Yuku free message boards

As mentioned there was a huge gap in time between the intial decision made to buy the Eurofighter and the one to buy the JSF (though if, big if, the JSF doesn't slip in schedule much more the 'initial operational capability' dates will be less than 10 years apart, not all that much by today's slow moving a/c procurement standards). Anyway weapons programs are 'jobs' and defense infrastructure projects foremost in many or most cases, and at least as of the time of Eurofighter, a US-centered shared project like JSF was a non-starter, the whole idea was not to do it that way.

But, if the decision was purely military and there weren't contractual obligations to buy all planned Eurofighters or else pay the other consortium members penalties, it would surely make sense to discontiune additional Eurofighter procurement now. That wouldn't be solely in favor of JSF but in view of a tight money situation where more Eurofighters don't meet any really urgent UK requirement head on. In almost any realistic scenario requiring really top end air-air capability the UK is going to be allied with a country that has a far superior plane for that role. And such scenario's themselves aren't all that likely. Against more moderate and realistic air opposition there are already some Eurofighters, and there isn't a big difference anyway between Eurofighters and other potential allies' F-16's, 18's etc. if all have the same AWACS/EW/network etc. support. Whereas in lots of highly realistic scenario's the UK is going want to contribute strike a/c to coalition warfare, and the Eurofighter right now has quite limied capabilies in that area. More money is to be spent improving that as time goes on but it can't match the JSF's potential, and the timeframe of those two things, 'fully multirole' Eurofighters and JSF's, is less far apart. AFAIK it's still not certain that some penalties won't be paid to cut off some procurement of this low priority asset, the Eurofighter.

Joe