In shrinking to meet the requirements of this new reality the RAF's frontline has contracted more dramatically, in a shorter time, than the Royal Navy (measured by frontline surface fleet ships) did, and yet faces further shrinkage to pay for these carriers.
Sorry Jacko - can't let that one lie. You can't call "surface ships" like with like for the FJ community. In 1990, the RN had over 40 FF/DD - it is likely to be under half that shortly (it's already only 25). In addition there were 14 SSN and four SSK (now 8 and none respectively) and the RN had to look after the deterrent (which really doesn't add much to the non-bomber FE@R) and as I've mentioned before, ought to be funded centrally.
I won't go into the impact on RFA (see 3 basin in Portsmouth for what has been withdrawn) or the FAA. Suffice to say I believe the RN still has a lower manpower establishment than the RAF, so the pain has undoubtedly been shared and not just "to pay for the carriers". I would suggest that the pain has been imposed to pay for the best part of a decade operating well above the DP assumptions yet without the necessary funding from the Treasury. There are a number of procurement f8ck-ups that are contributing to this, many of them a direct result of the centre blithely shuffling the budget to "pay for" the ongoing underfunding.
CVF is not about going it alone - it's about giving "some" independence from HNS. I have suggested before that someone turning off the fuel dump pumps or locking the bomb dump is more likely than losing a carrier.
JCA, Typhoon, CVF and all the other clubs are complementary capabilities. Now - on with agreeing to disagree........