Vasco,
I am just saying the the planning philosophy needs to change to take into account that the system is not a receiver planning tool but a tanker planning tool and so does not plan end to end sortie profiles for the receiver. It is not difficult to adjust to this methodology and I am sure in a few years time we will not even think about it.
Clearly the commercial and contractual elements are well understood here, and obviously Beagle is fully versed in the Voyager contract. What I would say is that, whether we like it or not, ADS have supplied a certified and qualified product, ie it meets all of the qualifying criteria.
I have acknowledged above that we probably didn't help ourselves at the negotiation stage by not defining well enough what was required of the system, but now we have to get on with it and use the system, we will not get our money back, so what do we do, just give up and pay for something else without even trying to make it work.
As I have also said, the A310 MPS does not meet requirement either and so we would have to completely start from scratch, spending yet more money and probably taking another 5 years of development. Surely that cannot be the way forward!
Beags, I am sure the 310 MPS is amazing now, and that those RCAF crews who have voiced concern were just poor workmen, however, you must see that the RAF could not just buy the product off the shelf due to the shortfalls I have described in my posts above. Oh, and you can plan a reroute if required in the 330 MPS.