Serious analysts are now estimating the UK JSF programme at more than £11 Bn, and £6-7Bn for the ships
Jacko - is there any chance of you (or your serious analyst mates) becoming my accountants please? How anyone can estimate a 50% increase in costs for two ships where there is now significant design maturity (steel already purchased and first cut this year), most major equipment already on contract and virtually no developmental systems (radars, electric motors, FICS etc all done on T45) is beyond me, particularly when set against a 10% forecast on a developmental aircraft programme! Leads me to believe thye're making it up as they go along.
Tim - you are correct that procurement decisions like these are not taken purely by the military, but you should recognise the make-up of the IAB. Last time I looked the S&T scrutineers (civvies - now part of SIT) would be in hysterics at the thought of the risk involved in "navalising" Typhoon. Those studies have been run in parallel ever since the inception of CVF and what was FCBA and every single time, the answer has come back - way too risky, whichever way you try to operate them. BAE are not stupid, if you were looking at a programme thats still not signed up and for which you were not the Prime, you'd have something in your back pocket to brief with as well. However, a thinkpiece designed for lobbying use is a long way way from a credible design and programme and I think thats what people are trying to get across to you.
Anyway, on we go - "Fight!Fight!Fight!"........