Courtney
Thanks, and I agree but would add -
Not being able to afford kit within the Defence budget is not the same as providing it and then wilfully failing to integrate it properly (rendering the aircraft functionally unsafe), but making the false declaration that the job is complete and paying off the contract.
In the case I mentioned, which gave rise to this question of failure warning integration and the recommendations Tornado be checked, the proper integration would have been carried out in parallel with other activities, with time saved at both Boscombe and during flight trials because they wouldn't have had to track down why none of the warnings were working. Not to mention the lengthy machinations in MoD(PE) while the aircraft office fought in vain trying to get 2 Stars to accept aircraft should be delivered safe, supported by valid Safety Cases.
The corrective action (not by the IFF office, who had been absolved from making the aircraft safe, rendering their existence completely pointless) was carried out by the aircraft office at a cost exceeding £4M and incurring 4-5 months slippage. That extra cost was, of course, the 2nd payment the company had received for doing this work. I had recommended MoD pursue free rectification / breach of contract, but it was decided this would have upset a few people, not least the original IFF PM and his mentor, so payment was made again, and something else chopped out of the design.
I explain this because it is wholly related to a number of issues regularly debated here. Wilful waste of money. Inappropriate procurement. Incompetent procurement. Delays. Unnecessary loss of life. Not that any of these concern the principals in this case.