Su-35 may become similar to F-16 Blk60. So good yet no international market.

The F-20A had some issues that could be corrected with COTS. The thing it really had going for it was the ease of maintenance. It allows the bean counters to directly compare the T-38 to a new version and to realize a great difference. Its not all about the money; we’re talking safety, training hours, inspection cycles, etc. And if you keep parts common between the old and new it allows AMARC to stockpile some of your spares with the retirement of T-38.

In addition to a new engine I’d like to see a target date for FBW controls. Take the route of early production batch using previous accepted T-38 standard with a future refit to FBW. The early batch may never get it, spinning early airframes to the FMS route and replacing domestic inventory in the process. FBW controls and the future elimination of a backseat instructor* makes economic sense. No other competitors offer that right now.

You can then market the new T-38 as the new F-5. You have a huge customer base past and present. Integrate UAI immediately to make integration of weapons much more modular. Imagine an F-5 offshoot carrying wingtip AIM-120, Sniper integrated into a centerline drop tank, and laser-guided rocket pods next to triple SDB racks under each wing.

* = the trainer is a team that manages training flights from the ground with authority to override flight controls. The pilot is immersed in virtual reality helmet display akin to the F-35 EODAS-driven system where situations are a combination of real and virtualized threats. Target drones simulating real targets (rogue air traffic, threats, VIP planes to escort, etc.) may or may not be part of the flight. Even SAM and radar threats can be emulated virtually. You can therefore simulate RedFlag operations on a daily basis without the expense of Nellis.

Nope that troll fly is still buzzing around.

The ignore feature removes the clutter.

M-346 is twin F124, not really F125’s. The center of gravity would shift if you added the F125’s. I think the L-159 would be an amazing design with an F125, sweep in the leading edge, and a pointy nose. If you add F125’s to the M-346 you I’m not sure you don’t need just as drastic of changes. For international orders an after burning Adour is just as valid I suppose.

I’d rather see something like the F-CK-1 win than the T-50. The ANG could develop a heavier version for their use, too. The fiscal cliff is real so let’s find a way to get it done on less budget. I’d be happy with Gripen T if it fits the money targets. Let Saab build them in Alabama to keep unit price down.

I created a couple of collages of different trainer parts assembled into new looks. They are done in like theme with my frankenplane thread of course.

The top one inspired by the X-32 with single engine exhaust of T-50, nose of M-346, and rudder of L-159. I added in the P&D of the M-346 although it would need boom simulation gear not the probe. I just likes the look of the probe.

The bottom one tail of Hawk; rudder and nose of L-159; intakes, main wings, and landing gear of M-346; and cockpit of T-50.

I wouldn’t write off old Soviet-WarPact alliances as far as potential T-50 customers. Turkey, Ukraine, Venezuela, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Iraq, Nigeria, Egypt, Kazakhstan, and who knows whom else could all go that route. It’s all about influencing strategic choke points across the globe. I don’t think it’s possible, but Russia looks at Argentina, Algeria, and Brazil for exports.

Remember that in exercises the real potential of equipment is *******ized. Sometimes it is just simulated with information fed to the cockpits by the battle space manager. You may be intentional blinded even though it is relatively impossible to miss said bogie. War games are about improv, not penis size. You have to create situations where there are none.