the F3 was fitted with the better integrated SIFF
One shouldn't speculate, but it is interesting to trace the sequence of events.
1998 - As a result of Boscombe Down trials, MoD(PE) DGAS2 (2 Star) advised to have all aircraft IFFs, but especially Tornado, checked for correct warning failure integration. Refused. Concerned staffs told to wind it in as the IFF man is a friend of DGAS2.
1999-ish - SIFF IPT formed (for a project other IPTs would allocate a single junior PM to).
2002 - DPA XD5 (2 Star) advised, as above. Laughs in face of concerned staffs, saying SIFF is on top of integration. Concern doubles - same people involved. Walks away when asked if retrospective action will be taken to correct past failures. Concerned staffs disciplined for being too robust with 2 Star.
March 2003 - ZG710. BoI Reviewing Officer recommends IFF failure warnings should be integrated.
If MoD wishes to refute what the RO said, they can. But the facts, above, are fully recorded. Until MoD stop compartmentalising these events, the problems will continue. This was a classic example. The failure was spotted on one aircraft. (Well done Boscombe). As IFF was "managed" by a single office, not by each aircraft office, it was reasonable to assume that if they refused to make one aircraft functionally safe, this ethos probably applied to others. This assumption proved correct, recommendations were made - at which point the compartmentalisation and protectionism kicked in. Wind your bloody neck in, you've made your aircraft safe (despite orders not to), so walk away. I know few agree with me, but in my opinion that's a sacking offence, even before the court case.