Originally Posted by
beardy
In that case it is operational costs, not training.
You might well be right beardy. But for every operation, there is an element of training and for every training exercise there is an element of operations. The point is that Defence (and lets just say the RAF in this case) have a number roles that they have to both train and remain proficient in and that they may be required to exercise in a precautionary or executory manner. I understand the RAF conduct exercise airliner intercepts as part of their 'everyday' training which recognizes the reality of today's aviation security awareness. For this they will have a training budget which allow for 'x' number of exercise intercepts per pilot/annum to remain proficient in this role. But there will be no funds allocated to operational intercepts since it is hoped this would never actually be required. Bigger picture......Defence budget is to train for war but we hope they never actually have to operationally do that!
So a real intercept has extremely good training value that can reduce the number of 'exercise' intercepts required to remain proficient and so the intercept in question is effectively already budgeted for as training. Of course there may also be an inter-agency budget from which this could be taken, but I doubt the fighter role would be involved in much inter -government operations. These are more for fixed wing and rotary wing transport and maritime EEZ patrol functions. I guess the point I am trying to make is that our Police and Defence forces should be well trained, prepared and budgeted for for the roles they may need to undertake and relying on cost recovery from individual citizens is not a factor. As I said previously deliberate wasting of Police or Defence resources might attract a somewhat different response.