egdg,
I really don't know why I respond to your inflammatory posts, especially as they stand in stark contrast to the tri-service team (yep, Army too) trying to bring an MMA to meet the UK's needs.
I don't care and the SRO does not care who operates this future Joint capability. No single service is pushing hard to be the prime provider of crews either. Indeed, with the manning picture as it is each service has strong reasons as to why finding crews would be problematic.
All the problems point to a large rationalisation of all the ISTAR assets (predominantly those operated by the Army and RAF). The first part of this is underway through the AIOS - again, a tri-service effort and this will probably influence what types are kept in any specific role in the future. Nobody in the ISTAR community expects any future platform to be a pure MPA. The future is with platforms that can deliver across multiple roles - we have no space for one-trick aircraft.
You are correct that whoever operates the aircraft will have to be trained and sustained. This could be an expansion of the MFTS contract or it could be provided by someone else. The existence of the MFTS contract providing trg at Culdrose does not make it a given. Please do not think the RN is in a position to provide any additional crews through the existing contract above and beyond its funded line; it exists to support the current requirement, even if it recognises the potential requirement to grow. In equal regard the maritime community dispersed around the RAF, RN and Seedcorn is not going to be enough either. All MMA aircraft soak-up relatively large numbers of personnel, groundcrew & aircrew alike.
I'm sorry I don't see the rivalry you allude to, but it just isn't there. The requirement is being driven by the UK's needs, not an individual service. My RN colleague sipping beer next to me thinks I am mad to respond to your post. He has a habit of being right.