Writing as a retired barrister, whom during my career was involved in all sorts of 'sensitive' enquiries and born the son of a Royal Air Force pilot who flew military a/c until the age of 64 and the step son of former WRAF S/L, I disagree.
I most certainly do NOT think it is (or in this case -was some twenty years ago) in the public interest to hold any form of public enquiry into the circumstances of this tragic accident.
Even assuming there had been such an enquiry, the speculation posted on this thread most certainly should NOT have been given the oxygen of a public hearing and should have either been heard in camera or not at all.
Many decisions, for example in respect as to whether or not there should be criminal proceedings in any given case have to be measured against the public interest test/
I cannot see any circumstances where the speculation discussed here could pass that test.
What the public believe they are entitled to know and what the MoD decide they are entitled to know do not always coincide especially when they pertain to the defence of the realm and military operations overseas. The purpose of the Official Secrets Act is to ensure that state of affairs.
The Chinook crash was entirely different. The question there was whether the accident inevitably led to a finding of 'gross negligence' by those flying the helicopter.
Lord Philips, a brilliant and very highly regarded former Senior Lord of Appeal concluded that the Senior Royal Air Force Officers applied the wrong test and that they could not have excluded the possibility of a systems failure. That question does not arise here.