DV,
Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting here, but it sounds to me like you are trying to say that the Nimrod isn't fit for purpose, because it only met X number of taskings out of Y. Edsett appears to be saying that the aircraft are unfit inasmuch as there are faults to be rectified, whilst Tuc chips in with, as ever, a wider view of the problem - which extends beyond the kipper fleet, and probably covers everything in service.
A lack of spares, and trained manpower (or, more accurately, a dearth of trained manpower hours - ie enough trained people, for long enough) prevent aircraft being serviceable on any given day - that doesn't mean the Nimrod is unfit for purpose, it means that thanks to reductions in manning and spares that there are a number of aircraft that aren't operational, but10-15 years ago would have been. That's what happens when you don't give a monkey's about retention of skilled tradesmen, don't maintain an adequate stores backup, and figure it saves cash to civilianise outfits.
DV - you come across as determined to argue with Ed, and equally determined to tar him as an apologist for the RAF, whilst anything to do with the Nimrod is necessarily evil. I doubt you will find many actual crew members who agree with this demonisation. I'm ex-crew, but find Ed's posts informative rather than apologist. Having sat through several 'of course it's safe lads' chats in that past, only to find the same problem recurring in flight, I can assure you I am far from inclined to accept bland assurances of airworthiness. (Bahamas Mama, anyone?)
The aircraft certainly has problems, that have largely arisen through ill considered and thoroughly badly assessed modifications, and a stunning degree of inability to see how one change might impact on another - it's a far cry from that to deciding that the basic aircraft is palpably unsafe. As I've said, I've been on the thing when some decidedly unsafe things occurred, a number of times, and there's a world of difference between RAF bull**** when the problem is identified, and the sort you get when it isn't.
Your earnest desire to see justice served is admirable, but you are in danger of undermining your aim by exaggerating much smaller problems... the jet is not unsafe just because it couldn't fly the flypro. It's still a blody good aircraft, it's just a great shame that something equally as good at the job - but newer - hasn't arrived yet.
Dave