“I think the RJ airworthiness experience has skewed the views of a number in the MoD and have caused them to question US recognised standards”
Who the hell are we to take the moral and intellectual high ground?
Should we be following BAE recognised standards?
This is arrogance of the highest order if true.
If they want to question the standards of any organisation they should start by standing in front of a mirror.
If I understand correctly, it's not US standards that are the issue, let alone their equivalence to UK standards. What is/was missing is documentary evidence of the aircraft's design intent and how the aircraft meets that intent - which are required to comply with UK MAA regs. No-one (at least no-one of any credibility) is suggesting that the aircraft is inherently unsafe, or a bag of bolts, they're merely pointing out that a critical piece of evidence required by our process is missing, either because it was never generated under the US process when the aircraft was designed, or because the use of the aircraft has changed from the original intent, or because compliance with regs that did not exist when C135/137 was designed is now required.
In the post HC / XV230 environment that was and is always going to be an issue, particularly for a conversion of an ageing type, irrespective of how many have flown / are flying.
This does not mean we can't / don't use US standards - far from it. AIUI, the safety case for the UK C17s is (or was) basically predicated on operating the aircraft to US procedures, using US kit and with a US training pipeline.