Trukkie,
To be honest the Typhoon isn't the best machine for Afghanistan/Iraq where transporters, armoured cars, APC, a-10's, apaches etc are needed... but they were not the equipment needed during the Falklands! sea harriers were just able to suffice, the argument then was we needed two huge carriers, fighters, awacs.
Just having Transport aircraft/a-10's/apaches also wouldn't be too clever in many realistic scenarios involving any half credible opposition air platforms, If you had a couple of those shot down, you'd soon be saying quite rightly where is the air cover...?
Simple answer is that you need is a variety of aircraft and ground forces working together, but its not simple...
Your not going to get shiny new kit for everything every few years, this is a problem with large purchases measured in decades - but this is how it works now!.
Iraq and Afghanistan are conflicts that sprung up out of nowhere, you can only really plan for 'sensible' (in sensible I mean likely) conflicts, to use these theaters to show bad planning of equipment is grossly unfair.
You should really be having a go at those who choose to send forces to fight in stupid places for the wrong reasons, they really should be better at picking their wars
only choosing wars that suit the equipment we bought...
, and refusing any that are not quite right.. smell iffy, not in our primary interest, just to be in the gang etc
In short Typhoon will provide a broad capability for years to come, and it provides lots more than just shiny new jets, and as for price they work out Cheaper than those 8 Chinooks
, so lets see which reach foreign soil first!!.
Cheers