@Grenade123 the laws of physics didn't much change since the '60s

Now, there are exceptions like the F-22

which is not inherently stable, and relies on thrust vectoring

no, but the tech has

The thing is, much like in software, the urge to adopt technologies for the sake of it is among the worst instincts we have

only so much you can do retrofitting

au contraire

you can retrofit ANYTHING

to do ANYTHING

adopting tech is not the problem, its defeating enemy tech that is the problem

retrofits can always be as good as new aircraft

you can, but not before becomes too costly and unstable

Well

that's unlikely if you're retrofitting the same class of aircraft

depends on what you need to retrofit

I mean, computational equipment is not that large

laws of physics hasn't changed much since the 40's, i don't see retorfitted spitfires flying around

if that's what you're adding, then it's not a big deal

The spitfire class is now irrelevant

because it was largely concerned with addressing aircraft which were similar to it

we currently have aircraft which are substantially similar in capability to the competing ones, if slightly inferior in some subset of characteristics

do we? what do we have to fight the new russian jets toe to toe?

22 can't hold its own in a straight up fight

its not designed to either

ask yourself why the Su-34 and Su-35S look so similar

and look substantially similar to the Su-30

and the Su-27

they are all very similar aircraft, in the broad sense

they really don't

or more accurately, they look similar to an f-18

sure, you could say so

Now why is it that we pretend that we're going back to the drawing board on EVERYTHING

when ultimately we are going to produce something substantially similar to its predecessor?

just because it looks the same on the outside, doesn't mean it is the same on the inside.

The Russians know the answer to this question

Have you done design work?

the Su-35, Su-35S and Su-27m are decades apart

the Su-35 is more or less a new Su-27M

30 years later, they are still related enough that they have the same info bar on Wikipedia

you sure that is why?

same-but-different is the approach