Did Royal Navy manning shortages help cancel CVA-01?

Did Royal Navy manning problems contribute materially to the cancellation of the CVA-01 carrier program?

Only indirectly in the reading offered here: the carrier-centred strategy was cut first, and the associated personnel reductions then made revival harder, though Edward Hampshire reasonably gives the reverse causal link more weight.

The disagreement turns on emphasis and sequence rather than mutually exclusive claims. The transition from national service to an all-volunteer force left a real manning legacy, but the Navy was still much larger and CVA-01 would have required fewer sailors than the ships it was intended to replace. In the reading offered here, the government first chose a less naval and less carrier-centred posture, after which Treasury assumptions about no longer operating full carrier groups justified reductions in personnel. Edward Hampshire's interpretation gives the shrinking manpower establishment more causal weight because the Navy continued seeking ways to revive the carrier programme after the initial decision. The same documents can support both emphases without making either historian simply wrong.