Winco.
Don't be a tosser.
I am an ex SAR pilot.
You?
Trying to justify the astonishing cost of Nimrod in terms of its use as a SAR asset is just asinine.
For the same money you could have a Seaking base every 500metres-ish along the Uk coast.
The loss of Nimrod is going to hit the UK military, but in terms of cost per life saved it is a total no-go.
If anyone on here thinks that todays little SAR is going to make anyone at the top think again then you are naive in the extreme.
Even if every person on board perished, and it happened every month, it would still be a miss-use of funds if SAR was the Nimrods reason for being, because the same money would save countless more lives in the NHS for example.
This would be true even if the Nimrod could actually "rescue" which it cannot. The boat had life-rafts and radios many of. They used them. Nimrod would be convenient, but certainly not essential.
In my years of SAR I can think of one time when a Nimrod made a difference. Very long ranger, found the fishing boat for us thus allowing us to use all our limited endurance for winching. Asking around the crewroom, most people are of the same opinion.
Justifying Nimrod for SAR is childishness.
Nimrod is justifiable for UK defence. Who could put a price on that?
SAR is merely a convenient ability.