Let’s say that we have there a NATO member acting against the actual USA vetted proxy, using the former vetted one.
For Russia is a win-win-win situation: they were all in the same side against her until few weeks ago.

Ok, I didn’t know. If the A-C hybrid catches the first cable, it would have perhaps 30-50% more landing distance than if it caught the 3rd wire.

It is clear that landing with an A-C hybrid would stress the airframe more, but the airframe might be good for a few hundreds landings, which I would guess would be sufficient to just to reinforce the Navy temporarily. Would a completely autonomous landing software be hard to do for USAF planes, I don’t know, but AIs will become more and more widespread in coming years/decades. An AI could probably land the plane.

All this discussion seems me to forget an important point.
We are talking about stealth plane there: even a minimal change in its external shape would imply to recalculate its RCS reduction another time.

So it an also be that the last to be fully revealed would be the T-100 i.e. the one that would have been the one requiring less changes?:confused:
Now, maybe is only Raytheon joining late to the bandwagon instead of general dynamics but at this point i would expect some surprise.
Most powerful engines and/or structural changes in order to reach max G number?

Well, why not simply get T-50 Mk2, then?

Question was: until what date would Flanker derivative still be viable?
Answer given was: about half of the next decade.
At this point I forwarded the idea that a Flanker with updated engines and a photonic radar would be something you can get with a low expense and it can be retrofitted also to actual production models so stretching way further the proposed date.
So it was : specific question- direct answer. T-50 is something you added.

In the case of T-50 or better said of the operational aircraft that would came out from this ongoing program, let’s say that half of the deal is on schedule already and so a Mk2 would be logically be purchased also but as also now they found convenient to produce both of them, let’s imagine when there would be available a radar that can wipe out the great part of the advantages stealth technology actually offer.

Both NG and Boeing designs look very nice from what is known so far.
Except I don’t like the looks of the intakes on the N400, but apart from that, it looks like a modern day F-20 with a trainer nose section, very sleek.
Boeings design reminds me of a Saab 105, at least the front view. Conventional configuration as I thought, no V-tails, but maybe twin tails and engines unlike the NG entry? Overall, seems to be a very sleek design as well.
I’ll eat my (imaginary) hat if the winner isn’t NG or Boeing… These purpose-built aircraft surely fit the requirements much better than the mini-F-16 aka T-50 with it’s 70s aerodynamics and over engineered light fighter airframe. The M-346/T-100 is the outsider in this competition, I just can’t imagine USAF flying +/- the same jet the Russians and Chinese (L-15) are using.

I also fear that.
Still it is exactly the same plane that Israeli, Singaporean and probably all other Nato members that can afford themselves a lead-in trainer would use…
Hence my fear that US specifics would lead-in them in the wrong direction.

If the T-X is not supersonic I wonder how it will be possible to train the F-22 pilots with it. Maybe they’ll have to keep some F-16s for that.

Maybe in the same way all other air forces that have not supersonic trainers i.e. practically everyone around have done in the last fifty years?
It’s called OCU i.e. you flight on a two seater version of the operational plane you would use in your own career.
Now in the case of 5th fighters there just to solve that little additional problem of the lack of the two seaters but its (also) because of that the concept of a lead-in trainer was developed.

Why not give the Northrop T-38 design a complete review, to modern standard, like was done with the C-130

And built 400 or so brand new T-38 trainers.
With luck this 2nd generation (year 2020) Talons can give the Air Force another 60 year of service

Because the flight pattern of a modern 4+, 4,5 to 5 gen fighter is radically different to previous ones.
T-38 was probably conceived in a moment (late fifties) in which the transition into the century series supersonic fighters was deemed somewhat problematic, hence the need of a pristine form of lead-in trainer able to break the sound barrier.
Now this is not such an issue anymore so keeping on using them would surely still be a lead-in but in the wrong direction.
Same consideration could be a problem for the F-16 derived T-100: its flight pattern is the same of F-16 or can it venture also in high AoA maneuvering? Without it the goal of replicate performances of latest generation fighters will be missed the same.
Here hence the reason of my looong discussion with (the excellent poster) bring-it-on: the specifics actually settled on for the T-X competition seems me to lead-in in replicating F-15 and F-16 pattern much more than the ones of *insert the name of any fighter entering service from eighties onward, Mig-31 excluded, there.*, hence also the (still hanging on my part) suspect of a certain “tayloring” made on them to make sure they would gave an advantage to certain competitors presenting clean sheet design.

If you don’t know, for many years here Rosnano is a synonym for loud declarations, fancy powerpoints and, mainly, blowing the money.
Once more, you are making too far fetching conclusions from the wishful thinking of some and publications that have little connection to the actual subject.

Well, I would put the possibility to distinguish between what is written in poducer’s leaflet and the reality as the n°1 problem in all discussions there.
Think about what is what has been written written about F-35 superior SA …compared with what?