I, too, wondered at the questions. I know little of Nimrod MR so can only assume there is a valid underlying reason. Now if the same questions had been asked about a related programme, initiated at the same time, within the same Directorate General, with a fraction of the resources and a more demanding timescale, the answers would have been illuminating, and gone something like this…. The programme was delivered to time and cost, and a better performance than requested by the Customer. The Customer did not ask for, or make financial provision for, a training facility. Lacking this, meeting the ISD would be impossible, as the aircraft could not be deemed operational without trained aircrew. Nevertheless, and despite the direction of senior staff (1* and above), who were completely ignored (a common feature in successful MoD programmes, certainly under that DG) the training facility was delivered and the ISD met. Lesson? There are people in MoD who can do this for fun, and get it right every time with effortless competence. Instead of treating them as “an embarrassment to the department” why not learn from them?
Mr Liddell-Grainger seems to have inherited his predecessors’ tendency to sign without first reading. (That he doesn’t actually understand his responses I take as read). In isolation, the questions and answers mean little. When compared with other similar programmes however, they reveal unpalatable and embarrassing truths. I’m sure the monies wasted on Nimrod could have been put to use elsewhere.