Well, this is a single pseudo-official (as in provided to a government body, but not sourced via official Defense material) document with a quote from an ambassador from 2004.  Now I do not know, but I would have significant doubts about an ambassador being able to speak qualitatively about the exact stealthiness ( ;-() ) of a stealth fighter.  Speaking with such authority means he would have to a) be in the know and loop of the conditions of the various contracts, designs, etc, or b) be speaking from a position of mistaken / misunderstood information, or c) speaking out his mule...  I would tend to believe 'C' based upon all the other evidence and commentary indicating otherwise.  Also, please note that the source document is an uncorrected document, so some corrections may need to be made.

 

And of course, you are looking for any opportunity to disparage the JSF.  Do you work for Copp or E. Palmer?

 

Next question is, how long till GF-Aust comes banging on the door?  My bet is after the New Years...

It is a well known fact in professional aviation community that exported F35 version are not the same.

If you want an other document

page 59

 

"In 2003 the Dod signed with Lockheed Martin a 603 million dollar contract to make the aircraft delivered
to partners different from those for the United States military, in order to protect stealth technology while still maintaining as many common parts as possible. For this purpose some stealth technology components are built
in dedicated facilities with high levels of security and are only incorporated
after the aircraft has been completely assembled on the common assembly
line at Fort Worth. At the end of 2007 a further 134 million contract
was signed to develop the partners? F-35 version ?that meets U.S. National
Disclosure Policy, but remains common to the U.S. Air System, where possible.?
37 There is a very fine and intrinsically contradictory balance between
the partners? need not to be saddled with a product that is second-class
compared to the American variant and the US protection of its technological
leadership.

Interesting, but again, assertion with no way to source the originating statement to anyone with authority.  Additionally, as has been pointed out, how do you "unstealth" something?  Stealth goes beyond mere paint, and includes all the arts of the various engineering disciplines including RF (radar, comms, nav-aids, etc), Mechanical (structural, materials, etc), Chemical (paint, coatings, materials, etc), Aerospace (Airflow, fluid dynamics + et.al., etc), Motors, avionics, and ALL other engineering disciplines.  While I have no doubt that we *could* or maybe *should* have a better 'stealth' plane than our allies (which, btw, we do in the F22), is it really necessary?  This would mean that now have 6 instead of 3 primary assemblies.  Of which 3 are far less in quantity and so will be *relatively* cheaper than the US version because they use a different "level" of stealth.  Yet, anyone involved in manufacturing will laugh at that one.  When the partners realize that they are getting less and paying more (for the non-standard / export / downgraded model) after being told that everyone shares the same gear, thats gonna sit will wont it?

 

Again, why the fascination with failing the JSF?  Why the need to show such scorn and contempt, to dig to such depth in order to demonstrate that it is less than what it most likely will be?  There are two kinds of jeep owners, those that appreciate anyone who takes there non-Jeep 4x4 offroad.  There are those who pump and pour disdain all other comers because they are not a mighty jeep.  The funny thing is, a jeep has a specific purpose, and so does my Hummer, and those purposes are different.  A rafale is something else than a jsf, so what?  Neither of them are an F22, and neither the jeep nor the H3 are an M1, so who cares?

 

If you truly believe that some on SP are promoting lies that the JSF in the USAF / USN is more stealthy, than consider the plank in your own eye first!

Interesting, but again, assertion with no way to source the originating statement to anyone with authority.
If an official Oz defense committee, an ambassador, Lockheed Martin F-35 vice president have no authority....who has?

 

First off, the US Ambassador is correct, the US will have the highest level of stealth available, the F-22.  He isn't talking about versions of the F-35, he is talking about completely different aircraft.  

 

The F-35 IS the less stealthy aircraft for the US.  All versions of the F-35 will have the same level of stealth, but none of them will have the level of stealth seen in the F-22.(which the US is not exporting for that reason)  So it is accurate to say that the US isn't exporting the highest level of stealth it is capable of producing, but that isn't to say "export" F-35s are somehow downgraded. (they aren't)

 

One more time for slowkid, FS, Bluewings and the other fanboys.  The F-35 was designed from the start to be exportable.  From day one the idea was to produce a common airframe for domestic use and export.(The exact opposite of the F-22) 

 

Allies will be able to test the stealthiness of their aircraft.  It isn't like it will somehow be a mystery what level of performance they are getting.  If the US failed to deliver, the customer would know right away.  Lets not forget that several countries are buying very early model test aircraft including the UK and the Netherlands.   The US would have to be taking time to downgrade experimental aircraft even at the very early stages of the program before the aircraft is even operational.  It flat-out doesn't make any sense. 

 

"At the end of 2007 a further 134 million contract
was signed to develop the partners? F-35 version ?that meets U.S. National

"Again, why the fascination with failing the JSF?  Why the need to show such scorn and contempt, to dig to such depth in order to demonstrate that it is less than what it most likely will be?"

 

He is doing it because his favorite airplane isn't competitive...  He is trying to bash the F-35 in an attempt to make the Rafale look better.  

 

 

I have no fascination with failing the JSF.

It is an outstanding and affordable plane which is very complementary of F22 and fit well with US needs.

People which say that F35 is too expensive are unaware of its real costs because F35 marginal cost is simply outstanding considering it is a 13 tons class (empty) aircraft.

 

The fact than a Rafale post F3 will match it (and probably much better in AtoA) is also an outstanding achievement for France since it was done with a much smaller budget (and a different but clever concept).

 

 

For the 100th time...

 

 

PARIS --- Are the United States developing a ?dumbed-down? version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for export customers, or not?

Brigadier Gen. David Heinz, program executive officer for the F-35, rejected a claim by Boeing executives that Washington was selling a "dumbed down" version of the F-35 to international partners, Reuters reported June 16 from the Paris Air Show.

"I state categorically that I am not doing a different variant of aircraft for my international partners today," Reuters quoted Heinz as saying in an interview.... He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but [that] the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services.

"So for Boeing to make statements about a 'dumbed down' variant ... is absolutely incorrect and it is speculative and I believe, a very disappointing marketing ploy to drum up business" [for its F-15 Silent Eagle], Heinz added.

 

h*tp://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/106186/%3Cb%3Eupdated:%3C%C2%A7b%3E-jsf-export-variant.html

True for same basic airframe... but not for coating and software.

LOL