Squidlord
(It's certainly true that an aircraft can be airworthy but vulnerable to enemy action.) Hobbs seems to show, just as the Nimrod TL did at his inquest, a poor understanding of his responsibilities (though, to be fair, there may be some context missing from the testimony nigegilb quotes).
1. Hobbs was responsible for the safety of the aircraft, not just its airworthiness. However, responsibility for certain aspects of that safety, it is true, may be vested elsewhere.
2. Hobbs is responsible for many aspects of "fitness for purpose". Perhaps the context of his claim regarding "fitness for purpose" was hostile enemy action.
3. I believe what Hobbs was trying to express is that he was not responsible for aspects of safety directly associated with hostile enemy action. In this, I have some sympathy for Hobbs as an individual but only frustration and anger for the MoD as a whole because this subject seems to fall between the cracks between different MoD organisations for just about every aircraft I've ever been involved with. And I don't particularly see it getting better post XV179, Haddon-Cave, etc.
Well said.