Dear Frustrated:
"He probably discovered the true state of the aircraft:
- Design and safety issues discovered since the RAF accepted the aircraft in March.
- Mission systems that were obsolete and unreliable.
- An aircraft that could not achieve the quoted range and endurance due to design issues.
- No stores cleance except for sonobuoys.
- A rubbish self defence system (same as Sentinel)
- Wing hardpoints that would probably never be used due to lateral stability issues and that capability was traded away in 2006."
Yes, there were design and safety issues. Some were identified as genuine and were being addressed. Some were identified as a difference of opinion in the way regulations and requirements (changing more frequently than the Lib Dem election manifesto) were being interpreted between supplier and customer. These were subject to further discussion involving QQ, MAA et al, not being swept under the carpet and ignored. This is a fairly normal process in the life of an aircraft, see the A380/B787.
Obselescence is a fact of life. The iPhone4 was obselete the day it went on sale. Reliability had been an issue in the early days of the programme but again had largely been addressed by an ongoing series of upgrades.
The Initial RTS had some temporary limitations that prevented full envelope usage on Day 1. The available envelope was more than sufficient to allow training to commence and provided a range and endurance equating to that of the outgoing MR2. The incremental approach to the RTS had always planned to have a full performance envelope by mid 2012, as agreed with the DEC.
Stores clearance was part of the incremental approach to the RTS. All planned stores had been successfully dropped during flight trials, the RTS clearances were scheduled as part of the Incremental RTS (agreed with the DEC).
Say what you like about the DASS, it's the one the Customer asked for!
Several of the wing hardpoints were used successfully during the flight trials process. There was no indication that the use of wing hardpoints would cause any undue aerodynamic effects. The purchase of the carriers and any formal RTS clearance requirement was removed from the contract but the weapons system wiring and connections out to the hardpoints were all fitted.
Most of your statements are symptomatic of the ill-informed half-truths and mis-interpretations that have been the bane of those of us who expended a huge amount of personal commitment to the project. I am not surprised however. There were plenty of people within the project who preferred to believe half-truths and mis-information because it was easier than finding out the answers for themselves. This ultimately led to confidence in the product be called into question and from there it was one-way traffic.
Was I confident in the product? Absolutely, because I understood the process and talked to the people that mattered at the time. I would have happily flown MRA4 for the remaining 12 years of my career, as I had for the last 5 years, content in the knowledge that the RAF would have had the best all-round multi-role capable manned platform in the world. It actually had that much potential, I know, I experienced it first hand.
Last edited by ShortFatOne; 2nd Jan 2011 at 15:22.
Reason: Smelling pistakes!