Engines,
You said:
When the RAF took the decision to retire the SHAR, the plan to re-brigade into four front line units was taken so as to be able to maintain that dual air/land capability, two RAF heavy, two RN heavy, with the RN heavy units maintaining embarked capability.
My understanding was that it was the RN who decided that the SHAR should go early - RADM S L, though a nice chap, was rather instrumental in its early demise for the FAA. Although the RN aspiration was to man two FLS the truth was they could not. They barely had enough aircrew (though by the end they were around 1.5 sqns worth) but the critical point was engineering manpower which the RN did not have in sufficient numbers and experience to stand up two full NASs. The fact that there were draftings from NMA to both 800 and 801 NAS was seen more as preservation of FAA history rather than anything meaningful to Ops.
I think there are many who feel the RAF want to see the FAA go but I don't think that's true - maybe at the top there is a battle for resource and identity but it should NOT be forgotten that if the current First Sea Lord had been correctly staffed with credible arguments (of the required potency) to win him over, he would have saved Carrier Strike/GR9 for the RN and sacrificed other ships/programmes to pay HM Treasury their kilo of flesh at the time. He did not. The RN should therefore look inward at their leadership at the time and admit that if CS was that vital their arguments weren't robust enough. 1SL even admitted he'd reverse his decision if given the chance in a public statement but, alas, it's too late now. I don't care if anyone states that the arguments were there and were strong enough; they blatantly weren't or the FAA would be having a cocktail party on the quarterdeck in some far-flung port right now.
A lesson for all...if you want something that badly you have to fight for it tooth and nail. The RAF ARE willing to fight for it because, simply, it is the air power of the next 50 years with the capacity for growth to keep it value for money over its life. It is a game-changing platform to everything out there on t'other side and it is worth the oodles of effort being spent making it work. Yes FCBA was a requirement 15 years ago but requirements change and have a habit of being behind the times - as I've said, my opinion is that the RN no longer need huge carriers as much as they did when the CVF requirement was written. We're selling one for God's sake! Again, if the arguments were there and sacrifice was willing to be made we'd pay everything we could muster to get two flat-tops, but we aren't.
Through various cost options the RAF lost an entire type (and the FW FAA was a victim too sadly) in order to look ahead to afford what we need...ahead. We lost 2 sqns of GR4 and probably will lose more in a few years; all to pay for Typhoon growth and F-35; people are wasting precious energy on conspiracy theories now and it's bordering comedic.
Bismark,
Every study in the recent past (5 - 10 years) has demonstrated that the RN runs "air" more efficiently and to higher safety standards than the RAF.
That may be across the board (i.e. Helos) but on JFH it certainly wasn't so. I operated on both light and dark blue for years with many ship dets there but my opinion and examples against this statement would be unfair on a public forum. Stats also have a habit of being susceptible to what the compiler WANTS them to say...assuming everything gets reported in full.
Capt P U G - I agree! I never ever encountered an ethos of not being willing to embark....ever, ever so again, people need to stop peddling urban myth - there were teething issues in the late 90s with embarking and an attitude by those who did but it was not there shortly afterwards (bit of do it once, remember it forever syndrome by some)