Well, the MoD/RAF is notorious for changing specs and off-take numbers, as well as for writing rubbish contracts and stuffing themselves. So this is a pretty major problem.
I have a little experience of this, from the supplier side, so I can't disagree - but it seems a little lame to posit this as an reason why we can't be trusted to make our own aircraft. I mean, fix it! Easier said than done I'm sure but good grief.
And what threat environment do you want this new jet to work in? Unless reasonably benign at ML, then it starts to get rather pricey VERY quickly - we're not talking about zero-timed Hunters with Litening pods, I'm guessing.
Sorry, ML? Medium level? Remember, I ain't got no Cranwell. But this depends what you want, which is a tricky question, of course. The thing is, this does speak back to the "stop fiddling with the spec" issue. Tornado seems from what I've read to be a superbly successful ground attack device and it is not doing anything like what it was originally designed to do. At some point, it's necessary (and fiscally responsible) to decide on something and let someone make it without constantly trying to ensure it's perfectly optimised for whatever might be happening next Wednesday, which, by the time the thing takes flight, will be out of date in any case.
Extremely unlikely to provide "overall positive fiscal effect" (which I assume means a profit)
Well, no, that's specifically why I didn't say profit; selling them is aimed at amortising the cost of having some yourself. But really, again, isn't this hopelessly lame excuse? I appreciate the US military-industrial complex is a rather special case, but I suspect that there was a time when outfits like English Electric and Blackburn would have been surprised to hear that it's impossible to run a business building military aircraft.
Of course, if you write off the R&D, then you could even make Concorde profitable.... but it didn't do much for the taxpayers or the BAC shareholders.
Sure, fine, but if you're going to make them anyway, why not ensure that UK government spending is at least spent and taxed and re-spent in the UK.
No?
P