Bluntend,
The problem with blokes like you is that you assume that American kit is any less prone to development problems, cost escalation, delays and maturity issues. I refer you to the C-130J and the Chinook HC.Mk 3.
We a get a very skewed impression of US kit, because the problems and delays and f*ck ups seldom make the news. US media are supportive and tend to sit on negative stories (look at the easy ride that Boeing get in AWST) and their industry folk are "very good at keeping their traps shut (it's the American way)."
There is not the same pressure to “get it right first time” in the USA and while US industry is much better than ours at producing something on time and to cost, they will often produce kit that is often quite severely flawed. That's no problem, because they know that they are going to get paid to fix the problems. Being launch customer for a US aircraft can be an eye-opening experience, however.
I'm told that the avionics in Raptor were far more unstable than Typhoon was and they are only now getting to grips with it - hence its late and problematic IOT&E and the need for an FOT&E.
There may be a case for arguing that the procuremen of older, proven, developed US kit offers a low risk solution than buying new UK/UK collaborative kit, but I'd challenge you on cost.
Much of the price of every Typhoon (and the unit flyaway cost, excluding R&D, isn't much higher than F/A-18E, and is cheaper than some F-15 prices) flows directly back to the UK exchequer. The Typhoon programme provides invaluable high tech employment and supports a major export earner. The Typhoon's through life and costs of ownership are much lower than those of the alternatives that you propose. F-16 or F/A-18 would not have been more cost effective, and the damage done would have been huge.
Flash 13,
I wouldn't want to challenge your 'official brief', but I was led to understand quite the reverse, when I spoke to Air Officers involved in making the Hawk AJT recommendation, and in numerous briefings by service and industry people. Moreover the "Aeromacchi" (Aermacchi, or arguably Aeryakky) M346 is neither cheap (it's barely cheaper than Hawk 128 and its support costs are higher) nor is it available in any quicker timescale than Hawk 128, nor does it meet the RAF requirement as neatly. Everyone in the training world I've spoken to is happy that the AJT was procured as a straightforward purchase, and not as part of some woeful PFI.
The interim Indian training arrangement is pretty small beer - six studes at a time - and should not be imposing too severe a burden on Valley. If it is then there's something we should be told.