View Single Post
Old 29th Sep 2008, 01:29
  #29 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,078

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'.

Shit-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.
Jackonicko is offline