Indie/Truckkie,
Completely agree that given the current Op Tempo the need for more/better AT is a priority. I have no experience of the A400M programme but one thread that seems to run common here is sceptisism over 'unproven' designs - we've come a long way since the days of having to actually build aircraft to find out how they fly/handle/operate.....modern modelling and simulation, whilst not being the whole solution, is now suprisingly accurate. I'm not sticking up for the aerospace companies, simpy suggesting that 'unproven' is perhaps not an argument
Jacko, your worst-case suggestion, which could very soon become reality BTW, was 140m GBP.....that's not a good news story, come on! If you consider the capability you get for the money, right now, it's doesn't paint a rosy picture - they couldn't even get the austere capability for A/G ops sorted in time, and how much extra are we pumping into the Typhoon programme to give it this capability? I guess the answer is in one of your notebooks somewhere perhaps?
The research in the Times article is clearly flawed (3 x 500lb bombs??) and therefore loses it for me I'm afraid.....please don't get me wrong, I didn't produce the 160m GBP figure, and I understand changes will be made to procurement plans but, to get back on track, cancelling the A400M and our JSF buy is not the solution by any means.