To be fair, the Panorama programme was pretty-much as one would have expected - there was no "story" just a re-hash of everything we already knew. I don't think there was ever much hope of a proper appraisal of the reasons why the RAF is in such a mess because it would require journalistic effort and analysis, and a fair amount of political debate. Clearly, the BBC hasn't got the inclination to do anything which requires much more than a throw-away "sound bite" from a twit holding a microphone. It seems to be BBC policy to spend huge sums of license money on this new breed of reporter so that no matter where a story unfolds, a BBC reporter can be stood there (with appropriate background) to repeat the same information that has already been read-out by the newscaster in London. It's lazy journalism but it looks impressive for the average viewer that isn't bright enough to determine that he/she hasn't actually been told anything of any value.
In fairness to Sir Glenn, he couldn't say much because he wasn't actually asked anything of significance. There's not much that one can say to a reporter that asks "do you think this is good enough" other than "yes" or "no" which he did, albeit with a rather uncomfortable look on his face.
If the RAF were determined to do a proper "
PR job" on the programme, they ought to have refused a pointless face-to-face interview and simply issued a statement which clearly stated that the RAF accepts that there are many servicability issues with the Nimrod and just about every other aircraft in the RAF's inventory. Whether each issue is connected is another matter (as Sir Glenn mentioned) but I think it would have been better to simply state that every issue is addressed and investigated, and that the RAF's personnel do the very best that they can with the limited resources at their disposal. It wouldn't have been too unreasonable to have also added that the RAF could have a near-100 percent servicability and safety rate if resources, supplies, technical support and training was effectively provided on an unlimited basis as required, rather than having to be pulled from whatever funds that can be spared.
The bizarre aspect of the saga is that the RAF is ultimately blameless; it's not as if the RAF is happy with the notion of any personnel's lives being at risk in any situation, and the programme was a golden opportunity to have simply stated that the RAF is forced to do the best that it can under the impossible circumstances imposed on them by the government. It's just another case of bad "
PR" which was wasted. Surely, when you have an opportunity to say "this wasn't our fault" you would take it, instead of giving the impression that you're somehow "on the defensive" - which is how Sir Glenn's appearance came-across to the viewer.
As has already been said on this thread and elsewhere, you'd think that by now we would have reached a stage where the RAF would stop trying to "muddle-through" and start saying that if Blair and his cronies want to embark upon crusades across the world, then they have to find the cash with which to do it. It's not as if the RAF can't do the job. Heaven-knows we've got the best Air Force there is, but you can't do an expensive job on the cheap, and I really don't know why the RAF's chiefs and
PR people are so reluctant to point-out this rather obvious fact.