had Eurofighter listened to the French, we might have ended up with a swing-role aircraft (Rafale) that could be effective in CAS(TODAY), fly off carriers (TODAY), and still be effective in air defence (TODAY). Instead we ended up with enormous investment in a very impressive but entirely useless swingish-role air defence fighter which can only at great expense be converted to an inefficient CAS role and may never be adaptable to fly from a carrier.
Had Eurofighter listened to the French, the RAF's current combat aircraft would be called the Squall FGR1 and built almost entirely in France, with French engines and French avionics. We'd have an aircraft which'd be able to fly off aircraft carriers we don't have too.
And, for the umpteenth time, the Typhoon
was intended from the outset to replace the Jaguar so even though Max Hastings and Lewis Page can't get it into their heads, one would hope that most people here and thus familiar with aviation would appreciate the fact that a pure AD aircraft was
never going to be selected for that role.
The air-ground capability is thus not an issue of adaption of a fighter aircraft into a poor attack aircraft but one of clearing the weapons for use; the sequencing of clearances was for the AA role first, with AG following. If you are going to brand the Typhoon:
very impressive but entirely useless swingish-role air defence fighter which can only at great expense be converted to an inefficient CAS role and may never be adaptable to fly from a carrier.
Then you're placing it in good company alongside the F-16 and the F-15, neither of which began life with an intended multi-role capability - 'not a pound for air to ground' in the case of the Eagle, neither of which seem to be doing too badly on ops with the USAF at the moment. And ISTR that the RAF has already impressed a very impressive interceptor aircraft into the AG role before - namely the Phantom. That didn't do too badly in the CAS role either (at least not according to the two IDF/AF ex F-4 pilots I've spoken to).