"How did it get to the UK"
An interesting question. From what I understand it was delivered several months ahead of 'schedule' the original date being Q1 '14 but BS promising the UK / DE & S Project Lead that all was well; thoroughly tested and the evidence trail fully available and substantiated hence the delivery advanced to Nov 13. Alas it appears that the US forgot one crucial piece of the jigsaw....please generate and provide the substantiating evidence to the UK so the certification process can proceed.
Having sat on the sidelines and reviewed the various posts on this forum with interest, it is reassuring to know that there are many educated colleagues who appear to know more about 664's certification criteria/ substantiation evidence available to the UK than the Procuring PT and those involved in trying to get this aircraft into the skies above the UK....I too sit here with interest, but am a realist, and the BS programme office are no more profficient at providing evidence than those departments within the UK community generating the plethora of UOR's to which no proven; auditable and certified modification exist.
Regrettably, many posts do not seem to be factually correct and, to be honest, there are many inaccurate posts starting to appear. Whilst in accordance with US processes the aircraft may be both Airworthy and Certifiable, the evidence available to the UK is not sufficiently robust to provide a comprehensive Safety Arguement to both the Duty Holder and MAA. It appears as simple as that!!!!!
Many flying hours does not make an aircraft safe....Concorde; Nimrod; Chinook.
Either a platform has sufficient evidence or it does not. The choice for those who decide to recommend and endorse the Safety Case is simple. Put your neck on the line and hope 'Hadden Cave 2' never occurs, or follow due diligence as defined and mandated by the MAA Regulations and seek sufficient; robust; ACCURATE and substantiated data, or bow to political pressure and hope that those 'politicians' and RAF Officers who have many fat stripes, but limited substance when it comes to holding a pen to the paper support you when the going gets tough.
I therefore pose one question......which may/ may not be true, but the the rumours abound.....why has the current Engineering Authority (EA) for the platform now declined/ rejected/ returned his Letter of Airworthiness Authority.
If the truth be known, and this proven to be accurate, then there is no smoke without fire and perhaps those who advocate a rapid clearance for the aircraft would like to accept his responsibility....I am sure there are those within the DE & S; DH; MAA; CAS community who would only too gladly provide you with both the pen and the noose should you wish to take up this offer.