... if something isn't "liked" for operational reasons, justification (however sketchy one may feel) can be made for doing what is "operationally necessary". What would having an an MAA add in this sense? If ACAS wants to sign off an RTS that says "Go do x, regardless of the risk, because the consequences of not doing are ...", I can't see an MAA getting in his way
Safeware, agreed, absolutely. Military aviation is not civil aviation. Its aircraft and crews may be expected to be put into harms way if and when the situation warrants. Commander's discretion, that's what he is paid for. That is not the point of an MAA. The aircraft in question should be airworthy, ie fit for purpose. That process begins way back in time and space. If on the day it is deficient in serviceability, role fit, munitions, whatever, and the command is 'go, there is a war on and the mission must be flown, many lives depend on it', that is a military decision. At least the hazardous nature of such a mission would not be made more so because of long term deficiencies in the airworthiness of the aircraft itself.