I think that Gordon Brown has really hit the nail on the head. The Typhoon was concieved in the Cold War and as we all know we have moved on leaps and bounds from those days.
Why should we spend about 3-4 years worth of TOTAL procurement budget on an aircraft that is basically designed to defend the home base from Soviet attack.
The Army begs for a new rifle. The new C7 (Canadian M-16) is the new weapon of choice and for around the cost of 20 Eurofighter's we could equip the forces with a weapon that works.
We would be better served by obtaining the new carriers and the JSF to go with it. This would conform to the new defence ideology of 'Hit em at home first'
A nimble navy with floating airbases is far better than having 232 fighters based on some foreign soil or back in the UK.
We would also be better equipped by buying the C17's and a few new ones to go with them. Lets face it, A400m will drag on and go just as over its budget as the Typhoon has.
For once, we need to heed the advice from our allies (USA) and buy whats best on the market at the time. We have a history of ill fated procurement bodges and the forces are getting sick of it!
Opinions here will be biased as aircrew reign supreme within this forum. Please take time to think of the further implications of buying a relic and not equipping the rest of the forces with the basic kit needed to fight!