Frankly it's testament to the discipline and professionalism of our armed forces that they never turn around and shoot these people. I'm not sure I could restrain myself.
The Eurofighter has been a long time coming but it a very competent fighter and while armchair generals can whinge all they like about it being built for the last war etc. A high quality interceptor is crucial to our strategic defence as an island nation. Modern Warfare 101; no air superiority, no beach landings, no paradrops.
The US Military industrial complex is just hilariously corrupt. Dropping the specs like this is done on almost every project. They maintain several illegal monopolies and their behaviour in political spheres is just atrocious, we shouldn't touch their products with a barge pole.
My 2 favourite examples; Stryker MGS, designed for close infantry fire support and AT duties. Except it fires a (deliberately)lower powered 105 round to combat recoil, that won't penetrate a last gen tank out of a gun so loud it can't be fired within 500yards of dismounts because it would cause permanent and total hearing loss even with ear defenders again because due to recoil they had to fit a muzzle brake. It's an autoloader and comes with it's own replenisher, great you might think, except the replenisher is not in any way connected to the autoloader and serves only to point ammo at the crew. Speaking of ammo there is absolutely no proper HE rounds(HEAT doesn't count) for it only armour piercing which is utterly useless against buildings and personnel(according to West point 90%+ of a tanks targets in any conflict) this goes for a lot of US heavy guns(due to GDLS illegal monopoly), ever seen those vids from Iraq where tanks and APC's are just laying into brick and mud buildings for hours on end with their main armament and they don't fall down? Now you know why.
It's turning circle is over 100ft, so they redesigned the training area to contain no 90 degree turns(cause you never see those in real life right?). Think about that with city fighting. While almost every other armoured vehicles has had a pivot ability for 50+ years. It has run flat tires, but because the suspension was chopped up to give it the ability to kneel and fit in a C-130, it can't actually run with more than two punctures because the axles snap, not to mention the fact it will quite often just kneel of it's own accord and stop completely. I suppose this problem is fixable but it's probably not worth it as a C-130 can never, ever lift it's weight. Speaking of wheels the hubs and wheel wells are practically un-armoured, an AK can penetrate them. Oh and every study ever, most of which
btw performed by the US military, shows that for it's assigned role tracks are absolutely essential, yet the Strykers main selling point was the fact it had wheels. Wheels that burn and I mean really burn vulcanised rubber will do that, oh and explode with so much force it can kill and maim beyond 20ft due to the huge weight. Wheels with a ground pressure that would embarrass 80ton tanks. Wheels that in their own testing were defeated by a drum roll please... 6 degree slope, yeah SIX. YCMIU.
It's wiring is so bad it needs a breaker box, yeah really and is designed not only without spall liners(standard since WW2), which are utterly crucial to crew safety, but in a way that they can never be fitted due to terrible ergonomics. Ergonomics so bad several have been lost to people walking up to them with a carrier full of explosives, lighting the fuse and walking away while fully manned and on alert, because visibility is just that bad.
I could keep going for hours, but I'll spare you, if you're bored and want a laugh(or cry) go read about how New Zealand ended up with no air force due to a variant of this very vehicle.
Or the M1A2 'The best tank in the world'(sic) with no proper HE rounds(see above) and turbine engine that burns with an exhaust so hot if they travel to close in convoy it will set the tank behind on fire, yup really. Over 700c, hope nobody invents some kind of heat seeking technology... oh in the 50's you say? Oh along with vegetation, buildings, people and well anything else with a flashpoint below 700c. That uses almost exactly the same amount of fuel whether you're at the Abrams claimed but never demonstrated top speed or sitting idle. That same top speed used to calculate it's range which looks ok on paper but is only achievable at top speed. Any drop below that speed equals an equivalent drop in range. Oh and if you drive it at top speed, you're going to want a new power pack by next week. Oh and don't go crushing cars with your tank, I knows it's tempting, because the gearbox can only take about 3 sedans before again the whole power pack needs replacing. Not to mention, shedding tracks, still not having a proper APU, less ammo stowage than any previous US tank and only having composite armour on the front and DU in the rest. Yeah that DU the radioactive pyrophoric one.
Ok that's enough military nerding, to make the point; This is fairly standard behaviour of the US military industrial complex, the people we are relying on to provide perhaps our most crucial layer of national defence and the majority of our strike capabilities. We're buying a flying version of that tat. These companies have a long and proud tradition of utter failure at great expense.
I'd take EADS over these people any day and I can't really think of a more damning criticism than that.