These Joint Tactical Air Controllers sound quite useful - I wonder how they compare to Joint Terminal Attack Controllers?

Thanks for expanding on their role though!;)

"One hears a rumour that the RTB could have been supported by a TriShaw, but that the reliability of the old beasts is nowadays so poor that pressure was brought to bear to ensure that the KC-767I was also used to support the recovery, so that the Typhoons could be reasonably sure of getting back on the planned date.." Beags

Why did they not use a VC10?

OAP

Did anyone mention force protection as well?

Deja vu all over again....
 

I remember a cartoon at Dunsfold after some Tornados went to Malaysia (1987?) on sales tour. The cartoon showed a line up of a couple of hundred personnel, tankers and 4(?) Tornados with the Hawk 100 demonstrator that went as well in one corner with just 3 blokes. Malaysia ordered Tornados and then changed their minds for some reason and bought Hawk 108s and 208s instead.

Typhoon is a very capable aircraft but how many air forces can maintain it?

Orca
In answer to your RN Helo maintenance manning exploration point, the RN maintenance crew for a Lynx helicopter on a Frigate/Destroyer was usually only 7 in my day and they were not just responsible for mending the helicopter. As those ships often deployed for long periods (perhaps several months without any main base workshop support or maintenance crew/aircraft rotations) the helo maintenance crews were also required to carry out other supplementary roles including the maintenance/repair of the aircraft’s Ground Support Equipment, Crew Survival Equipment, Weapons/Role Equipment, Hangar and Flight Deck facilities, also dealing with aircraft spares, publications updates, aircraft/ships fire fighting, other ship support roles, carrying out Aircrewman roles, etc.
It was also not uncommon to regularly work 18 hour days (in peacetime) at sea to meet day and night flight operations/maintenance commitments as there was no other helo Shift on such ships that operated one Lynx. As such work could also sometimes be carried out in poor aircraft operating and maintenance environments, that created increased workloads, due to worse corrosion/damage risks, etc.
Those well cross-trained, capable and hard-working aircraft maintenance teams therefore provided very good value for money to the tax payers.

With regards to RN Type 42 Destroyer ship manning levels seeming high when compared to the Israeli warship, the Type 42s were of course a late 1960s/early 1970s design and none of them appear to be left in service (as far as I am aware). More modern RN ships do have much smaller crews than the Type 42s (as more modern and automated systems have also been progressively introduced within the RN).
As the RN ships usually have to spend much more time operating independently a very long way from their home bases (than the Israeli ships do) so they may also require bigger crews for that reason.

LJ

I am aware of the MCCE system, the problem is that we are supposed to barter various tasks against each other (it is measured in C130 hour equivalents) my concern is how we actually get any credits at all since we have so many capability gaps. How long are we allowed to run an overdraft?

No doubt they might have had to, had a TriStar been allocated.....which would have broken down somewhere exotic.

There are only 4 x VC10s left. 1 in the South Atlantic, 3 others. I imagine that their availability is thus somewhat limited?

PB, good point. BiL was involved with their Hawk programme. They didn't have 6000psi nitrogen and used air instead with predictable consequences.