With all due respect, the RN & FAA do like to bang on and self-promote about how naval aviation requires a lifetime of dedication. We all have our pet loves. Out of curiosity then, was there a significant increase in incidents/accidents whenever the RAF embarked their Harriers? To my knowledge, there wasn't - whether you talk about the GR3s in the Falklands, or the GR7s and 9s later. It would seem that if you put the emotions to one side, the numerical facts and figures are that you can actually do naval aviation part-time. As a die-hard land-lubber, I've done 9 months aboard carriers and couldn't see what all the fuss is about.
If you like, take a look at the USMC. Whenever they're due to do a boat det they do a couple of weeks of workups, read all the old manuals & briefs, and go off on a 6 month cruise, come back and forget all about it until the next time they need to deploy. So if both the RAF and the USMC have managed to do part-time naval aviation with the legacy aircraft, isn't it reasonable to assume that it might be even easier with a more advanced replacement? Just asking.