Well, IR, I have had just a bit of experience of being misquoted and misrepresented (although in the latter case, the journalist got my name just a little wrong, so I suppose he could say that it wasn't actually me that he was quoting...)
In any event, welcome to Mick. I can see your point now you've laid it out, but it did seem odd to this reader (internet as you suspected).
My concern/irritation/whatever, stemmed from the fact that it appeared as though the figure had been chosen to make it appear that the RAF was losing 108 Jags from the front line (to bring its holdings closer to those of the Deputy PM, and then below them), and thus overstating the cuts (if that's possible), giving the bunch of charlatans, fools and incompetents (plus John Reid) currently running the country the opportunity to discredit such claims by something along the lines of 'Hah! the RAF has only 3 front line units, each with... so far less than 108.'
However, it's clear now!