I have just been reading a very interesting book on the history of dive bombing by Peter Smith. One thing which comes over loud and clear is that close air support has always been looked at with disdain by the RAF, who see their job as the strategic bombing of the enemy's homeland rather than messing around helping the army. During WWII, despite the success of the Stuka in the Battle of France and many other campaigns, the RAF's high command was resolute in its opposition to dive bombing, coming out with ever more bizarre reasons why dive bombing was not an effective weapon. The Royal Navy did realise the value of dive bombing, but could never get hold of the Curtiss Helldivers they wanted because the US Navy valued them so highly they kept them all for themselves.
It is clear that this attitude still holds in the RAF, which is why they made sure that the Tornado, a long range bomber by any standards, was kept at the expense of the Harrier, one of the best close support aircraft in the business. If the RAF brass hats turn their noses up at the Harrier, there is no way they would accept an aircraft such as the Tucano doing a job which they can instead do worse at a hundred times the cost with a Tornado. The ghost of Bomber Harris still stalks the corridors of the Air Ministry, it seems.
Don't forget that the RAF's idea of a ground support aircraft was the Lysander. And the grief spread beyond the Army. There was major competition between Bomber and Coastal Command for resources ... particularly long range aircraft and milimetric radar. And despite the massive shipping losses and the desperate need for air support, the resources went to Bomber Command.