I am completely ignorant so please forgive the obviously uninformed questions. It would be interesting to understand though so I thought I'd just ask.
1. What would be the reasons for not considering the L-39 Skyfox as an example?
https://www.aero.cz/en/l-39-skyfox/ I imagine its probably about not being supersonic but, because I'm obviously ignorant about why being supersonic is of much concern for training? Perhaps it's some other feature that I don't understand that really matters? It could also be that the whole approach to operating high performance aircraft is very different from that of subsonic trainers such that learning on them is only partially relevant. Perhaps there's an advantage to being able to face something closer to the real deal earlier on?
I almost question why anything matters given that one can introduce simulation technology into an aircraft to perhaps an arbitrary degree to create the mental loads a pilot needs to simulate. Perhaps its the physiological stress that cannot be replicated?
2. I did wonder about the BAE/Northrop Grumman contender for T/X. I realise that would put the entire development cost on the UK and yet that's roughly what Aeralis would be doing. I'm sure it's an unrealistic idea but is it really completely silly? Please don't hesitate to say so if it is!