Just to confirm we are saying that the Harriers serviceability requirements were greater than the Tornado..............................
No 'we' are not but I think it might be what you are looking for to fit an 'angle' though.
What is being said is that there isn't/wasn't much money sloshing about for spares/support and that there is a difference between what the UK MoD considers affordable and the US DoD does.
Helpful (and others)
I see what you are all saying, but to my way of thinking these are just excuses for incompetence within the MOD supply chain planning.
Or if not incompetence, then deliberate malfeasance in an attempt to degrade a UK military asset
Can you honestly name a major military system that has ever been well-funded/planned for with respect its support after entering (any branch of) service?
I'm not saying it is right or that lessons shouldn't have been learnt but bear in mind that the MoD has to operate under regulations put in place by the Treasury a few years back that effectively punishes the MoD if it holds anymore spares than it can justify, using justification terms laid down by said Treasury. Same said orgainsation also forbids large-scale 'contingency funds' among government departments, so the MoD can't even put money aside to pay for spares it may need in a hurry in the event of a sudden need.
Then of course you have the fact that because the MoD can't place regular orders for irregularly required spares and store them (Treasury regs again) the companies who make those spares often end up going out of business.
Its not solely an MoD issue, its a complete lack of joined up government issue. Government departments fining government departments, money sloshing from one ministers brief to another