So you're saying that when, for example, a Type 23 is in port, the diesel generators and Speys are running, rather than taking power from ashore? I assume this must be so, as you equate it to an MPA at the threshold with engines running, as to opposed to an MPA parked with a ground power unit attached to allow systems to be run up.
As for the "flying an MPA is an extra" cost argument, how much of an extra cost exactly? If you don't fly an MPA, the crew are still being paid while at home, the airfield overheads are all still being paid, ATC, duty engineers, guard force, power, etc. The additional costs of flying are largely the "consumables", and the effect on the requirement for the next periodic serving and ultimately replacing the airframe.
I would suggest that MPA costs are not that dissimilar whether you use it or not. A force of 30 odd airframes, 3 Sqns to man it, simulator buildings and staff, an active airfield, 1500 odd people of various trades to support it, all cost a considerable amount even if all 30 aircraft are sat on the ground doing nothing.
You still come back to 6 hours of MPA "consumables" vs 72-96 hours of warship "consumables", and I still don't see why the latter isn't more expensive.
I haven't even returned to the fact that during non-holiday season the MPA could do the job as a minor part of a normal training event......
Have to agree to differ on what is, after all, a fairly pointless discussion, since the UK no longer has a viable MPA fleet!!
Last edited by Biggus; 25th Dec 2013 at 14:50.