Methinks the FAA does protest too much
WEBF, perhaps you could remind us who got rid of the FA2 and why? Because, it seems strange that the RN, having been given a share of RAF cockpits on the formation of JFH, has little right to complain about RAF cuts. If the govt thought they could do without a Carrier, why should the RAF maintain a Carrier capable aircraft?
I like you regret these cuts, but making this argument on the basis that the RAF was behind it is a little disingenuous - ask the 170 trainees who have just lost their jobs and the RAF aircrew from the Nimrod, F3, GR4 and Harrier squadrons who have all had to endure closures ahead of time. To date the FAA have lost nothing like this amount.
The real issue here is the terrible reductions within the RN surface fleet, not the survival of an in increasingly small FAA.
I happen to believe that if the RAF had been filling every fast jet cockpit it would have still gone for cutting Harrier - so your argument is really about the FAA and not the Harrier, and the Govt took care of the carrier element (not the RAF).