Wrathmonk,
From personal experience, it was clear that right from the start, there was no appetite anywhere in the RAF to adopt an 'embarkation' approach. This was backed up to the hilt at senior levels. That didn't change through the years. The issue of delivering 'sustainable capability' was, in my view just reframed by the RAF to allow people to claim that GR7/9 detachments could deliver the same effect as embarkations. I am afraid I didn't agree then and don't agree now.
Don't know on the relative times at sea, but by then the FA2 had been canned.
How was the reframing done? Let's be clear - before FA2 was canned you had:
3 RN squadrons, two of 8, one of around 10 aircraft, plus:
4 RAF squadrons, three of 8, one of around 10.
RN did the vast majority of the sea time, RAF did the land stuff.
Once FA2s went, you had three squadrons instead of five - something then had to give and (correctly, given Afghan ops) sea time was it. Once that die was cast, the idea of traditional embarkations could (quite logically) be ruled out on the simple grounds of not having enough aircraft. This was an obvious consequence of getting rid of the FA2, but to my shame, we were not able to convince senior RN types that it was worth 'dying in the proverbial ditch' for. C'est la vie.
Good exchanges of views here, keep it going, best regards as ever
Engines