ICBM,
As I've pointed out many times before (but don't mind in the least saying again) the decision to retire the SHAR was taken by the RAF, who owned the aircraft. The RN agreed, sure, but the driver was the fact that the GR7/9 upgrade programme ran hundreds of millions over, and the SHAR needed a DAS upgrade. The RAF then mandated that JFH had to solve its own problems, (nice) so the only course available TO THE RAF was to can the SHAR.
As far as the recent Carrier Strike decision went, again, the decision to can the GR7/9 force was taken by the RAF to meet its own budget cuts. The decision to do so was taken at short notice and sprung on CNS from high level (PM office) after intervention from CDS and CAS. It was not up to the RN to give up Navy funds to retain an RAF asset. Of course, had the Harriers belonged to the RN a different set of decisions may have taken place.
JFH manning - as one of the staff officers involved in the decision, I can state with utter certainty that lack of engineering manpower was NOT a factor in the problems in standing up two NASs. (We already had two front line NASs plus an 'OCU'). Now, if the problem were reframed as 'standing up two front line NASs complemented to RAF requirements...different beast. I don't mind a grown up discussion over JFH, but rewriting history is not, in my view, productive.
But that's all in the past now. The people on the front line are buckling down and doing what is required, and the work is in hand to regenerate a FW naval aviation element. let's just all try to support that.
Best Regards as ever,
Engines