posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:02 PM
Of course there are other considerations for Britain.
Ultimately the decision may hinge upon retaining design capability and aircraft production capabilities and employment of a skilled workforce.
Cancellation of the Typhoon by Britain would have an ongoing effect regarding sales to other countries and support for those who have already bought
it. If that were to happen, I would expect that the Saudis would immediately cancel their order, and the aircraft would have no sales future. The
resulting collapse of the British aerospace industry would be final and complete. Typhoon would be the last military aircraft ever built in Britain.
This would have an obvious effect on the companies involved, affecting the workforce and ultimately the British economy.
So, the situation is very different to, for instance, if Australia (with our shiny new government) were to cancel F-18Fs. We would just have to buy
something else from the USA - politically we don't have a choice. Cancellation of Typhoon would put Britain in the same situation - then the USA
only has to negate French design capability and they own the whole market from the next aircraft generation onward. (The Russians retain design
capability, but don't have the money to build their next generation)
On that basis, waynos, I feel sure that (whether it is the best item for the job or not) you will see the Typhoon contracts go ahead. In fact, on
that basis alone, it is just pure greed for any in America to even suggest that Britain kill the Typhoon and buy more F-35s.
Once again it is the pursuit of the dollar regardless of the cost to Britain's economy, workforce or design and construction infrastructure - not to
mention political independence.
I have no doubt that Sweden had been put in the same situation any number of times - but ultimately they have made the choice to maintain their
indigenous capabilities regardless of the monetary costs, and therefore remain (comparatively) independent of political blackmail - unlike the rest of
On the matter of interoperability / networking - the question boils down to - do you want to have common equipment that will network with the US
military so that you can join in the wars they seem to want to start - or do you want an aerospace / military industry that is independent of
America's fickle foreign policy. A no-brainer for me, old chap, but does the British government have the brains and the guts to reach the correct
If not, then the next time America wants to go to war (Iran for instance), they won't even have to try to 'convince' Britain - you'll just get a
fax telling you that you are in the fight, or else your F-35s, etc won't get spares or upgrades. That's the real political reality, I'm afraid.
I think it is fair to say that American business philosophy is not to gain a fair or even majority share of any particular market - they want it all -
and that doesn't bode well for any other national economy on the planet. What that all means for the majority of the world's population and their
future living standards, doesn't bear thinking about. What the US misses (and also many economists) is that for the US to continue selling product,
there has to be someone with enough money to buy it - if they take over the world's markets, then nobody will be able to afford to buy from them.
Americans cannot become rich by trying to sell F-22s (for instance) to countries who's industries have closed down due to US competition and
therefore do not have the income to buy F-22s - and a country cannot get rich simply by selling to itself - the rest of the world MUST have some of
the market share, otherwise they cannot buy anything!
Ultimately, when America gains all the market, effectively making every other country dependent upon them, their own economy will collapse because
there will be no customers left with money to buy from them.
The Winged Wombat
[edit on 27/11/07 by The Winged Wombat]