Sorry, perhaps what I said didn’t quite come across as intended.
I don’t believe a simple injection of funding can correct all that is wrong. We passed that point in about 1993. There are so many other things that are encouraged, condoned and applied that are fundamental breaches of the airworthiness regulations. Among them;
The delegation process. There is a basic lack of audit trail when people who themselves are unqualified and inexperienced are permitted to delegate airworthiness responsibility.
As above, the people who are delegated are often untrained and have a very simplistic view of safety and airworthiness. It used to be more or less impossible to have delegation without having previously worked your way back through the procurement cycle. That is, repaired/maintained the aircraft or equipment, been a line supervisor, QA, an Engineering Authority or similar, a project manager and so on. Not necessarily all of them, but you get the idea. Now it’s a two day seminar, if that (which is, of course, half their c.v.).
Non-engineers are permitted to make technical decisions, and over-rule design decisions.
Configuration milestones (Critical Design Reviews, Functional Audits and the like) are waived, especially by non-engineers. These serve a number of purposes, the common denominator being safety.
Contracts can be paid off before completion, bearing in mind that very often the final (waived) milestone is verification of safety and/or airworthiness.
And, of course, it has been ruled that attempting to apply the main process whose aim is to prevent all the above through robust scrutiny, is a disciplinary offence.
All confirmed under FoI. The people in MoD who make these self serving decisions refuse to change their minds, and must be over-ruled from on high. I hope the QC’s review digs this deep, but on the face of it his remit will have to change somewhat.