VVHA
If we insist on defining every single requirement (based on those oh so realistic scenarios that the IAB mandate we use), then fair play. But the scenarios are just guesses (and not particularly good ones at that).
However, you highlight the flaw in so-called Smart Procurement - every little requirementmust be justified by some sort of OA, which can only be based on the endorsed scenario set. As this changes every couple of years (must try and stay relevant etc) - hey presto, the requirement changes (or seems to, or requires rejustifcation against the new scenario). Cue even more studies, confusion for industry as the goalposts move and delay for the project. It is no co-incidence that a recent NAO report exposed "savings" as either number cuts or deferments. Why we cannot derive a set of generic capability levels (eg a Fulcrum Operator, full BVR, with good training and AAR, or an A4 / Mirage operator with no BVR, good training, poor AAR - topical anyone?) and use them to define the capability required is beyond me.
Buying a carrier and airwing without the capability to do OCA, DCA, CAS, BAI and deep strike (maybe at different times, but still capable) would be just plain daft.