While the Pentagon has been hard at work saving money by cutting weight loss drugs from the plans of many military retirees and family members, the USAF and Navy have been running parallel development programs for a new fighter training aircraft, with Navy using the justification that it needed a trainer capable of 'field carrier landings'.
But, ooops, it just removed that requirement, so it makes sense that Navy would now just buy into the USAF program, and get the trainer it needs faster, and cheaper, right? Yeah, no...
Here’s the current status on the USAF’s T‑X trainer (now T‑7A Red Hawk):
1. T-X → T-7A Red Hawk outcome
The Boeing–Saab entry won the USAF T‑X competition in September 2018 and was designated the T‑7A Red Hawk in September 2019
2. Testing milestones:
- June 30, 2023: first flight by a USAF pilot
- September 14, 2023: the first T‑7A arrived for flight tests at Edwards AFB
- May 22, 2025: a non‑test pilot (Lt. Gen. Robinson) flew the T‑7A at Edwards AFB—demonstrating ongoing progress
- June 17, 2025: second round of extreme environmental testing at McKinley Climatic Lab completed
3. Program delays and procurement changes
January 2025: USAF announced major changes, including ordering four additional pre‑production units to aid testing. Initial operational capability (IOC), previously expected in 2024, is delayed to 2028. First production orders now expected in 2026
Boeing’s D&SP division reported another $500 million loss tied to these delays. Total program cost pressures are reportedly acute
Summary USAF Red Hawk
- Phase: still in testing and environmental evaluation.
- IOC: now projected in 2028.
- Production start: expected 2026.
- Program stress: the usual cost overruns and delays
GO NAVY
The Navy T-X program is still back at the RFI stage with several manufacturers invited to bid, including Boeing. The Navy’s Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS) now permits candidates only to wave off during Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP)—no full carrier landings required. The requirement for an arrestor hook, reinforced landing gear and other carrier modifications has been removed, relying instead on ground-based simulation and automation.
Does it make sense to run parallel programs?
Removing carrier landing requirements narrows the gap between the USAF’s T-7A Red Hawk and the Navy’s UJTS needs. Both now want a land-based advanced trainer with strong simulation integration rather than a physically ruggedized, carrier-ready jet. That means the Navy could field a lightly modified T-7 variant cheaper and sooner, rather than pay for an all-new design.
Maintaining two parallel programs mainly reflects contracting and service-specific acquisition culture, not technical necessity. From an engineering and logistics standpoint, convergence on the T-7 platform would lower costs, simplify training pipelines, and streamline sustainment. Running separate programs only makes sense if the Navy insists on industrial competition or unique cockpit/avionics layouts.
Conclusion: With carrier landing requirements removed, alignment is feasible and arguably preferable; divergence now produces duplication without clear technical justification.
Where's DOGE when you need it?
Pictured: Boeing Red Hawk
(In the upcoming novel Africa STORM, the US Prez creates a Dept of Defense Research, to reduce overlap and waste. But hey, that's fiction. https://www.amazon.com/stores/FX-Holden/author/B07J47L7KB )
#USAF #USNavy #T7A #RedHawk #UJTS #MilitaryAviation #PilotTraining #DefenseAcquisition #Boeing #Saab #NavalAviation #SimulatedTraining #DefenseSpending #Aerospace