all you have to do is compare manning
If I read this right, are you saying that military SAR is therefore more expensive than civilian SAR because military SAR units have more people?
If so, then you're not comparing like with like. Each mil SAR unit has 2 aircraft and crews for both aircraft (current manning crisis permitting!) and a permanent overseas commitment. Unsurprisingly, the mil units need more people as they are providing a greater (NB - greater, I'm not saying better) service. If 2nd Standby is dropped, and mil SAR units operated a newer, less labour-intensive aircraft, and the Falklands commitment was removed, the manning requirement would drop significantly - which rather destroys your argument about manning costs.
Nor should 2nd Standby be frivolously cast aside - even in the last year or two, there has been plenty of trade for the 2nds aircraft all round the country, either assisting the 1st Standby at a major incident (floods
passim, train crash etc), or dealing with a separate incident.
And did I hear recently that the SAR-H people aren't even going to undertake a direct comparison of the cost of a mil aircrew personage with a civ aircrew personage of the same trade? Could it be that the result of such a comparison would expose the fallacy of the inexplicable 'max 66 mil aircrew in SAR-H' policy?