Apple vs. teacup

Calculate also:

%age EF programme costs returned to HM Treasury via taxes.

Cost benefits of operational soverignity.

Value of EF programme to UK economy, hence to HM treasury via taxes.

Not so say that the EF programme hasn't been mismanaged, or that getting disparate nations to agree on something is akin to herding cats.

If the F-35 costs $55 million,

 

 

55,000,000 US Dollar = 27,671,285 British Pound (February 28, 2008 exchange rate)

"-Think EF program costs returned to the British taxpayers via tax refunds."

Tax refunds? Very funny.  Then of course you are lacking in capability that would force you to buy abroad. So all that money vanishes entirely from the UK.

"-Sovereignty, are the EU partner nations imaginary?" 

The Partner nations exist, of course. But they do not withhold design data or source codes, so the UK Govt. has full information on their aircraft.

"Cost vs Benefit Analysis...  Would the UK economy benefit if funds were allocated elsewhere with in the economy?"

The same can be said of any military project. US: LCS, Comanche, LPD-17, France: Rafale, Australia: Sea Sprite, M113 upgrade etc.  The point was that it was money spent in the UK, so all the associated wages, service costs etc

remain mostly in the UK.

"As I'm bored at the moment, I think I'll attempt to work out The Lizard King's drivel"

"The point was that it was money spent in the UK, so all the associated wages, service costs etc

flames, ignore this statment:

 

Nice trick, switching a comment to a different point.

Again, no, the partner nations do exist. In fact, some of the money put down by the UK went to them/

However, the point of a partnership is that they spend their money in the UK as well and it should, in theory, come out even on a per-plane basis.

Care to fall on your face again?

I realise that wasn't gentlemanly either, but being as you're trolling and the purpose of this topic is to cause offense I don't care.

Get your facts straight, compare like with like and have a point to make and a reasoned discussion should be had by all.

"Care to fall on your face again?"

 

How have I fallen on my face?  Compare the costs the British nation is paying for an advance aircraft to that of what other nations are paying.  What you will find is Britain is paying top dollar for a plane that does not distinguish itself in the top-tier market. You guys owe the House of Saud big time?.

 

"but being as you're trolling and the purpose of this topic is to cause offense I don't care"

 

You make comments like the following:

 

"As I'm bored at the moment, I think I'll attempt to work out The Lizard King's drivel."

 

Really back it up.  Here is a quote from the communications manager at Lockheed Martin made just the other day:

 

"Average unit recurring flyaway costs for the CTOL aircraft is in the upper $40 million range, while the STOVL variant is in the mid-60s," said John Smith"

 

*ttp://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3413036

You start topics like this in the manner that you do and expect a different response?

You could have titled it "I laugh at the EuroWeenies" and the tone would not be much changed.

You're still not comparing like costs.

Other nations? Well, there's the US, whose large order quantities permit some economies, but you're not comparing like costs, so that's a bit moot.

Then there's France, and the Rafale is as much, if not more, in comparable terms.

Then there's Russia, except you can't draw parallels because the design philosophy is very different and labour costs aren't anything like the same.

Or there's... Well, no-one.

I guess the fundamental questions is in which direction does the UK want head?  Does she want to be in the US/Russia/France/Sweden/ and to a lesser extent China grouping or does she want to be in the India/Israel/Australia/Etc grouping?

 

Currently, the UK is headed in both directions with the Euro-Fighter & F-35.  I guess future decisions will be based on the success or failure of  these endeavors.