Ladies, Gentlemen, PLEASE....
Internecine punch-ups are *really* unhelpful. And as a crab, I can see the arguments for passing SH to the AAC, in the same way that the RAAF did with the UH-60s and CH-47s in the 1980s. No disrespect to the SH mob, but given who the primary customer is, it may make sense for field Army to run this themselves. And for good measure, I'd probably pass the RAF Regiment across to the Army as well. (Kevlar hat on for incoming.)
Similarly, the FAA notwithstanding, it is quite true that if you've got to save a lot of money from aircraft - which is a political decision that I don't agree with, incidentally - then binning the GR9 before the long-term support contract is signed and before the major structural work is done, is probably the best way forward. Again, not saying that this is the right thing, but if these are the political parameters (other savings - e.g. CVF, Trident, being off the table), then it will (i) save the most cash and (ii) the GR4s could (at a pinch) do the majority of the GR9 job, whereas the reverse is not true.
So *IF* the decision is made to bin the GR9s in 2011/2013/whenever - again, a decision I would oppose - it should not be assumed that it is a nefarious anti-RN plot.
And on a point of pedantry, the FAA is not celebrating its' centenary in 2013: the RNAS became the RAF on 1 Apr 1918, with the FAA not reverting to RN control until 1939.
S41
(Edited for spollink)