View Single Post
Old 29th Sep 2008, 11:24
  #34 (permalink)  
Tim McLelland
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
It's all about the wider picture. Throwing performance figures back and forth is something best left to plane spotters. Likewise, juggling cost figures is a hobby best reserved for politicians. The point is quite simple; the Typhoon is a perfectly adequate aircraft for the new carriers, no matter how many fancy scenarious you might like to imagine. It's clear that unless the Treasury is prepared to cough-up money for Typhoons that they claim we no longer need, then they may as well take them. The "navalisation" issue is a red herring, besides, the RAF's JSF replacement Typhoons wouldn't even need "navalisation" in any case.

Consequently, the JSF has not been a particularly attractive option for a long time. As the development plods-on, the costs keep climbing and the Americans continue to treat us as inferior partners in the project, it becomes even less attractive until (as the Times says) we reach a stage where a serious choice has to be made. Given the huge cost of the JSF purchase, and the availability of Typhoons, it's a no-brainer. Even our confused and twisted politicians ought to be able to make the right decision this time and get out now. Let's leave the Americans to play with their shiny new toy at their own expense, methinks.
Tim McLelland is offline