How useful are advanced jet trainers in actual near-peer combat?
>>65610647They'll fulfill the role of F-16's, as in as low-maintenance jets.
Well, you gotta have to train new pilots. So I’d say pretty useful
>>65610647They can shoot down drones and poorly-protected bombers.
>>65610652>f-16>low maintenaceYeah, because you need to go back 30min after takeoff. that thing has the endurance I have in bed
>>65610647If you already have enough trainers for your pilot pipeline they can find their use in anti drone operations fitted with a tpod and APWKSII rockets or if you're in peacetime with SMI ops. But lately we have seen countries cut back in the trainer procurements, due to the advancement of simulators etc, so if you're in a position where you have only 10-20 phase IV trainers then putting them on the "frontlines" even just for antidrone operations will impact your pilot pipeline, which is more important. Some countries are planning to use even slower and cheaper planes like the A-29 Tucano which is still a good fit for the role.
>>65610783Whenever I fill up at the station I like to tell the clerk that I'm doing a spot of maintenance. He doesn't think I'm a freak.
>>65610647Near-peer between who? It could easily turn the tide in a war between minor powers.
>>65610647It really depends on the plane itself. Supersonic advanced trainers can perform point defence, air policing and anti-jet powered drone roles, these aircraft can achieve the speed and altitude to utilize their air-to-air weaponry, which also depends on what plane they are, IR missiles with onboard seekers are a given but some pricier advanced trainers have onboard radars and compatibility with BVR medium range missiles. The difference between these and true fighter aircraft are usually just raw capability, with advanced trainers, things like lower range, service ceiling, G limit etc.Things get a little more contentious with subsonic/transonic trainers, often these are excellent light attack/strike aircraft, especially against targets without an air force of their own. Their ability to act as a replacement fighter aircraft though is much more limited as they would take much longer to get to altitude, either to maximize high altitude performance of air-to-air missiles, or even intercept a civilian airliner. Lots of trainers like this see combat though, the Chinese K8, British BAE Hawks, Alphajets and a shit ton of Italian trainers, they love shitting these little things out.
>>65610647Simulators can't train pilots all the way, you need to keep them alive along with basic prop planes for pilot trainingIn combat they're useless and they're never meant to be used that way
>>65612207Yet they end up on the frontlines all the time and marketed as 'light combat aircraft'https://www.janes.com/defence-intelligence-insights/defence-news/defence/poland-declares-fa-50-light-fighter-to-be-combat-ready
>>65612207The ceiling for combat-capable aircraft has dropped dramatically in the drone age. So long as they have flight characteristics at least as good as a helicopter, they have counter-drone utility.
>>65610820I think OP meant using trainers as frontline fighters, not for defence
>>65610647With the right hardware they could be useful BVR missile trucks in a near future hi-low mix.
>>65610647What blew up?
>>65612870Yes and no, slapping an AESA combat radar and some AIM-120s to a subsonic jet might seem like a good idea but effectively they're never going to get high and fast enough to unload them on anything half competent unless they're firing on old 3rd gen kit like a MiG-21bis or very early 4th gen junk like MiG-29s or F-16As
>>65612883My cock in your mom's ass.
>>65613124All current advanced trainers can easily reach 40k ft. slap some giganigger aim54000 new missile on them and they could be useful
>>65610647They seem to be surprisingly good drone and cruise missile hunters.
