I should not be surprised, yet I am. The complete lack of understanding of what goes on to support the effort of getting a weapons platform into the air beggars belief.
Having spent time at most levels of loggy support I can concur with a tiny percentage of what you say. Having been in a sandy place supporting a Combat Air Wing I can also assure you that the people spending time sitting round more than any other were not those in the support roles - it took a walk to 'the sqn' for that.
After that little episode we went through a complete re-think of just how we supported the ac. Initial proposals were worked on - then there was 'creep - mission creep'. If you want to go from extended days to 24 hr, then it takes more manpower - simple.
I think the figures of 30 to 1 must be across the entire RAF - I know the rotary world perform miracles with far less - having also exercised with the AAC I know their guys wanted some of our logs management tools so much, their Boss bought some! I can see how badly procured, badly designed old aircraft need some TLC, hence higher numbers on, for example, the F3.
I think you might need to look at how you define REMF.
Rant off.
Boatman - can't really compare the 'punch' of RAF & Navy - they are different jobs and do different things - hence why they have 2 different names! Height, speed, reach & ubiquity - the 4 main words as to why we have an Air Force.