DM, I think I have to summarise your postings for clarity:
I believe I have illustrated how the specification writers can be forced into accepting change that the end user doesn't want, simply because the supplier can't (or won't) supply what was contracted. Any attempt at penalising the supplier is met with 'we can't afford to lose money or all those jobs in Yeovil will be at risk' and the politicians are rolled out to defend British industry.
There is meeting the contract and there is meeting the contract - when the first AH 64s were being delivered there was one serviceable Multi-Function Display (MFD) available but the contract stated that each aircraft had to be delivered complete and functional or penalties would be awarded.
AW flew each aircraft individually to MW where each one was inspected and confirmed to be complete - then they took the MFD out, drove it to Yeovil and installed it in the next AH64 for delivery. So the AAC got a hangar full of unuseable aircraft with no MFDs and AW got to keep their profit having failed to deliver the goods
T800s wil not change anything with regard to lively Nr on FLynx but you seem very unwilling to concede that point - there is no magic spell that can be cast but you keep wishing anyway.
Everyone understands the implications of modern airworthiness regulations but don't hide behind them to justify why the aircraft won't be able to do its job on the battlefield - if the cabin was bigger you could have crashworthy seats AND enough room for 8 troops!
The Mk 9 undercarriage could have been designed much better without compromising the aircraft structure - AW just used the cheapest and easiest option they could and were then surprised when it didn't work well.
I think this summarises what you have been saying - it might make uncomfortable reading for some in AW and the procurement business but that's the reality of a government supported industry that doesn't have to compete to stay in business.