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

it is different in the ways they cared about

i will re-ask my question, you ever done design work? of the engineering or technical kind?

What would qualify as a yes in that case?

I'm a software developer by trade

so no

I've not designed a production military aircraft

they you should know sometimes legacy code gets to a point where it needs to be re-done from the ground up from time to time. The more future proofed the original code the easier it is, but you can only do so much to plan for changes 30 years out.

No, I don't really agree with that statement.

Generally speaking, in systems of a certain size, it is rarely necessary to toss and replace everything.

Even if making a major change, like completely switching programming language or environment.

or most important purpose

making the next iteration as similar as possible to the previous generates a considerable amount of value in itself, if you are willing to do the grunt work.

yes u can make things more efficient

my point here is that the external aerodynamic properties of certain types of desirable military aircraft have not changed, per type, substantially since the '80s

You might get better engines, find out that thrust vectoring affects the desired wing structure

maybe two subassemblies are merged for better rigidity or serviceability

but that's not the same as "starting from the ground up"

which, in my view, is rarely your best option, if the system you want is substantially similar to the one you have.

they key phrase being "if the system you want is substantially similar to the one you have"