Originally Posted by
pba_target
My argument is not that the investment shouldn't be made on 4.5/5th gen to keep them relevant. Just that it's double counting to include development cost from them in a 6th gen platform which will require enhanced capabilities. You wouldn't include the development of tornado mission equipment in the development cost of Typhoon, though you might well use it as a starting point and build on it. Clearly there will also be some bespoke technologies that aren't from previous gen aircraft (AI development for example). But there's also a middle ground where "previous gen" development stops and "next gen" development starts. Where that is can be argued, but it's not a radar explicitly designed for Typhoon as an example.
I get you, I think. I'm trying to say more that if development could be a kind of continual process rather than stop start it might turn out that you could sort of do that. The latest radar that Leonardo has is probably not in any Typhoons yet. It's aimed at being able to fit in a Typhoon so it should fit in any newer aircraft if the design is not too radically different.
The newer aircraft shouldn't have all new systems no matter how much one might think that "every new requirement is essential". The total risk should always be limited. Then you accept it's not going to be the same as what the US can pay for and that you might have to upgrade bits of it over time to improve it. So you try to leave a little capacity in space, power and all the other "budgets".
Anyhow To be fair I know nothing. I just work on upgrading software. I find that people try to make exquisite things from the outset and end up not having time to finish them. It's better to have something straighforward that works that you can improve on - if you have the time - and if you don't have time no worries because you have at least something that works in a basic way.