The Elephant in the room...
... is that we appear to be debating the mutual exclusivity of GR4 vs GR9 as a solution to cost cutting.
Surely this is too simplistic, given the Tornado mud force's relative numerical strength over JFH.
If we were to cut the Tonka fleet in half or more, (let's say) then surely we'd save more than if we completely axed our only shipborne fixed wing capable ac?
As each ac appears to have roles that the other cannot fulfil, surely we wouldn't be daft enough to drop either type before a replacement is available? (I know, I know it's already been done; SHAR and capability gaps etc. etc.)
...but surely!?!
Would it not be more logical to keep the Harrier fleet and its cadre of maritime aviators and significantly reduce The Tornado fleet as required to make the savings? Whilst keeping both fleet's core capabilities. The required simplification of types could be achieved when JSF and Typhoon reach maturity.
Finally, if we decide to axe the the Harrier force, then wtf are we buying 2(*) carriers for??? Once that decision is made, the logical argument for Fixed wing maritime aviation is perhaps lost.
I'm just not sure if scrapping the Harrier force would be a wise move,
...shares in Desire Petroleum you see!
* advisory only.