I will not write about the final no-surprise result of the competition as I think everyone would imagine my though about the whole of it.
I think it’s better to point out two critical points emerging from the discussion .
Between the last pure 4-th generation plane and the first 5gen one there lies ALL actual first line fighters of ALL word producers outside US (plus F/A-18).
Call them 4,5 gen like we do in Europe, 4+( or ++) like in the East, outcome didn’t change: their respective flight pattern is radically different from those of previous fighters,4 gen included and cannot be simulated using even the best legacy trainers like Hawk or MB-339.
You would instead need to focus on Immediate Turning Rate and high AoA manoeuvres (including low speed handling, probably the most tactically useful and still most underrated advantage of the “4plus”), for this ones, no need to have afterburners or even the plus on G numbers that was added (may I say quite on purpose, without no one taking it as a personal offence, please?) in the T-X program requirements
.
This however comes with a cost, any of the new gen trainers even subsonic ones like Macchi/Yak will cost sensibly more for each flying hours than even the best of previous gen trainers
.
Solution was found , in Italy and it seem even in Russian service trough passing to a three-trainers model each with different characteristics from previous one.
Basically, it emcopasses a beefed up primary trainer like SF-260T or Yak-152 to eat out a part of the syllabus previously made with the larger one, a toned down jet trainer (compared with former legacy ones) but still with “plus” features for basic and a part of advanced schedule and finally the high performance new-gen ones for the last part of advanced one and a consistent part of the syllabus actually made on OCU version of fighters.
Sum of the three ended up (almost in Italian experience, the ones that have already put the model in working order) sensibly less than the former two trainers model, providing even a way smoother transition between the different phases of program.
Now, what will be the US model instead? What they actually use for primary and basic trainers? Have them a viable plan to substitute/ upgrade them or like often happen (not just in US) they have focused just on the economical and technical aspect of the program actually ongoing without looking at the whole picture?
Sign In
