The U.S. Air Force in 2018 awarded Boeing a $9.2 billion, fixed-price contract to replace its aging T-38 Talon trainers. According to a new report, the manufacturer’s next-generation T-7 Red Hawk still cannot fly in rain—and that may be the least of its concerns.
The three-part, 7,000-word investigation from digital news site Breaking Defense includes interviews with officials from the Air Force and Boeing—as well as unnamed government sources and people familiar with the T-7 program—who paint conflicting pictures of the aircraft.
Air Force officials insist the Red Hawk will be safe for new pilots by the time it is delivered. Other sources worry the program is sacrificing safety for speed.
Per the investigation, according to the Air Force’s own documents, the first 82 Red Hawks produced through 2032 will come with a “serious” airworthiness risk due to Boeing’s alleged “noncompliance” with the requirements of its contract.
The Air Force is under pressure to replace its hundreds of T-38s, some of which are 60 years old. Boeing too is feeling the heat as it has reportedly footed the bill for $3.2 billion in cost overruns on the fixed-price contract. Per the company, T-7 aircraft have racked up close to 350 flight hours across as many test flights. They have also undergone extreme temperature testing.
Boeing’s contract covers 351 T-7 jets, 46 simulators, and support. The Red Hawk’s name and red-tail livery honor the Tuskegee Airmen’s “Red Tails” nickname. Saab manufactures the model’s aft fuselage and ships it to Boeing’s final assembly line to join with the forward fuselage, wings, fins and tail.
Air Force officials quoted by Breaking Defense were adamant that program managers have balanced the time pressure to replace the T-38 with appropriate risk management. However, their plan to deliver the T-7 on schedule could cost taxpayers an extra $1.5 billion, and it may deliver only marginally improvements to the Talon.
‘Serious’ Risk
Per the report, an August 2025 Air Force presentation characterized the airworthiness risk for the initial Red Hawks as “serious,” the second highest of three classifications the branch uses to assess safety of flight. Sources told Breaking Defense that any issues that may arise with the model are more likely to ground it than to result in an accident.
Per the presentation, the elevated risk stems from Boeing’s alleged failure to share key data, which officials need to verify that the aircraft’s safety-critical items meet specifications. An example would be the model’s GE Aerospace F404 engine, which powers other military aircraft. But other T-7 components are untested.
“As we learn information and start to eliminate any uncertainties with components that are on the [critical safety item] list, we will reevaluate whether the airworthiness risk can be reduced,” said Rodney Stevens, the Air Force’s program executive officer for training, in the Breaking Defense investigative report.
According to the same August presentation, Boeing also has not provided a detailed accounting of the T-7’s configuration history, leaving officials with an opaque picture of the model’s status. That has extended the time it takes Boeing to address issues when they arise, sources said.
Per Breaking Defense, Air Force instructors will begin initial training in T-7s this year, with trainees entering the cockpit in spring 2028. But one Air Force official said the aging T-38 is already creating a training bottleneck.
To address that, the official said the Air Force has accepted “more programmatic risk of concurrency to mitigate the operational risk of further delay.” Essentially, while officials continue to expand the T-7’s envelope and prove out its capabilities, new pilots will begin flying it, with limitations.
The Air Force believes doing so will get the Red Hawk into service faster without sacrificing safety. But one unnamed source worried it will have the effect of “task saturating new pilots.”
Either way, that spring 2028 timeline faces questions due to the T-7’s slow development. The aircraft cannot fly in rain due to a flawed seal. Per the report, officials literally taped these seals shut to conduct climate testing, and they have accepted avoiding the rain as a short-term operational limitation in order to stave off future setbacks.
Breaking the Bank
Another Air Force presentation viewed by Breaking Defense notes that Boeing has been able to share technical data on the F404 engine. As a result, the branch is considering a new strategy that could raise project costs by more than $1 billion.
The new arrangement would see the Air Force procure engines directly from GE Aerospace, covering those costs and absolving Boeing of the requirement. In exchange, Boeing would provide data on its 747-8i jet, the basis of the Air Force’s planned E-4 “doomsday” nuclear command and control aircraft.
Stevens said that the agreement has been signed but is in a “preliminary” stage, and no activities have been conducted. Boeing this month withdrew from the U.S. Navy’s next-generation trainer competition due to delays in the F404’s qualification.
Breaking Defense reported that an Air Force presentation from March describes future sustainment of the T-7s as “high risk,” meaning it would struggle to maintain them independently without Boeing’s help. Per sources, that is again tied to the manufacturer’s failure to share data and could drive additional costs.
Sources said Boeing has disputed what specific data it is required to provide under its contract. Rather than go to court, it and the Air Force have reportedly agreed on an “active management strategy” that has driven tighter collaboration. But that comes with a catch—$250 million in financial incentives for Boeing, tied to certain milestones, and a one-year delay to T-7 production.
Still, the Air Force will need to obtain certain data directly from Boeing’s suppliers, which a source described as having direct knowledge of the T-7 program estimated could take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Air Force in May greenlit formal T-7 production, with expectations for 14 aircraft to be ready for training by late next year. Even if the branch meets that schedule, there are questions around just how advanced and reliable the aircraft will be.
