MR2 vs MRA4
I have prevented myself from posting on this thread for as long as possible but I feel I need to air a few issues that have been eating away at me for a while.
The MRA4 is not merely a refurbished MR2, it is a new aircraft, a fact that has been lost to a few in the MOD over the years. Reading some of these posts it appears that a few posters are making this mistake too. To complain that no changes have been made to the MRA4 design due to perceived flaws with the MR2 design is fundamentally wrong. It's similar to complaining that no changes have been made to the Tristar design following a report into the MR2 system - it's irrelevant as they are 2 different aircraft; as for MRA4 and MR2.
The core design for the MRA4 was frozen years ago and the Key User Requirements were defined and contracted to. These did not include bomb bay and fuel tank fire suppression. To insist that the MOD is negligent in not incorporating these changes into the MRA4 design at this stage are lacking any appreciation of the work involved to get these changes incorporated. My opinion (and just that) is that it would add at least a year onto the project if not more. What mitigation is there to keep flying the MR2s for extra years compared to the benefit of bomb bay fire fuel tank fire suppression? The probability of these happening have already been reduced to as low as reasonably practicable and so should not happen within the lifetime of the aircraft. Other key areas of the design result in a catastrophic failure of the aircraft with possible loss of life however these, through engineering analysis and industry best practice, have also been reduced to as low as reasonably practicable withous further engineering. As stated in previous posts, to reduce the risks to nothing would prevent flying, if not life in general, from taking place at all.
What I am trying to convey is leave the MRA4 out of this debate. If you want to question the MOD policy on heavy aircraft equipment and upgrade procurement then start a new thread.