Seems we are agreed on my first point.
The Dev Spec figures still apply to the production aircraft, so in theory its harder to acheive with a far more complicated overall package.
The contract requires that all the spec requirements must be demonstrated (some items not so,- sliding scale of importance, a claim can be submitted supported by evidence) to the customers satisfaction (this applies to all spec aspects). Where the DA's have a prodn representitive feature and a realistic measure can be made, and NETMA agree, it is acceptable to use the DA. In all other cases the MOD's say 'no chance' (insert your own choice of words) we'll wait to see the real Mccoy.
So with a Design that has moved on significantly from DA's you need, in a lot of cases, the finished article.
Add to this the fact that the full spec functionality is not able to, or needs to be, cramed into one DA airframe, it becomes a little harder to move it forward.
It is in EF's best long term interest to produce the most capable package at a price and having a tight spec with financial penalities is a big incentive.
Too many of the current players witnessed the F2/3 entry into service and the in-service development fiasco. Politics aside, the contract is sound enough to prevent this with EF. Rose tinted glasses doffed.
