Avtur, thank you for your kind words and support for those like tucumseh and myself who want to return airworthiness to the UK Military Airfleet. I must correct you on one point though, tucumseh is very much the professional of which you speak, but I am but a mere spear-carrier, entering from stage right; an ex-driver airframe.
Like most of my genre I had little or no idea of what airworthiness was, other than it was obviously a jolly good thing to have. My involvement in the campaign therefore began with the Mull of Kintyre thread (29 Killed) and the obviously unjust assault by RAF VSOs on the reputations of the deceased pilots.
That campaign eventually succeeded, not only in restoring the pilots' reputations but in revealing that the aircraft was flying under an illegal RTS and grossly unairworthy. Similarly the Iraq (Parliamentary Questions) Hercules (10 killed) thread proved the aircraft to be knowingly unfit for purpose and resulted in the retrofit of Explosion Suppressive Foam (ESF) into the rest of the fleet being used on active duty. Other threads have revealed the illegal replacement of anti-collision lights with High Intensity Strobe Lights (HISLs) on the Royal Navy's Sea King ASaC's (7 Killed) when two of them collided in poor visability, the known IFF lack of failure warning when a Tornado (2 Killed) was shot down in a blue on blue tragedy, and the complete lack of a safety case for the MB Mk10 seat fitted to the Hawk (1 Killed). Then we came to the Afghanistan Nimrod (14 Killed) that your friends died in. Again, knowingly flagrant breaches of airworthiness regulations in the fuel system were revealed.
So, 63 avoidable deaths in 6 airworthiness related fatal accidents with 7 aircraft lost covered in this forum alone, and then followed by the grounding of the entire RAF Maritime capability. All avoidable predictable tragedies. The solution to all of this waste was supposed to be the result of the Nimrod Review, but Haddon-Cave reneged on his duty, fudged the report and protected the VSOs who had perpetrated the original attack on Air Safety, which still renders UK Military Airworthiness dysfunctional to this very day because the cover up continues.
All of this is in the way of pre-amble to answer your question:-
Is there a focussed and formal effort/campaign, beyond well written posts on a public forum (not meant to be derogatory), that is actively taking HMG to task over this scandal?
The answer is yes, but it needs people like yourself who are professionally outraged that what was once a source of justified pride, UK Military Air Safety, could be reduced to such a parlous state. In retrospect the individual campaigns were the easy bit; ESF, Fox's Mull Statement, even getting the MAA and MilAAIB, were all tangible outcomes. The big one of course is to get Military Air Regulation and Accident Investigation working to restore UK Military Airworthiness. The MAA as presently constituted can't do that, the DSA can't, the MilAAIB is already history. The only solution that can be depended upon is independent and separate Regulation and Investigation, from the MOD and from each other.
I don't take offence about your comments about our efforts on this forum, but I would encourage all like yourself to join in. The internet is the game changer. The people who instigated this scandal in the 80s/90s never imagined that their illegal actions could become the subject of comment on a world wide basis. They bullied those who enforced the regs into suborning them instead. Those who wouldn't were moved and replaced by those who would, mainly because they were untrained and inexperienced. Now those who learn of the persecution of their forebears can fight against that injustice, the fatal damage done to their profession, and for those whose very lives depend upon it. Which rather brings us back to the Mull pilots again...