so it is curious to me as to why anyone would even imply that modularity is a new feature.
Dear Gambit,
Your insight is always very informative and precise, but in this case i think you misunderstood the point raise by BATMAN.
We are not talking about modularity in maintenance and ease of weapons loading etc ... instead we are talking about the decoupling of aircraft design with the engine, avionics, weapons and data-links etc. Consider the example of F16s vs JF17.
F16 has been possibly the most successful fighter aircraft ever developed for USAF. But even after 30 years of service only two engine platforms have been integrated with it, PW-F100 and GE-F110, and even the integration of GE engine required major modification to engine inlet design. Only 3 radar systems have been integrated so far (as far as my knowledge), APG66, APG68 and APG80, all of which were "specifically" designed for F16 and nothing else. Only a single ejection seat is supported. So on and so forth...
(Hypothetical scenario only)
Now consider that a country has 100 F16s in service with PW-F100 engines ... and suddenly Lockheed Martin goes under, all of those F16s will soon be rendered useless. Weapons embargo scenario is more likely and that too will result in castrating the fleet of those beautiful beautiful fighting machines. Small things, like refusal to sell spare parts for radar or ejection seat will also result in adverse consequences. Who know this better than PAF.
On the other hand, JF17 was designed keeping in mind the customization capabilities of Mirages, and thus may be slightly modified to accept any RD33, F404, M88, EJ200 class engines with a bit of modifications on engines as well. Radars are also interchangeable, so are the data-links, avionics and crew preservation equipment. This is an intended as an insurance policy to keep the fleet airworthy even if some parts supplier goes under, or in case of another weapons embargo.
(Hypothetical scenario only)
Now consider if another Russian-American clash takes place a decade from now and we decide to take American side (as we have done in the past), Russia will immediately cut off all engine exports and spares, giving a severe blow to the 250 or so airworthy JF17s in operation. Rather than retiring the fleet or cannibalizing for spares, PAF will either integrate US engines or buy from European manufacturers to keep the fleet in operation without having adverse consequences.
Keeping F16s air worth is not a concern for USAF, they have all the money, manpower and industrial base to keep spares flowing for their war-machines. USA can rely on vertical integration, we cannot. On the other hand, we rely on imports of certain high tech stuff, for which we have to design everything keeping horizontal integration in mind. Its like Apple vs IBM compatible, apple used vertical integration and thus could not be customized, while an IBM user can swap one ram for another, one VGA card for another, one sound card for another and can keep his machine running longer.
I hope you understand.
NOTE: I am not implying that JF17 is better than F16, F16 is a far far far better fighter and i really love it.
Regards,
Sapper