Quite amusing to think of Navy, Army and Air Force peers having a go in the bar afterwards.
If we take West's statement (".. if we remove the Tornado force we are looking at £7.5bn by 2018. With the Harriers we are looking at less than £1bn. So in cost terms that does not make sense") and Craig's seeming acceptance of that, but (".. Tornado surely produces the better result particularly bearing in mind how many aircraft are needed to be supportive in Afghanistan"), then is he attaching the cost of £6.5 billions as acceptable for keeping Tornado in Afghanistan?