Why I disagree with iRaven's comment
iRaven,
The Sunday Times story clearly suffers from a total lack of technical understanding and context. So you will not be surprised to hear that, in my opinion, this article does not answer my original question or provide the reasoning behind the cancellation of the MRA4. As for the Ppruners who have been trying to spell it out under an apparent cloud of secrecy but were afraid to break ranks; well I guess now they can all come forward with the juicy details. 
I have many reasons why I think the article is just another piece of journalistic licence to provide sensational stories rather than a well constructed attempt to find the truth. But rather than get into the emotive language that they ply so well, I will respond with a couple of points that are based on facts and in a context that hopefully speaks for itself.
Firstly, I trust the BAes (inc contractors) and RAF engineers professionalism and intimate knowledge of the air vehicle above that of a Sunday newspaper. These engineers were responsible for the aircraft's construction, servicing, maintenance and its introduction into service; whereas the newspaper was trying to make capital out of a technical report that they clearly do not understand. Those same engineers were content that they were very close to reaching the major hurdle of RTS certification. Therefore, I and every other member of the current MPA community that I have spoken to were content with its safety.
Secondly, do you not think it is a touch implausible that CAS would have risked his reputation within Govt and MoD circles in defending the MRA4 to the hilt if it was so dangerous? Or are you suggesting he wasn’t briefed about all these supposed shortfalls and critical safety issues? Much more important than the reputation of CAS though; ask the ShortFatOne (amongst others) if he was content with the overall safety of this aircraft.
e.g. A Quote from an SFO post in Oct 10 that I hope he will not mind me using:
“I cannot say what other platforms are doing, I don't have first hand experience of them but if they are applying the rules with the rigour that we did (and I am sure they are?) then we must have the safest fleets of aircraft in the world (does that last bit sound a little too sarcastic?).
A sad end to what promised to be one of the most capable, flexible, agile and adaptable platforms the RAF had had for years. Still, I look back on my 150 hours airborne (and about 3000 in the simulator) with fond memories and a wistful glint in my eye (possibly caused by a small tear).”
Finally, I wonder if the true reason may be linked to the alarmingly rapid start to the act of vandalism this week, though I am still not quite sure why or how that would be. However, what I am sure of is that I do not believe newspapers when they have a choice between sensationalism and the more mundane truth, even when they have the truth in their hands……which in this case I would say they do not.
The Sunday Times received restricted information about specific technical defects or specification issues that were catalogued and in the process of being addressed. That’s what engineers do with pre-production aircraft before they go into production; just a thought but it is also what they do throughout the life of any aircraft. As I have said previously; the RTS issue for the MRA4 was always going to be emotive and all those close to the project know that this has undoubtedly been unduly influenced by the fall-out from the “Nimrod” handle as well as being the first in-production aircraft post the advent of MAA.
This is yet another example of that.
DFM over & out
Last edited by DFM; 30th Jan 2011 at 20:18.