Couldn’t care less about a “list”. They are either new designs or not. If the Su-35 and F-18 E/F are entirely new designs, then they are analogous. One is not more “newer” than another.

The F-18 E/F didn’t need an entirely different FBW system as the F/A-18 had the first digital FBW system, the control laws obviously are different as they are different aircraft.

Thanks Haavarla for the reply, it was the same that I would have made also, just better.
Actually Su-35 differ from the -27 more than the SH from original F/A-18 or the GripenE
.

No- amazing how you can make that determination about the Su-35, then state that it is more different from the -27 than the Super is from the legacy Hornet.

The F-18 A/C and E/F bear only superficial resemblance. The wings, control surfaces, engines, intakes, fuselage are different. The first Supers shared much of the legacy hornet’s avionics, that is not true anymore.

They are different aircraft, get it right. Not that this has any place in the F-35 thread.

It is simple, since we know the F35 is necessary only for 20 % of mission, F35 fan don’t talk about anything else than these 20 % missions…. and avoid the other 80%.
The real question is does this 20 % deserve 2500 F35 that represents nothing else than the most expensive weapon program never built.

This 80/20 ratio is sufficient to put the F35 at the same place than the F22, few hundreds units should be sufficient to complement legacy fighters that will be cheaper for 80 % of the missions.

Right so, since the Super Extendard could easily complete 80% of the Rafale M missions based on recent usage, the Rafale M is an extravagance the French Navy could do without. Simply dust off a few airframes, do some fatigue testing, and they can fly for another 40 years right?

It isn’t about what missions the F-35 could complete that a legacy aircraft can’t in 2017. It is what missions will be survivable in 2030. It’s about replacing aircraft that it’s no longer economical to refit, upgrade for another 8,000 hours. Moreover, buying an aircraft that has mission systems and architecture designed to be upgraded for the next 30-40 years. The Super Hornet isn’t going to meet the requirements of the USN into the 2030’s. That is one reason the USN is planning on a fleet of F-35C, UCAV, and some iteration of next generation air dominance platform(s)/Systems.

and now we know you didn’t bother watching it but got your pitchfork out already.
argue the points, not the puppet.

Actually I did. While it’s well done and attempts to be objective, the creator has to make so many assumptions about the respective characteristics/tactics that it’s really just entertainment.

MQ-9 unit cost= 17 million dollars

Obligatory states “you can skip support when using drones, they are expendable”. But the F-35 is “unaffordable”. Very perceptive arguement there. I’m sure the designers of the next generation of UAV are selling them on the notion of expendable assets at unit costs approaching 40 million a pop.