Think maybe you're misinterpreting what I said. I know the reasons which would support a substantial reserve fleet of Typhoons in storage, but that's not my point. It's about politics, media and public perceptions (like everything which influences RAF policy these days). I just don't buy the notion that in - say 2012, the MoD would be able to justify holding onto maybe thirty or more new Typhoons which are doing nothing but sitting in a hangar. I just don't believe that is likely to happen.
As for navalising Typhoon, we've done that to death on other threads in the past. It could be done, it isn't as difficult as people claim, BAE Systems claim it can be done fairly easily, some Pprune "experts" immediately chime-in and say "well they would say that" but that doesn't make sense any more. BAE Systems wouldn't even suggest the practicality of navalising Typhoon unless they thought it could be done. The days of bottomless government pockets have gone so they must think it's a practical idea. Clearly, no matter what way you look at it, navalised Typhoons would be much less expensive than sticking with F-35. Quite why we've stuck with it for so long is anybody's guess really. The need for STOVL aircraft died a quarter of a century ago and yet...
I'm firmly of the belief that these "surplus" Typhoons will be used, either to replace a long-overdue abandonment of the F-35, or to replace the Harrier fleet. Dumping the F-35 would be a good move, whereas withdrawing the Harrier might not be so wise... Oh well, time will reveal what magnificent forward-looking policy the government and MoD wishes to pursue, gawd help us all!