Comparison with MCSP is simply not relevant here. MCSP is not High Risk otherwise it would not be happening.....its a prolonged programme due to lack of immediate and sufficient MoD funding. and involves little to do with changing the airframe build..particularly as the Mk1 already has all the foldy bits and in-built anti-corrosion measures...the latter being the key...No the Mk2 MCSP is all about reducing cost of ownership by replacing ancient electronics with those based on interoprable open architecture...a bit of plug and play if you like - but the designer if I met him would "smack" me for saying that!.
The Mk3s will need not only the foldy bits (remember it has a different tail design to the Mk1), and significantly it has no anti-corrosion measures. Sorting them will mean fundamental strip down...not a cheap process...and not neccessarily achievable in all present components.
The addition of the foldy bits will also add weight to what is already a relative poor payload performer. This implies further MAUM extensions which may apparently be made available but will come with greater major component life reduction penalties. It may not be as achievable as wished for given that the Mk3 build will not have some of the essential fuselage component strengthenings as provided in later and new build 101s for operating at the latest MAUMs. The cost of ownership of Merlin 3 is not cheap by any standards...so how does that square with saving cash and making MoD efficient?? It doesn't.
There was indeed an official MoD study a few years ago...and as result both the Merlin IPT, MoD Capability and the JHC know full well that the recommendation from that study was that it was more cost effective to buy new rather than rebuild the Mk3s......yet another procurement cock-up in the offing I fear.
Last edited by Tallsar; 13th January 2011 at 23:19.