The word "strategic" seems to be a misnomer in this review.
My learned friend Mr Boffin is correct to point out that amphibs without carriers do not make sense, and vice versa. Without that capability, you need a much smaller maritime force and can support only a small expeditionary force.
Also, trying to shrink the overall budget without addressing the nuclear force leads to imbalance on the 1950s scale, with the big money going to anything nuclear-related (bombers, interceptors, Bloodhounds and Buccs) and everything else (eg conventional fighter-bombers) on table scraps.
And Cameron's comments on "fighters designed to dogfight the Soviet air force"... Spare me, Duncan Sandys has been reinfarkingcarnated.
Say what you like about the FJ community, but those aircraft can deploy to a base and, within a 600-mile radius, perform close air support, ISR in contested airspace, protect land forces from air attack (whether by Sukhois or hijacked 737s), hold at risk any target except a submarine or a satellite...