JF,
(With due humility)
Is variable stability/specific type stimulation really all that useful and/or applicable to an advanced trainer? I can see some relevance to the 'one-frontline-type' air force, where its trainers could 'ape' the type that all students are going on to, if the potential problems can be overcome.
But if your students are likely to be 'output' to different types, how can you practically simulate all of those types? What are the implications for instructors and their currency - they'll be flying a Tornado one sortie, an F-16 the next, and all in a cockpit that gives few cues as to what it's simulating.
How can you easily and practically fly formations with students destined for different types?
If you can't fully simulate a given type, is it really helpful anyway? If you have a trainer with a centre stick, for example, is it worth accurately simulating the handling characteristics of an F-16?
Knowing the constraints and limitations applied to ops in the ASTRA Hawk and Varistab Basset, what are the airworthiness and certification implications of a reprogammable FCS?
I see a great deal of pressure from the users to be able to download more training from the OCU stage - but not from the 'type conversion' element of the course. There's an obvious need for IFF, radar emulation, etc, but I don't see much pressure for 'type simulation'.
The Hawk 128 (and the generation of 'awks that includes the Aussie, Bahraini, Indian and South African aircraft) seem to offer what you need for advanced training and some downloaded OCU type stuff.
Is supersonic performance really any more useful than the USAF have found it on the T-38 (its exploited for one sortie in the syllabus) and would high Alpha capabilities beyond those offered by the Hawk really be useful for the advanced training role?