I think it is too easy to lay the blame for the perceived woes of the RN solely at the foot of the RAF.
An interesting read is RM Crosleys Up in Harms Way. This is a somewhat technical account but the author gives a fascinating account of his wartime Fleet Air Arm carreer and subsequent decades of being a test pilot, pioneering much of the work surrounding the Buccaneer and flying pretty much every other UK and US aircraft
Basically Crosley gives a very candid summary of the lack of understanding of Admirals and the Navy Hierarchy to the possibility of aircraft. So in that sense the Navy itself pre war takes the blame. A fixation with old tactics and no faith in this "new technology" is what hindered the use of aircraft at sea. The use of cariers should have seen off the fixation with battleships early on but the RN sat back and let the RAF take the lead. Where the Japanese and US Admirals saw the future, it could be argued that ours saw battleships. Crosley then gives an account of his and the FAA role in Korea which has been very under reported where carriers played a huge part.
Once the RAF takes the offensive lead bombing the Germans for the bulk of the war and "wins" the battle of Britain its very difficult to argue against the need for the RAF, once the cold War sets in and we base the offensive bulk of the army and RAF in Germany, again its very hard to argue against the role. If our Politicians retreat from East of Suez, again its hard to argue that the RAF cant deal with threats, particularly the threat in questin was the threat of nuclear devastation.
Crosley makes the point in hindsight that it was in some way the Admirals fault we got out of the fixed wing carrier game through stubborn and short sighted attitudes, demanding that the RN would ony be viable if we had two new carriers in the 1960's when if they had swallowed pride and played it more political we could have at least commissioned one CV. Crosley suggests that even in the 1960's and 70;s financial balls ups, the RN could have got one, there was enough "Pro"voices, even Healey that might have kept it. The RN could have kept a small but potent Phantom and Bucc squadron running, just as the french have managed with one carrier. Looking at it in that way, the RN would be in a better position now, ok no Sea Harrier and periods of no aircover for the Fleet but better something than nothing. There is always the possbility of buiding another.
Thats why in the current climate, Im not bothered so much in numbers of F35 or whatever, just build the bloody things, and if it means RAF F35's and pilots flying of it, then so be it, in fact I would happily see a NATO wing of Spanish and Italian F35Bs flying exercises from POW in 2020 just to demonstrate to the politicians the utility of them. As long as we have the ships, we can "up" the capabily, just as we pretty much rebuilt the UK Amphibious forces post Cold war, anythings possible if the world political climate changes.
What the RN needs in a twisted sense if for the next Al Queda fight to be in somewhere like Somalia or other African states. The scenario needs a battlefield lacking infrastructure for fixed wing bases, no friendly bases nearby, it will need a huge coastal area to fight on where the focus is on amphibious forces backed by RN airpower take out terrorists strongholds, patrolling and searching maritime trade routes. In that type of battle the RN will take the spotlight.
The RN bosses should do more to win the argument, the British People need to be told that the supplies of Oil and Gas will run low and its the big stick of the RN Carriers that will mean we punch above our weight in securing supplies. The british public need to be told that the world is buying diesel electric submarines, that the world and his dog are buying SU30s and rearming, a fact tht 99% of the UK public is completely uninterested in or unaware of. The RN and RAF should perhaps combine in a propaganda campaign to demonstrate that they in fact need typhoon to keep current with the rest of the World Airforces and we need Carriers and ASuW vessels despite the Public perception that the only enemy of the UK carries a Kalasnikov and wears a turban. Maybe a few nations flying the PAK FA in a decade will prompt a further F35 batch? we dont know what is around the next corner.
In some ways bashing the Typhoon and the RAF and arguing that The RN or Army could do some functions is pretty counter productive. The simple fact is that if a future warzone has a friendly runway in range of RAF Fast Air, then it makes sense that the RAF use it to fly sorties in support of our aims, rather that send a carrier 6000 miles,taking 2 weeks if the RAF can do the job perfectly well. The flip side is that there will be conflicts where the are no bases and the RN takes the lead.
Its a pretty sad state of affairs that we are saying that UK PLC is incapable of supporting an Army, navy and airforce and typicsl of our cynical politicians that they have set them all fighting, with the sole aim of saving cash. Disgraceful really. Just like they have banned squaddies from writing about their special forces exploits, perhaps its time to ban rotund ex Generals, Admirals and Air Marshalls affiliating themselves to Political Parties?
