Consider the following code:
template
struct Foo_s {
using type = void();
};
template
using Foo_u = void();
template
[temp.spec]/8:
If a function declaration acquired its function type through a dependent type without using the syntactic form of a function declarator, the program is ill-formed.
This makes your last line decidedly ill-formed. Which makes sense, since, as in other cases of dependent constructs, we don't want the meaning of a phrase to depend too strongly on template arguments.
However, [dcl.fct]/13:
A typedef of function type may be used to declare a function but shall not be used to define a function.
This makes your first three lines well-formed---the first two directly, and for the third one, note that
When a template-id refers to the specialization of an alias template, it is equivalent to the associated type obtained by substitution of its template-arguments for the template-parameters in the type-id of the alias template.
by [temp.alias].