Fod, I will give you some help with your maths. This continual theoretical charge per hour you quote is not allowing you or others to understand the economics of the carrier debate.
As for sorties flown, I have seen the real figures and they are below yours; moreover, and most importantly, the sorties are short and provide limited strike time and therefore tend to focus on pre-planned targets to guarantee success
Under current resource charging you can attribute a “full charge” to every hour by adding up the entire procurement bill and dividing by the hours flown (the 70k you quote). But as the aircraft goes on in life it gets cheaper. Exactly the same principle is used for carriers, but is never quoted. Typhoon or Tornado are no less paid for than the Harriers or carriers – aside from future running and development costs.
For this you should be using the nominal charge of about £4k per hour. Put that figure in your sums and see what you come up with. I will help; it blows the cost argument clear out of the water,
And that is the point missed by all those who try to compare a full capital charge against nominal annual running costs. The Treasury know the real numbers hence the reason why we are where we are….you will just have to learn to accept that. Bottom line is that more money was saved in the critical years for the least loss of capability. It is clear you don’t agree with the latter, but you will just have to take HMT’s word for the former.