Our feedback from IFF is the exact opposite wrt the cut in hours. Now, in fairness to your point, IFF is teaching to the classic wingman philosophy, and I concur with your assessment that a movement towards the "multiple flights of one" of the "5th gen" paradigm would yield some efficiencies in cutting some MIF items.
My only objection to your assessment of the T-38 program, is that I think you dismiss the degree to which the dexterity required to fly formation to a 4th gen standard in an incredibly manual and underpowered airplane like the T-38, does lead to more well-rounded baseline product, and safer 5th gen wingman by proxy. Yes, it is also more expensive, but I thought we were the world leader in tactical proficiency...we certainly have the defense budget for it no? (don't answer that, I'm being rhetorical).
My read of your argument is one similar to what the airlines are making these days with the MPL approach to training. E.G. "The airplanes are so automated, we can lean on that automation to mask the significant lack of pilot comprehensive dexterity we're willing to eat in order to cut training length. These guys are to be system/sensor monitoring experts." I'm not particularly persuaded by that argument.
As to the macro philosophical point on 5th gen nuances, I'm with ya by all means. My objections to your assessment of UPT Next efficiencies are not to be taken as a Luddite argument at all. I agree with you that the syllabus should incorporate hardware that better exposes the kids to the new rides. I believe the T-7 will achieve that.