fin, very true but I was riposting to 'where's the problem?'
The problem is the same as the tin-can; the fuselage had to be rigorously inspected before re-use rather than being melted down and recyling. One hopes that someone did a cost-benefit analysis to prove that reuse was cheaper than new build. Personnally I have doubts as it was probably costed to prove that reuse was a better option rather than a proper, unbiased, clean sheet approach.
I have asked the question in the past why we seemed to junk and go for new-build when the cousins had a well established practice of reuse. Since then of course we have had the GR1-GR4 and the GR1-GR3 also the GR7-GR9, all rebuilds and updates. On that basis the MR1-2-3-4 process is in keeping with that frugal approach.
In the MRA4 however I suspect that it might have been an economy too far and actually cost more but then I have no facts.