Picking up a point from JB.
JB, the reason I am swinging the bat so hard on this is because the MRA4 does not have fire protection in the bomb bay.
Going back to MR2, nobody current has stated if the long range tanks could still be fitted in the bomb bay. We established that the tanks might have been sold as scrap but not if it was theoretically possible to comply with the BAe report. We did establish that High AUW considerations meant it was impractical to go without the need for AAR, but I wonder if it is possible to take off with the tanks empty and refuel in flight. Not ideal because there is still a risk of fuel migrations but at least there would be some fire protection in the bomb bay.
Finally, it has been suggested to me that the reason MRA4 will be introduced to service without bomb bay protection, fuel tank protection and flight deck armour, as well as single skin AAR piping, is that the RAF is desperate to get it to the front line. Any late changes to design would allow BAe to use it as an excuse to take much longer to get the aircraft in service.
The "clever" plan is to UOR after ISD. To that effect the RAF is starting to look at FDA and OBIGGS for MRA4. I hasten to say that there have been absolutely no official requests to fit this equipment.
Errr MD, I make that December 4th