The report is barely worth the paper it is written on.
Take Crowsnest. Why did they not ask why its predecessor was delivered ahead of time, under cost, and to an infinitely better spec than the RN asked for - so why was that procurement model not used again on this lesser programme?
Was the committee told that the benchmark set by the predecessor was deemed an 'embarrassment to the department' (because it set the bar too high), and the above suggestion dismissed at 2/3/4 Star, PUS, and ministerial levels?