Da4Force, I suspect that 'botched' was a poor choice of words but to aircrew its meaning was perfectly clear.
As has been said earlier, some repairs require in-depth engineering to undertake a complete repair. The resources in-theatre will never be to the same level as at home (they used to be when we had Maintenance Units in Malta, Cyprus, Aden and Singapore). Where resources in-theatre are sufficient to make the aircraft fit -to-fly a ferry mission back to UK then that will happen.
Where fit-to-fly is beyond local resources a small rectification party will be despatched to make the aircraft fit-to-fly. They will work to a recognised repair scheme authorised by the appropriate authority (DEA? EA? etc). This has the advantages of relieving pressure on the detachment engineers and being the most economical way to recover the aircraft.
Occasionally the repair required may be so extensive that the cost of repairing in situ will be compared with the cost of dismantling and shipping home compared with the remaining life of the airframe. With an old aircraft write-off action becomes an increasingly attractive option.
Bodge? No in these circumstances.
Thanks PN - quite right, I was not implying any botching. Just saying that a repair needs to be done with the right tools/resources. If this means it needs to go back to the UK to get them, then back to the UK it will go. Issues are properly assessed and treated accordingly. I was suggesting that NOT doing this would be "botching" the repair. You knew what I meant, but crikey you have to be careful how you phrase things here....