>The Air Force has assessed sustainment of the aircraft as “high risk.”>Internal Air Force documents say Boeing’s failure to provide certain data on the aircraft amounts to “non-compliance” on the part of the company. >The plane currently cannot fly in the rain, and the program has struggled with a ground-based simulator.>Air Force and Boeing officials are mulling a plan to change how the government buys the aircraft’s engines, at an “additional” taxpayer cost of up to $1.5 billion, which could come in exchange for technical data Boeing would provide on the company’s 747-8i jumbo jet. >>Other challenges have been more mundane. For example, the aircraft currently cannot fly in the rain because exterior access panels don’t seal properly, potentially allowing water to seep in and damage the aircraft’s subsystems. The underlying problem forced the Air Force to tape up the aircraft during climate testing, the two sources told Breaking Defense. >“I was dumbfounded,” the government source said. “I thought, ‘What the hell are we doing here?’”How did Boeing go from producing the F-18 to not being able to make a trainer?
>>65266987>BoeingFound the problem.
>>65267051>>Boeing>Found the problem.T-7 is a Saab design sold under the Boeing brand. The rear half of the plane is initially made in Sweden and sent to America for attachment to the front half. The later production models will be completely made in America. Saab brags about the T-7 being designed in very short time due to digital development tools.
>>65267068>T-7 is a Saab design sold under the Boeing brand.WRONG. SAAB only contributed digitally to the tails design. Stop spouting shit you don't know anything about. This is a wholly Boeing made disaster.
>>65267068The government source described a key issue as Boeing “not knowing what they built” due to insufficient information on the vast web of suppliers and thousands of parts that make up the supply chain.
>>65266987We should've bought Türkiye Hurjet
>>65266987>BoeingWhy am I not surprised?
>>65267068>very short time due to digital development tools.that doesn't sound very good...
>>65267068Surely it's on SAAB who builds jets that can operate in austere arctic climates and operate off of snow covered public roads...
>>65266987>Boeing go from producing the F-18Boeing bought into the hornet, they did not develop it. This is why the Navy bailed on the T-7, that and bad experience with the other joint USAF trainer the T-6, which at least the Navy is trying to retire early (not sure about USAF) due to absolute shit sustainably/ longevity compared to the T-34c
>>65267140>WRONG. SAAB only contributed digitally to the tails design. Stop spouting shit you don't know anything about. This is a wholly Boeing made disaster.Thats not what SAAB says. They claim they designed and built the entire thing in 36 months. And the "tails design" is the entire rear half of the aircraft which is initially made in Sweden and then shipped to Amerikwah where it is mated to a shoddily made front half. You are some mutt who refuses to accept that Boeing is a finance and marketing company that also have a legacy aircraft manufacturing division which they want to get rid of. >>65267170>The government source described a key issue as Boeing “not knowing what they built” due to insufficient information on the vast web of suppliers and thousands of parts that make up the supply chain.A typical outsourcing problem. T-7 is a Saab OEM design with the Boeing logo on it. Ofc they have no clue.
>>65268079>And the "tails design" is the entire rear half of the aircraft which is initially made in Sweden and then shipped to Amerikwahwrong
>>65267638Yes, it is probably on SAAB, the small company that makes a 4th gen jet that thirdies have consistently avoided in favor of more expensive alternatives, and which did in fact design the T-7.
>>65268079>Thats not what SAAB says. They claim they designed and built the entire thing in 36 months.Saab is famously known for telling the truth about their aircraft. This is why the Gripen E/F has won so many contracts.
>>65268365Don't fall for his lies, SAAB never claimed that.
>>65267181The huurjet is a fa-5a knockoff.
>>65266987What did you expect from an american company?
>>65268358>thirdies have consistently avoidedYou mean the US put export vetoes to, right?
>in nato >no airforce>have functioning jet trainernothing personal, america
>>65266987>post 2016 america>BoeingYou already have all the info needed to reach a conclusion.
>>65266987Should have bought Eye-Talian
>>65270176It's ackshually the McD-Dougass execs who poisoned Boeing. Boeing was run by engineers while MD was by MBAs. When Boeing bought MD, somehow MD execs became dominant and ruined the company.
>>65270220All those execs are already in the grave or in the wealthy retirement home. What ruined Boeing is the american culture of putting short term profit above everything else.
>>65267068Okay so Boeing found a way to fuck it up, got it. It's American tradition to catastrophically screw up a perfectly good European weapon.
>>65270156https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Saab_JAS_39_Gripen_potential_operators_and_failed_bidsCan you go through this list for me and let me know which of these the US State dept vetoed? Thanks.
