Beagle you have a valid point, and I'm sure that despite BAe's claims that a "navilisation" programme wouldn't be that difficult or expensive, it would doubtless turn-out to be another fiasco, but that's another argument entirely!
Magic Mushroom you're welcome to disagree of course but I think your view is also (as you put it so politely) "utter hoop". As I already mentioned, procurement decisions such as this one have a nasty habit of having very little to do with military expediency and much more to do with politics. And as I also said, you can wrap yourself up in projected performance figures until you go blue in the face, but the Whitehall bean counters might not see things in quite the same way. In essence, they're being presented with a choice between buying more Typhoons than we need (if you accept the argument that the RAF could ever have more aircraft than it needs, which personally I don't) and being unable (or unwilling) to also fund the F-35, or buying more Typhoons and abandoning the F-35. Ultimately, in broad terms, there really isn't much to choose between the two aircraft, at least not in terms of the UK's Armed Forces being able to get the job done (whatever the job might be), so it comes down to the relative costs of continuing or cancelling either type. In this respect, it may well make much more sense to "navilise" Typhoons rather than embark upon procurement of a completely different aircraft type.
You might disagree
MM but that's your prerogative - it doesn't mean you're right though
