If the RAF were to provide that level of service at a price cheaper than civvy, why aren't they?
Droopystop,
This is the one of the main bones of contention for Crab and his cohorts - the RAF/RN SAR effort was never costed, in case (many of us believe) SAR-H turned out to be more expensive. The previous RAF SAR Force commander drew up a theoretical plan for the RAF/RN to keep providing SAR (including Falklands and Cyprus, neither of which features in SAR-H - extra costs which the MOD will have to fund somehow) but his proposals were swept under the carpet with indecent haste - not because they were pie-in-the-sky, but because again it risked exposing SAR-H for the white elephant which many believe it is. Had the mil option been properly examined and been proved to be inferior (either in terms of cost, which is quite possible, or in terms of service, which is unlikely), Crab would no doubt give in graciously.
As it is, noone knows for sure how SAR-H compares to the present structure in terms of cost, so the two camps (ie pro-mil and anti-mil) remain implacably opposed.
Why will the service be any less in the future when we are reducing 24hr cover to 12 hr on a daily basis at all bases due to lack of personnel
...because the 12-hr cover is a temporary measure forced by the reduction in crew numbers. As soon as the SAR Force is back up to 28 crews, as has been ordained recently, 24-hour cover will resume at all mil locations, except on the very infrequent occasions when sickness etc cause problems (as has always been the case at any SAR flt, mil or civ).