"John Cook" wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:11:47 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

[...]

While I generally agree with your critique in terms of the usual
journalistic twisting of words, the MoD quote does allow leeway for them
to
say later, "Well, we relooked at our requirements and decided we *really*
did not need 232 of these aircraft, that 180 is just fine..." or some
such
drivel. It is not as if it should be a surprise that the RAF and/or UK
government might cut back on their "requirement"; for gosh sakes, they
are
so close to the bone that they plan to field a chunk of them sans-guns
solely based upon financial concerns (that indicates a pretty nasty
budgeting situation to me).

The "However, the spokesman said that the ministry was still committed
to taking the same total number of aircraft. " bit that was missed out
of the newspaper peice, I havn't yet managed to find any reference to
the MoD saying that 180 is all thts needed!!!.

The Ministry spokesman has not yet been to be told they can only afford 52
(or that a new aircraft design contract award is imminent).