Beags,
We rejected it numerous times until they became contractually compliant. We couldn't continue to reject it beyond this point because we had no commercial ground to stand on.
The system is not immature, it is fully functional and does what we asked them to do. Hence my frustration with the way the requirement was worded both by the RAF and by the contract. What we are proposing is, a bit like your system, we conduct a staged roll out, towline then trail, and then see what needs to be added or changed to make it better. No doubt these changes will come at a cost, but it is better to spend a little money and get it right second time than try to make the changes now at cost and subsequently miss out on an opportunity that we have not yet identified.
To say that the 310 system was rolled out significantly differently is disingenuous otherwise you would not still be making changes and upgrades now. You must understand that the ADS have delivered exactly what we contracted for and a bit extra after our continuous push back over the last 18 months, we cannot expect them to continue to deliver changes to the specification for free. Maybe this is why they hid away and developed the system, they protected themselves from the constant flow from the good ideas club! Just a shame they didn't have 1 operator in the room with the programmers.
In terms of an AARNI's and Op O rewrite, AARNIS no longer exist, it is now a National Annex in ATP 3.3.4.2 which will be updated. I believe the Op O is currently being rewritten, but I am not sure.