>> We disagree then. For the lifetime of the plane parts need replacing and not just
>> fuel pumps. It was going to cost a lot of money to have in service
>> and the only one that was airworthy... well wasn't. It highlighted problems.
Yes more than fuel pumps needed changing, mine was just an example that not everything needing building to a specific airframe as you had suggested. the cost per year was about £200m per year.
It's out of date as an airframe.
'Fraid not as pointed out earlier on it's a new aircraft.
What went into it if it was the same as proposed in the 90s was also out of date in 2011.
That is the nature of electronics as soon as they are built and designed something else on the drawing board is better. But there is long way from having some computer that is faster than the latest design, but is still better than the functionality that the Nimrod was built for.
>> Scrap them and lets admit we need to buy something modern. And over the lifetime
>> of their use it will be cheaper.
Even with P-8 this is unlikely, unless your thinking of something of else, which would be?
>> Even if we take the £4.1bn figure and divide by 9 it was a lot
>> of money. One can fly (but not safe) and maybe 3 others partly built. So
>> the £4.1bn was not even the final figure.
It is a lot but look at the US for cost overuns, they aren't the panacea people pretend. They have massive cost overuns on all sorts of projects. Generally stuff like this costs a lot, you get what you pay for.
|
