Lost - I don't have to insult you - your inability to move on from my alleged contradictions says far more about you than I could ever wish to.
I will again reiterate that although the RAF provided technical advice to the MCA on the interim contract it had (to my knowledge) no part in the letting and management of the contract and any recommendations made would have been on the assumption that goods and services were provided to the correct specification by the manufacturer and contractor. The blame for the failure to provide a suitably equipped 139 lies firmly at the feet of a whole load of civilians not the MoD.
For every failed RAF project (presumably you mean MR4 and Chinook 3) there will be many good ones. I am not going to defend the procurement process as it has its flaws but if you pay someone to produce a piece of kit and it takes 4 years to build, it is not rocket science to see that you might want to modify the specification upwards to take account of new technology. That brings in delays and costs money.
However, in most cases where a project fails it is because the contractor (civilians remember not military) claims to be able to produce a level of performance or capability and then can't - a bit like the present 139 fiasco!
How many computer systems have you seen come in on time, on budget and on spec?
How exactly would you go about defending what has gone on at Lee and Portland? Blame the RAF and Navy for leaving the stations vacant in the past perhaps?