On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:38:27 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 09:25:11 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:11:09 +0200, Nemo l'Ancien
wrote:

So, the Allies who would have paid to have a fully operational
aircraft
will just get an under valued one...
That's Us conception of Allies...


How does better than any alternatives for the price equate to "under
valued"?

It is a clear selling point for Eurofighters.


The Eurofighter costs a LOT more than the F-35 is *suppose* to.

You miss the point, there is a pattern to Mr. Cook's posts.


Why don't you enlighten us.




If
the costs keep rising (and Typhoon's doesn't) and there is a big
enough difference between a *real* F-35 and the export version then
maybe.

Or perhaps there is only a study of what might be done.



From what I've read they're spending more $$$ trying to make it so
it's not reverse engineerable than trying to figure out how to make
two different versions. Maybe in the end they'll come down to the
export models having older generation RAM (it's already been
compromised with that F-117 shoot down) and a maybe not so fancy
radome if they can't figure out a safe way. Would hate a repeat of
the Iran/Pakistan thing.