The Hawk T.2 is a high performance LIFT type already regarded as at the higher end of the training performance spectrum. You don’t need to go supersonic to give a proper challenge to students and the G requirements of T-X can be met by Hawk with suitable airframe beefing up.

1. Modification costs money and increases weight.
2. Where is the “afterburner kick”?

on the other hand the cockpit environment is modern and designed to support training on the latest fighters including the F-35 and out of all the offerings it probably has the most developed and capable synthetic ground based training aids.

Night operations, aerial refueling and high G-force maneuvers will have to be taught in the training curriculum as opposed to the fighter squadron, which is the way it is done now because the third-generation fighters are two seaters, Griswold said.

“You can train at low speeds but combat happens at longer distances now at higher and higher speeds. It is important to be able to train at those speeds as well,” he said. Simulators can only provide so much. At some point, the trainee needs to experience the speed and acceleration in the air, he added.

The Hawk and the M-346 just cannot fly at the speed and altitude where the F-16D is currently training new F-35 pilots.

And Alenia doesn’t?

The M-346 isn’t in service yet.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2012/December/Pages/T-XJetTrainingSystemCompetitionPitsOldAircraftVersusNew.aspx

T-X Jet Training System Competition Pits Old Aircraft Versus New
December 2012
By Stew Magnuson

The F-22 and F-35 are single-seat aircraft. In the past, a pilot would come out of the training program and go into a two-seat F-16 or F-15, and receive additional operational training in a squadron. When an F-35 or F-22 pilot makes his or her first flight, it is solo, Griswold noted.

“That kind of raises the bar on what the training needs are now,” he added.

The Air Force has a list of about 12 training gaps that the T-38 can’t fill. Among the top needs are sensor management, air-to-air intercepts, sustained G-force, night vision training and air-to-air refueling.

The Air Force is currently going through its list to look at the cost benefit analysis of each of these shortfalls.

Night operations, aerial refueling and high G-force maneuvers will have to be taught in the training curriculum as opposed to the fighter squadron, which is the way it is done now because the third-generation fighters are two seaters, Griswold said.

“You can train at low speeds but combat happens at longer distances now at higher and higher speeds. It is important to be able to train at those speeds as well,” he said. Simulators can only provide so much. At some point, the trainee needs to experience the speed and acceleration in the air, he added.

In this regard, the T-50 has a leg up. It is the only potential entrant that can reach supersonic speeds at Mach 1.2.

“Everything is going to be scrutinized for affordability nowadays,” Griswold said. For example, the off-the-shelf aircraft the two manufacturers are offering don’t allow for aerial refueling. That would have to be added. Whether the service wants to pay for that, or find a different way to simulate that skill, has yet to be determined.

It will not only have to meet today’s requirements, but be able to adapt because it will be in service for 40 or 50 years. Open architecture and a flexible design for the simulator and the aircraft will be important.

“You’ve got to keep an eye on what are the current requirements of today as well as long term,” Griswold said.

The BAE and Lockheed Martin entrants have the advantage of both having aircraft in production. Korea Aerospace has produced 80 T-50s as of October.

There are nearly 1,000 Hawks being flown throughout the world dating back to its first iteration in the 1970s. The new T2mk128 models are being flown in 11 countries.

Both BAE and Lockheed Martin executives said if they win the contract they will produce their trainers in the United States rather than the United Kingdom and South Korea respectively. Neither has announced a potential domestic factory location yet.

There are at least two other potential bidders, The Boeing Co. and Italy’s Alenia Aermacchi North America.

Boeing declined to offer an executive to interview, but a company spokesperson provided a statement: “Over the past several years, Boeing has conducted extensive studies of both purpose-built and derivative platforms as well as many industry teaming approaches. Our analysis consistently indicates a purpose-built solution will provide the most affordable and effective solution to the Air Force’s advanced flight training requirements.”

The spokesperson declined a request for follow-up questions on how it reached its conclusion and how long it would take to develop a new trainer from scratch.

“Any idea of new development is going down a path fraught with high-risk, high cost and delay. Period,” Wood insisted, taking a not-too-subtle jab at Boeing. “Look at any program and ask how many have come in on cost, on schedule and on budget,” he added.

Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at The Teal Group, is bullish on the Italian’s M-346. The Hawk has been the king of the relatively small trainer/light-fighter market for decades, but the world is moving on and wants something new, he said.

Alenia Aermacchi’s new M-346 seems to be it, Aboulafia said.

He called the Hawk the “underdog” in the upcoming competition because of its decades-old design.

As for Boeing’s plan to build a new aircraft, it has two choices: spend about $1 billion of its own internal research-and-development dollars, or hope the Air Force wants to foot the bill. It is unlikely Boeing’s board of directors or its shareholders would go for the former, and even less likely that the Air Force in the current budget climate would pay for the latter, he said.

As for the T-50, the question is whether the Air Force would want to pay a premium to acquire a supersonic trainer. It is more costly to buy and operate, he said.

“It’s a good plane, but it is expensive,” he added.

Alenia Aermacchi has reportedly been looking for a U.S. partner. Despite Boeing’s public statements, a marriage between the two might be on the horizon, Aboulafia predicted.

You mean to tell us that an Air Force will have an asset that cannot be detected in long ranges

F-35s will be detected by AWACS just fine. It’s the X-band radar lockon delay that the F-35 pursues, not the detection avoidance by the enemy AWACS and destroyer low-band radars.

it has a superb detection suite itself

F/A-18E/F, Typhoon, F-15 AESA, Su-35, and PAK-FA all have better and more powerful radars than the F-35 does. The very fact that the F-35B and C do not have internal gun shows that the marines and the navy have no intention of doing dogfights in the F-35. The F-35 is really an A-35, a replacement for the Harrier, the F/A-117 and the A-6. Nothing more.

carries A2A missiles and they will not use it in A2A operations ?

Well, Harriers carry AMRAAMs but no airforce/navy would send out Harriers to kill enemy fighter jets. It’s strictly for self-defense like the lizard’s tail, buying enough time to escape from incoming enemy fighter jets on the interception path.

Required? By who?

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123312396

Luke AFB selected for F-35 pilot training

Posted 8/2/2012 Email story Print story

In addition to training U.S. pilots, Luke will also serve as an F-35A International Partner Training site.

“The Air Force is committed to training our U.S. and partner nation pilots on this fifth-generation fighter aircraft,” said Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief of staff. “Collaborative training on aircraft designed with stealth, maneuverability and integrated avionics will better prepare our combined forces to assume multi-role missions for the future of tactical aviation.”

Nonsense! Look at the plans of countries that intend to end up with all F-35 fleets eventually. None expects to keep two-seat legacy fighters in service for transition.

That’s because the F-35 pilots are required to be trained in the US.

That one group of USMC pilots made a few familiarisation flights in the Viper is one thing, trying to portray that those four flights are a requirement for every pilot to graduate in for the F-35, thats quite another thing.

No, pilots in conversion training coming from the F-15, the F-16, the Typhoon, and the F/A-18 C/D/E/F would not be required to fly in F-16Ds. It is just for new trainees and Harrier pilots.

The reality is that with the failure to secure either the Indian or Japanese contracts, real development of the SH platform is likely at an end.

There are actually two possible future paths for the Super Hornet.

1. Super Hornet International Roadmap(aka Silent Hornet) : The Silent Hornet makes a perfect replacement of F-35 for Canada and Australia, both of which are F/A-18 operators. Then there is Brazil.

2. 5th gen Hornet : Boeing has included the proposal of doing a new 5th gen airframe based on Super Hornet to fill the KFX requirement in its Silent Eagle bid package, claiming that it could reduce the development risks with the experiences Boeing brings into the table, and that Boeing would put its own money down in the development cost. Ditto for EADS CASA, but Lockheed did not. The Finance Ministry announced about a month ago that they would pitch the F-X winning vendor’s proposal against the totally indigenous airframe plan for cost/risk analysis.(This is when people realized that Lockheed was knocked out because Lockheed had no proposal). With the indigenous airframe about the size of Super Hornet itself, it really is the issue of who controls the intellectual property. Should Boeing win the Korean F-X tender(Very likely based on leaked evaluation result) and the Korean government accepts Boeing’s proposal, you will see a 3rd iteration of Hornet.