I'm not sure what your argument is. The USAF is demanding more.
I happen to believe that the AF knows what they want. They know that managing data and battlefield awareness are probably more important than flying the airframe.
They want a 'shell' that is capable of x, y and z performance characteristics.
The electronics in that shell will be changing fairly frequently. That needs to be easy to do.
The pilots will be interacting with other systems - AirSea battle etc. - so simulated integration is important.
They want to practice refueling.
You can simulate the stealth capabilities by managing the sensor returns in the simulation software. It's not that complicated.
So to me, cutting edge, for T-X, means cutting edge in battlespace simulation software.
Cutting edge means an engine thats very inexpensive to operate and maintain.
Cutting edge means electronics that utilize an open systems architecture so upgrades are competitive and easy.
Cutting edge means minimizing corrosion problems
Cutting edge means quick turn-around times for aircraft.
The current training systems don't offer cutting edge battlespace simulation software
The F404 is well utilized in the military; lots of experience, very reliable and inexpensive to maintain.
The F-15, F-16, F-18 and F-22 do not utilize open systems architecture. Pain in the ass to upgrade.
About 40% of programed depot maintenance is corrosion related.
I'd be looking for mmh/fh of 3 or less and a mtbm of over 6h. Compared to existing airframes, these numbers are cutting edge.
