"Not sure Nimrod 4 indicates Brit only programs are so peachy."
Typhoon isn't a Brit only programme. We're not talking about production, we're talking about in service sustainment and minor upgrades.
"Brits didn't ask for the secret sauce at the beginning..."
They were explicitely promised it, AND sprinkles, by Clinton, when they joined the programme.
So far, the degree of tech transfer has been such that essential operational analysis has been hampered, UK firms have sometimes been unable to bid for SDD work, and have been subject to needless delay and bureaucracy. Apart from that.....
"Explained by your MinDef chappie, reneging on UK orders means giving up brit workshare so they don't loose out in the Fatherlands. Plus paying moving expenses of course. But no penalties."
There are penalties written into the contract. Moreover the UK would have to continue to build components for the other nation's aircraft, or fund the establishment of production facilities for the assemblies it now produces, and would be further penalised for the reduction in production capacity.
The T1 to T2 upgrade is not a requirement, but is being undertaken on Austria's first six jets, and is cheap enough to be being undertaken at industry's cost.
"Prices I quote are Dec 2005 & after the events you list." You quote ancient prices that were restated in 2005, and which are disbelieved by the GAO, and which neither Lockmart nor the US Government are prepared to guarantee as people commit to the aircraft.
"I read Lockheed has published JSF partner price list." You read wrong, then, as the partners are being asked to sign up to production investment before a definitive price is set (due in 2011).
"You continue to include R&D to inflate your JSF price & leave it out of Typhoon. That's retarded, you need to stop."
Typhoon R&D and total programme cost has been stable for a while, now, whereas JSF's is still escalating. If we require a fast jet force of 232 Typhoon and 82-135 JSF, then we could notionally replace JSF with 82-135 extra Typhoon. Typhoon R&D costs would have been amortised over the first 232 aircraft, leaving the 'extra aircraft' available at unit production cost.
For 232 aircraft, the Typhoon Unit programme cost, including R&D, is £82 m. Easy.
They aspire to match F-16 life cycle (400% of price) costs on JSF, despite the demands of LO. Typhoon guarantees a significantly lower proportion.
"Your MinDef says Typhoon UPC for T1&T2 is £64.8m." No it doesn't. You quote an NAO price (from the 2005 Major Projects Report) which has astonished those in the programme, and which represented a £20 m rise since the previous annual report. Uness T3 has been cancelled, or problems have arisen that have resulted in a 50% increase in cost (and they haven't) the figure is wrong. The bottom line is that no partner will pay more than an export customer (that's contractually guaranteed), and we know that the Austrians paid €62 m per jet. The previous figure of £45.9 m is in line with Austrian, German, Italian and Spanish figures, and so can be assumed to be broadly correct.
Unless you believe that we're paying a UPC in £ bigger than the price being paid by Austria in Euros.......
£45 m = $85 m. That's far from 'double' the JSF UPC, and JSF prices are still escalating wildly. It's by no means unlikely that $85 m won't be exceeded.
In any case, any price is too expensive for an aircraft for which you can't gain operational sovereignty, which you can't support, sustain, modify or upgrade, and which can't carry and can't be made to carry the weapons you need.