Could I suggest that there's a major misconception in some of these posts. Not in the fact that it's a cock-up (which it clearly is), or what's specifically missing (the sim), or why (developed by beginners who weren't given access to the data they needed), but in the suggestion that it's all the fault of the Army higher-ups, or even the RAF.
Projects like this are managed by an organisation called DPA (Defence Procurement Agency), a.k.a. MoD(PE), a.k.a. Min of Tech, a.k.a. Min of Av.
The AAC or RAF are largely responsible for generating a spec and budget, which are then handed over to DPA who are told to get on with it. They manage detailed bids, specs, manufacturer oversight, spares and support contracts, the lot - to "customer" (army/RAF) requirements. If the Army was asking for something impossible it was up to DPA to inform them and modify the spec. If the manufacturer was slipping behind it's up to DPA to chase them and make it work.
This organisation has a long string of such projects in it's history, including Nimrod, Lynx Mk.1, Tornado F3, Beaurofighter (although the management of this was shared with the Germans, French and Italians), EH101, SA80, etc. etc. In which perspective, 4 years late in-service, and 8 years to full operational capability is pretty good.
The army's business is fighting wars, which if it cock's up it'll get suitable blamed. DPA's business is procuring equipment on time, budget and spec. Credit where credit's due....
I did used to work for this organisation, but haven't for several years and feel much better for it.
G