DZ,
The JSF is probably one area where the 'job creation' label might not stick. The payback that UK industry is getting on the project is, I reckon, well in excess of what the UK MoD have paid to get on the project. No doubt that F-35B gives a bigger payback for RR, but that is by no means the whole story on F-35.
I am also a fan of the Swedes - good designs, strong and consistent defence policies and realistic requirements all play a part there, IMO.
Hawk's an interesting aircraft - it was a completely PV design in response to an overblown Staff Target for an advanced supersonic trainer (which would have needed a sort of Jag T2 to meet it). You are bang on, pylons and other features were put in with an eye to the future - I was once told that the MoD had to be dissuaded (By Hawkers) from spending a million or so to get them removed!
Beags - no allegedly about it - the RAF presented politicians a revised map of the Far East to show the ability of land based air to provide air cover for the fleet - people I trust told me that one bit of land was moved around 400 miles! Reason was to undermine the case for the carriers - but I don't subscribe to the 'evil RAF' school - sadly, it's probably more true that the RN failed to make their own case strongly enough.
Regards
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 27th Aug 2008 at 19:56.
Reason: Reply to Beags