The writer is an idiot. Cutting the number of planes changes nothing except how many planes the English get. The "sunk costs" for the development remain the same, and that's what they are really on the hook for, especially since most of that money has already been spent.
That said, the euro-Fighter was always a bad idea and a collossal waste of money, meant only to assuage some fragile egos by showing that they could develop a firstline fighter just like the Americans and the Russians.
That the aircraft (now being remarketed as the “Typhoon”) looks like an airborne camel, and is one of the ugliest things seen in the sky since the first wild turkey took wing,
Guess he's never seen a F-4 Phantom II. Uglee!
But the real reason he's wrong is that just because the Soviet Empire collapsed, that doesn't end the threat of Soviet Aircraft. Not with the Russians selling Sukhoi Flankers to anyone with hard currency.
And here's where you're wrong
That said, the euro-Fighter was always a bad idea and a collossal waste of money, meant only to assuage some fragile egos by showing that they could develop a firstline fighter just like the Americans and the Russians.
It doesn't help to rely on US designs to counter the Flanker, if you find that the USA goverment has decided that certain regions: South America, Taiwan, Europe, don't get access to the latest technology (in this case the F-22, which is the only aircraft other than the Eurofighter that can match the Flanker).
Yes national pride had something to do with it. But "logically" the USN should have ordered large numbers of a carrier version of the Typhoon and avoided the F/A-18E/F "Super" Hornet