Pneumatic takes pyrotechnics out of your logistics stream (and there was much rejoicing). The Meteor/AMRAAM pylon would be new; my guess is that other weapons would take off-the-shelf adapters.

However, new engine + airframe dimensional changes + new sensors + new mission computers in a single program are rare indeed, and of course none of your examples meet those criteria. F-20, F-2 and Super Hornet are closely comparable, but most would regard them as new aircraft.

Oblig – If you look back to the run-up to Switzerland’s decision, the Swiss insisted that Sweden buy the aircraft at the same time and take first deliveries. Sweden has a force of very new C/Ds (those that were A/Bs were complete rebuilds) and was in no rush (certainly pre-Crimea) to replace them.

I mentioned the Su. The Strike Eagle didn’t touch the aero/structural configuration of the airplane (just beef) and the engines were uprated, not new. Same went for the Block 60. The SA is a straight upgrade. Shornet was a new airplane. So once again you’re floundering around, trying to back up a statement that didn’t make any sense in the first place.

Shocker. Ask for a special configuration using largely new technology (some of the bits and pieces have been tested by Boeing) and the price goes up.

The criticism being dumped on Gripen is a sign of success. As Airbus boss Bernard Lathiere remarked in 1978 after Boeing’s first complaints about unfair competition, “the Big Bad Wolf is screaming because Little Red Riding Hood has bitten him in the a**”.

But any F-35 fan knows that adapting to the customer’s desired delivery date (and it was on record that Saab had to chivvy the Swedish govt. to buy jets for 2018 to support the Swiss delivery date) is exactly the same as missing targets by six or seven years, while clocking up program overruns at the modest rate of $34 million per working day.

“On the other hand, I can pour 1000 squishy parameters into a bad processor and get a lousy rate of unambiguous and correct answers.”

Shacked, apparently.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/03/threat-data-biggest-worry-for-f-35as-ioc-but-it-will-be-on-time/

DJC – Of course, that’s way less than even the 200 parameters credited to F-22, which underlines the point that unless we know what they were (indeed, whether it’s an artifact of processing rather than sensor capability), the statement still means nothing at all.

Consider this: If I could measure within +-5 per cent the principal dimensions of the target, and whether it had one or two engines, that would give me positive ID on its own in many cases; if I know what friendlies are in-theater and which are not, that would sort out some remaining ambiguities. Five parameters and I have a pretty solid ID.

On the other hand, I can pour 1000 squishy parameters into a bad processor and get a lousy rate of unambiguous and correct answers.

And yes, cooling limitations on “4gen” aircraft. Very amusing.