DFM
As others have already told you, your MTs are out of date. These are the ones we are working to these days (and were also the assumption for SDSR):
MT1 Defending the UK and its Overseas Territories
MT2 Providing strategic intelligence
MT3 Providing nuclear deterrence
MT4 Supporting civil emergency organisations in times of crisis
MT5 Defending our interests by projecting power strategically and through expeditionary interventions
MT6 Providing a defence contribution to UK influence
MT7 Providing security for stabilisation
I know that MRA4 could provide to all of those in the maritime role, but take a look at what is left in the RAF inventory post SDSR and you could fit all of those left in a similar way. Look at how the old priority of MT1.2 has been usurped by the new MT1 and MT2.
Why has MRA4 been canned, well IMHO these are the main reasons (and put together they make a convincing case):
1. Cost, the whole project was spiralling in cost and showed further potential to continue. Not only the aircraft themselves but also the support contract. The company would have dearly liked us to say "thank you" and just got on with flying it, but the Senior Officers were right to question and delay the RAF taking it on, because of...
2. Build quality. To quote an engineer working on the program "Every time we fix one issue, we find another two...". There were so many issues they had to reject all of the previous work on the Safety Case and start again with some re-work - that is why the main reason why the first aircraft was delivered in March and was still not flying on a UK RTS by October (last estimates were for a UK RTS in Feb 11 - 11 months late).
3. The MRA4 did not have all the extra UOR "bells and whistles" that MR2 had attracted. That was also going to add costs for modification. For example the Northrop Grumman Nighthunter EO/IR turret fitted to the MRA4 was worse than MX-15 and therefore was not suited to the overland role that MR2 had done well. So read extra cost and also it was a one-trick pony MPA at delivery.
Now for the political bits (RAF vs Navy vs Army)
4. Seeing as there was so much "back biting" going on between the 3 services, why would we, the RAF, want to protect something that effectively supports the Royal Navy? Conjecture, but a possibility? The support that the RAF provide the Army in AFG is essential and seen as "main effort" within the SDSR; maritime patrol, I suspect is not.
5. Swing towards unmanned ISTAR. There is a long term aspiration to use RPAS/UAS for all ISTAR. The main driver is cost, platform endurance and manpower savings. Again, conjecture, but why introduce a manned system with 30-40years life when it doesn't fit with the strategic vision?
Were they right to canx MRA4 - in a perfect world, No. However, as we're totally skint at present, I believe it was a tough decision but probably right in the medium term if we replace the capability with something different (ie. within 5 years).
LJ
