Originally Posted by
andrewn
Agreed, and we all know why we are where we are with E-3D obsolesence issues. But, my point is that, surely a MLU, inc replacement of mission kit should be less expensive than a complete new purchase, of a different type with its own new mission system, bespoke support requirement/training and its own obsolesence issues (as per RAAF example above)?
You're missing the elephant in the room. It's not the price of the equipment - it's the cost of developing and integrating all the systems so that they work together seamlessly. Those with long memories will recall that the original Wedgetail aircraft developed for Australia delivered late and over budget - due entirely to the difficulties of doing all that integration of the various systems.
The benefit of buying an off the shelf solution is that all that development has already been done and paid for. Further, with a fleet of Wedgetail aircraft flying for several countries, the development costs of keeping all that kit up to date can be shared.
Of course, nearly all those benefits go away if they 'Anglicise' the Wedgetail - unless it's just a few token changes to make the politicians happy...