Green Knight
For Goodness sake, no need for a little paddy. I would not say your post is as clear as you imply, but if that is what you meant, so be it.
I very specifically and clearly used that word in reference to those who claim that the massive mountain of documentation provided by the USAF does not exist, as it had not been generated inside, and in accordance with the processes of, the UK!
If I were MoD, I wouldn't pay too much attention to USAF paperwork, in the same way I wouldn't expect them to pay too much to ours. What I'd want to know is what work the company charged with stripping, inspecting, making good, rebuilding, testing, trialling our 3 aircraft has to do to achieve this; especially the making good bit. One assumes they weren't simply fueled up and flown as is.
Then, given the airframes are 50 years old, I'd want to know if the standards and materiel from 50 years ago are still applied (or CAN be applied) and, if not, what DIFFERENCES there are, how to record them, make sure they actually ARE recorded, and WHO will underwrite them. In other words, how many Production Permits and/or Concessions have been necessary, and who signs them? Because, those differences, even just one (and there are probably hundreds) constitute a major risk to a programme that was predicated upon buying the exact same standard as the US (which is what MoD announced in the beginning to allay these fears).
And, all the while and in parallel, this work is being plugged into the Safety Case update and reveiwed at each change, because if the audit trail is broken at any point then, by definition, MoD is going to have to be seen to ignore Haddon-Cave and the Secy of State.
And what does the original DA (Boeing?) have to say about this? Would you, in their shoes, be keen to put your name on the line for the sake of 3 resurrected airframes being flogged cheap to patch up a major cock-up? Indeed, have they a mechanism in place for approving such changes to a 50 year old design? If not, or if they are unwilling to sign up to the new Build Standard, or have doubts about the ability to maintain it, then who will?
I can't help wondering why such a risky programme was endorsed and approved in the first place. By MoD's own admission, they knew from the outset the airworthiness regulations could not be satisfied, but proceeded "at risk". I'd say DE&S/MAA don't have that authority. Was it a political over-rule, due to the embarrassment of no longer having ELINT? My guess here is DE&S are being blamed unfairly. I'd also want to know if the MAA had the authority to play the red card, and if they tried.