While one sometimes asks questions knowing the answer, in the hope of getting a 'bite', my question about Boeing's share of the 'blame' for MRA4's woes (if it has such woes....
) was quite genuine.
It would be interesting to hear whether those who criticise elements of the MRA4 mission system would agree with Boeing's contention on p.17 that "Boeing’s Nimrod MRA-4 maritime mission system sets the standard - Developed and delivered ahead of schedule and below cost". It may be that it is entirely non-Boeing kit that is causing the problems, though given the reported problems, it's hard to see how Boeing's role (didn't it include some integration?) could be considered to have been completed on MRA4.
It's interesting that on the same page, Boeing touts its "Successful history of developing, integrating, and updating mission systems for numerous large scale programs", and then includes the 737 AEW&C among the examples.
That said, Boeing has a long track record of doing things really well (I'd view Wedgetail and KC-767 as being exceptions to a very respectable rule), and without problems. I'd therefore be quite prepared to believe that the company has a squeaky clean record on MRA4. Indeed, if it were otherwise, I'd have expected to hear bitching about their performance, and I haven't.
I didn't think it was the 737's number of engines that was the problem - rather with the unsuitability of the configuration to do the kind of 'yanking and banking' at low level that is usually associated with ASW ops by P-3s and Nimrods.
As to Bill Sweetman's blog, no-one could be a bigger fan of Bill than I am (if Av Week now hire Nick Cook they will have the triumverate of milavjournogods), but I'm still smarting that he single-handedly convinced me that a KC-330 victory in KC-X was not just unlikely, but impossible, so I'm now taking him with pinches of salt.
And the man clearly needs a holiday, you don't spell it ares
, bill, it's arse......
Coat, hat, I know the drill.