You seriously think the UK and US fighting in the Falklands and in Iraq and Afghanistan was a vacation?
You seriously think that Europe should prepare to a war like in the Falklands, 1982? Are you a general?
That is your claim not mine. You said in your 30th November post that if the F-35 were aerodynamically optimal then all previous fighters would look like it. That ingnores that technology changes and today what is optimal may not have been 20 years ago because the technology wasn't available to achieve it.
What technology, related to aerodynamics?
Purpoted misunderstanding is not good argumentation.
Nothing to do with misunderstanding. You have crafted a single scenario that suits your narrative while ignoring the reality of what has to happen before you get to that point.
If I talk about scenario A and you reply with a different scenario B made up by you, it is a misunderstanding. It is up to you to confess whether this is intentional or unintentional. (And this was at least 3rd time you use this strategy.)
Again, you give no foundation to your claim.
YIMBY, I suggest you have even a cursory read of the F-35 news thread and you will see all the info you need to on F-35 sensor fusion and why it is different to 4th gen sensor fusion. Once you understand that concept, we can move on to understanding why that type of fusion is not simply added to an airframe at a later date and the costs involved in getting that airframe to that point with the advanced fusion.
Why don't you study some mathematics, physics and computer science, to be in the same page.
The "generation" is either
1) marketing hype, or
2) artificial categorization or standardization to make life simpler.
There may be disruptive developments when developing the software, like change of the hardware (e.g. single core to multi core), communication bus (e.g. parallel to serial), operating system (e.g MS-DOS to OS/2), programming language (e.g FORTRAN to C). You may change one at a time - which makes testing easier - or all at once and rewrite the code completely. You do not start from nothing because you have the algorithms, that may develop all the time.
You may make changes in the hardware, processor, memory, bus, sensor, etc, as they are developed, one at a time, or delay all if individual changes are not permitted.
Nothing above needs to be coupled to the "generation" of the air frame.
Of course, in real world some authorities may define "generations" so that everything stays the same until they retire and the next generation of authorities define next standards, but this is just human stupidity and stubbornness and is not defined by any law of physics.
And there lies the problem. You don’t understand what the difference is between sensor fusion at the 4th gen level compared to 5th gen, nor do you understand it within the context of military equipment. Do yourself a favour and read the info available. At that point come back and have an educated discussion about the differences, cost and time required to get to that level.
Context of military equipment ... an endless series of cryptic acronyms, old standards that no one knows why they are there, obscure agreements for not opening the box, absolute prohibition to question authorities, huge amounts of dead weight, saving money in wrong parts and wasting money in unnecessary parts, being proud for your whatever machine, ... Fortunately also in all other countries, including particularly the potential aggressors.
I forgot to tell that there is "sensor fusion" also in the ground level. That is, take data from several radars and other sensors all over the country to make a coherent picture what flies in the airspace and use that to send interceptors or guide AAA. You do not need to park an F-35 at the garage of the command centre to do it.
The "first generation" was human beings listening what is told in the phone from radar or human observation station and placing and moving small airplane models in the very big map and others telling to the fighters where to intercept the enemy planes or civilians to seek protection from air raids.
Today you can send all that information directly to the fighters as data. That may be challenging in war noise, but at least 10 years ago just Finland was the leading country in wireless technology, no idea where they stand today.
USA, Turkey, Italy, UK, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Denmark, The Netherlands, etc. There are no differences in those jets between the nations except for their own domestic weapons being integrated.
Care to note that those were ordered quite simultaneously, many before the official first entry into service.
Does not happen always. When France and Germany et al developed a joint fighter they had so big differences that they even got different names.
As market leader with a large backlog LM can afford to offer the same model without options, to reduce costs and to increase the profit. Take it as offered or not.
The challenger must either
1) lower the price,
2) increase the quality, or
3) offer tailored solutions
These of course reduce the profit, but if your alternative is to be blown out of the market, you have little choice.
(Is it appropriate to talk about market economy with military sales? The American say that the American military industry is a better example of command economy than the largest communist country.)
Also note that F-35 is about 15 years newer than most of its competitors so there is no urgent need for updates or enhancements.
If Finland (or Canada or Poland) chooses Eurofighter or Rafale there is no need to keep them similar to the original versions delivered to France, UK, Germany and Italy more than ten years ago.
BTW, Euroradar has been developing the Captor-E Radar for Eurofighter, to be assembled first in the fighters for Kuwait next year (+delay). There will also be a new front computer. More than billion invested. How does that fit your theory?http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... dline.html