[ATTACH=CONFIG]249124[/ATTACH]

No, they’re just different aircraft, the first one’s a C, the second a B model.
The angles are different on the other wing pylons aswell.

Hmm, you might have something there. The C has a different Camber with more of a downward twist (mentioned in Air & Space Power journal 2003, to improve handling). There is no doubt there is a difference:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249121[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]249122[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]249123[/ATTACH]

As for the rail having an outward bend, it may simply have been a separation issue or buffet. Here was an old post on elements of power musing this point:
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2012/02/f-35-stores-testing-observation.html

I cant seem to find information regarding wing tip pylon modification there , Google Fu doesnt seem to help either
So do they change the pylon from canted downward to horizontal or other way round ?

I can’t either. I remember reading about the modification. By the time of the first external weapons pictures, it appears that the current outward canted rail was fitted to the pylon. Will dig for more in a bit. I can tell you in the original weapon configuration schematics circa 2007-8, stations 1,11 are shown with a completely vertical pylon/rail mounting.

Nahh , one of them parallel to the nose ,the other isnt

When was the first pic taken? The outer pylon did get modified, current pylon closeup:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249102[/ATTACH]

1.5% of GDP does not allow for recap of navy, airforce, and army at the same time. The Navy needs to replace the Ula class starting by 2019, and there is no doubt the F-16MLU need a replacement. Same issue all over Nato, peace dividend of 1990 leads to bow wave in 2010’s.

Its very easy to modify ANY aircraft to be neutrally unstable like the F-16, its just a matter of shifting the CoG back to match the CoL

Well, except that the F-16 has negative static stability. CoG is not at aerodynamic center. How aft and at what loads? No idea.

Not like Dassault could have simply made this modification to the F1 at the time being discussed. FBW systems took considerable time to develop. As Saab found out, was still required to tailor system to particular aircraft.

In your nice moving speech you say you are against undue murder of civilians, but in reality you don’t give damn.. You have it all nicely polarized, when Russians are doing it, you’re the first to point a finger, when the US are doing it, you look the other way.. I can’t wait to hear your excuses when US bombs start killing civilians (among others) in Mosul.

Thank you for telling me what I think. But I think you just nicely wrapped your own bias in a ribbon for all of us: “Russian bombing of Aleppo is justified and only killing those bad terrorists, but the US actions are an outrage”.

Think it is safe to say that many civilians will be killed in Mosul, especially considering the sectarian nature of the conflict. US bombs will kill civilians there as well. But if you think there will be the wholesale area bombing with unguided munitions (Thermobaric, CM, WP munitions) as is happening in Aleppo, your delusional as well as bias.

TR1 I respect you and what you are saying and don’t entirely disagree.

However, it is not just “US propaganda”. Being one of the rare breeds who reads reports and news from a variety of sources and nations, there is little doubt about the level of destruction being leveled on Aleppo. And yes, as does ISIS, the opposition in Aleppo has little incentive to let the civilians out. This is a bad situation, period. I take offense to anyone making excuses for it because of US, UK, or anyone’s previous atrocities.