Barney,
F*ck me that's a big chip on your shoulder, fella.
'Petty Journo Squabbles', 'Enthusiast'......?
What's next? Beagle Pup-driving amateur? Former UAS mediocrity?
All accurate insults, but can't you argue the point, rather than attacking the man?
I'm not a pro FJ pilot, like you, but looking in detail at programmes is my bread and butter, and I have notebooks full of interviews with IPT folk, Main Building desk warriors and NAO people, and files of correspondence too.
I therefore do understand the difference between a flyaway, a Unit Production Price, and a Unit Programme Cost, and it gives me the pip when the stupid, the lazy, or those with a pro JSF agenda distort Typhoon prices. You quoted a 'flyaway' of £160 m GBP - which is about 400% wrong as a 'flyaway' or 'Unit Production Price', and about double the planned unit programme cost.
I hope that you're a bit more careful with your flight planning calculations.
The only way programme costs can rise to £130 m are if more than one third of the Typhoons covered by the umbrella contract are cancelled. I don't and would not approve of that.
There are plenty of good reasons to kick Typhoon (and more than a few valid criticisms of F-35, too), without dragging in exaggerated and partial views on cost, and silly claims extrapolated from Typhoon's 'Cold War origins'.
****-canning Tranche 3 would not save the UK any money, up front - though we'd save on support and operating costs. Cancelling the carriers and JSF could still save the better part of £12 Bn.