The F-35 can pretty much takeoff and land by itself so you dont need to add an extra training step. Pilots will be able to go straight from the hawk to the F_35 without any problems at all.
There is still the task of replacing the PC-9 fleet which is getting quite old. The current thought is to have the replacement in service around the same time, but that's a fairly open-ended statement as there is no solid process in place yet.
But in any case, there is no real big difference regarding going from one aircraft to another, theoretically we could train pilots on CT4B and plonk them directly into a Hawk, and they should be able to do the job. The issue is that CT4B can't actually do some of the more difficult training sorties, and lacks high-altitude ability.
It is difficult, however, to place a pilot directly into a PC-9 or a Hawk and teach them to fly, as they are a powerful plane to learn on and much less forgiving of mistakes. With PC-9's it is plausible that you could do so, but there are further factors. The graduated program is designed to allow early training to take place on a forgiving aircraft, and then step up into one that requires skill to pilot. Cruising speed is one of the last things to worry about.
In reality, the graduated program has one even greater advantage; cost. A program utilising CT4, then PC-9, then subsequent types is cheaper than replacing CT4's with PC-9 for a huge PC-9 fleet.
Adding a supersonic trainer is of no benefit as there is little more to learn after coming from a PC-9 to a supersonic trainer before converting to another supersonic aircraft.
roadrunner said:
I personally do not like the idea of having 1 plane to do the job of Air Defence and ground attack,as i truley believe that you use a bomber to bomb targets and you use a fighter to do Air Defence tasks,what do the other members think of this idea?
As for the 'one plane fits all' approach of multi-role operations, the real decision making process occurs with expected operations you would have to conduct. If you are expecting an operation where you would need to conduct a protracted bombing campaign against a fortified enemy, then you'd have strategic bombers. Tactical bombers are on the way out because of the extreme accuracy of guided weapons; one weapon can do the job of what used to take several plane loads to do, particularly with the new stand-off weapons.
Why not just get a fighter to carry a couple of smart bombs out, drop them on whatever target is required, and still have the ability to engage the enemy in air-to-air combat? A tactical bomber like the F-111 requires support aircraft, and effectively makes them into nothing more than a transport aircraft for munitions, as if the supporting aircraft could do the bombing, the F-111 wouldn't be needed in the first place.
F-15E, F-35 and F-18E/F are examples of aircraft that can 'do it all' even though it seems they can't do it all at once. The best part is that even if they can't do it all at once, at least they can do different things on different days. If we need a bunch of fighters, they can all be fighters. If we need bombers, they can all be bombers. Unfortunately, the F-111 is only able to do one thing well, and anything else is pretty ordinary.
If Australia had lots of money buried in coffee tins out the back, potentially we could get some of the sexy goodness that is the B-1 Lancer. That'd be a nice addition to our fleet to put to use as a strike bomber. That's after we go through our current wish list of F-22's and Growlers, four full sized aircraft carriers, a new fleet of escort submarines, and a handful of ASW destroyers and AEGIS cruisers.
Unfortunately, we are limited to what we can work with. Multi-role is the name of the game, because if you can do most things quite well then you are better off than doing one job great.
