El Colonel
I think you said it yourself. It seems there is much going on in MoD to work out what they are legally obliged to do anyway. It rather follows, I'm afraid, that if they have to ask they don't understand the question.
Far too many generations (and a generation in MoD terms is a 2 year tour) have been brought up to believe the things I talk about are a complete waste of money and are therefore used to the work not being done. That ethos has to change and, from what I hear, that isn't going to happen soon as the same lunatics are still running the asylum (with a few honourable exceptions).
As for money, I'm afraid there is no avoiding the need to resurrect and stabilise legacy build standards and, hence, Safety Cases; and then maintain them. Also, a need to recognise what I said about much of this not being volume related. If anyone in the MAA doesn't understand this in infinite detail by now, they are in the wrong job. And, of course, the regulations are largely common across Land and Sea, so those domains need an equivalent seeing to.
This, and more, was submitted to DPA's DCE (3 Star) in a paper dated January 2000, written as a direct consequence of the RAF's decision not to routinely maintain airworthiness and the resultant trashing by the Public Accounts Committee in 1999, and MoD's own Internal Audit in 1996. He didn't bother replying but I imagine his successor will have a copy somewhere. I still have mine. His (my) 2 Star did reply, but merely stated the Auditor's criticism was "of no concern to PE". Really? (Yes!). The only positive thing I can say about this hierarchy was they certainly practiced what they preached. H-C is the result.
Failing that, call forward the unpublished evidence submitted to H-C, which I know expanded on this paper. It is as good a starting point as any.
More than that, my rate is 50p an hour.