If it was declared ALARP following approval of CWS funding, it's still ALARP after the collision, unless the underpinning maths has changed.
Yes, but who declared it ALARP and on what basis? Having an ALARP programme does not make a risk ALARP, but merely creates
"paper safety at the expense of real safety"; to use H-C's words. Anyway, for ALARP to have any meaning the risk must be at least TOLERABLE, and this risk is not. The AOC 1 Gp and the MAA DG must realise that fact. See my posting #250
The collision risk associated with Tornado GR4 aircraft is neither Tolerable, nor ALARP, and can only be mitigated by following MRP RA 1020.
Cease routine aviation operations if RtL are identified that are not demonstrably at least Tolerable and ALARP.
DV