This is a very broad question; trying to sum up the view of a nation towards a complex issue that evolved over decades would be very difficult. Having said that, the prevailing answer to your question is probably "No", at least, not in any meaningful sense.

To begin with, let's go back to 1906 and look at the naval arms race sparked by the creation of HMS Dreadnought. During this period, the British public were intensely supportive of maintaining naval superiority over Germany, as it was seen as vital to the national interest. However, two decades later at the Washington Naval Conference, Britain was voluntarily acknowledging the US Navy as its equal and the age of domination met its formal end.

The First World War had changed public opinion, which was now strongly anti-war. The naval arms race with Germany was seen as one of the major causes of the war and there was a strong disarmament lobby active in British politics. Capping naval spending was presented as a moral cause, as much as an admission of Britain's relative decline. Furthermore, Britain was at the heart of the League of Nations, which had disarmament written into its founding covenant - Britain could hardly speak with moral authority if it continued to expand its navy during peace time.

Of course, much of this idealism went out of the window with the onset of the Second World War. On the whole, the Royal Navy had a mixed war, achieving stunning victories (such as at Taranto), but also humiliating and troubling losses (for example, the Prince of Wales). However, during the early stages of the war, the navy resumed its position as a centrepiece of national pride, being the one military arm able to take the offensive to Nazi Germany.

Following the war, it was clearly apparent that Britain was no longer as militarily powerful as its chief rivals and allies. The Royal Navy was now dwarfed by the supercharged US Navy, which had been massively bolstered in order to overpower the Japanese. Despite this, it was not exactly grounds for national despair - after all, with the foundation of NATO, the world's new all-powerful navy was owned by the UK's closest ally.

Politics in the late 1940s and early 1950s was dominated by the rise of the welfare state in Britain and the end of rationing. By and large, the country was more concerned about raising living standards and restoring order to the economy than the impossible task of establishing military parity with the US or USSR.

In any case, the government pursued 'fig-leaf' policies that could give the impression that the UK was still a heavy hitter. Pursuing nuclear weapons, a permanent security council seat at the UN, control over vanquished West Germany, and a relatively managed approach to the independence of India all gave the impression that Britain was still one of the world's foremost powers. The Empire was publically loosened with the signing of the London Declaration in 1949; the idea being that Britain would continue to benefit from close trade with its colonies, while dissuading them from throwing off the cloak of colonialism altogether.

This portrayal of softer power became unsustainable when the Suez Crisis occurred in 1956. The calamity showed the British public that the country was very much militarily and economically dependent on the United States. It was during this period that one could argue that British national pride reached its lowest ebb. The following decade saw mass decolonisation and economic stagnation.

However, as regards your original question, the British people at large weren't lamenting the loss of naval power. In fact, during this period, public opinion and discourse swang strongly against the evils of colonialism and the use of military strength to impose British will internationally. The main concern of the British public in the 1960s was not the decline of the military, but of its economy, which by that time had not only slipped behind the United States, but also its European rivals in the EEC.

And yet, to undermine the question entirely, British naval strength was a cornerstone of Allied strategy during the Cold War and the Royal Navy remains one of the most sophisticated and powerful fleets in the world.

Sources:

A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, 1961

R Tombs, The English and their History, 2014

Sir Nicholas Henderson to The Rt Hon David Owen, MP, Letter, 31/03/1979

Just a reminder to folks coming here to comment: Please respect our rule against discussing current events, and confine your responses to events up to 1995. Also, if you're coming here to answer the question, please make every effort to actually answer the question with sourced, expert-level answers.

I have an additional question if anyone knows the answer. I was doing research on various types of ships during 16th-19th century and noticed that it seemed regardless of who invented the ship or what it was for the Royal Navy ordered a ton of them. Was this normal for most nations or did Britain have a disproportionately diverse navy?

Also, did Britain actually invent any major naval technology? From what I found it seemed like while they added guns to some ships most major ship design changes, rigging and other major inventions came from other countries. I don't mean to insult Britain and it's likely my own ignorance but it intrigued me that it appeared this way since they were known for being such a major naval power. Also, if I recall either the Cutter or Junk type of ship was often referred to as a floating coffin and was fairly despised despite prevalent use, how normal was the tactic of throwing a lot of easily destroyable cheap ships at a larger enemy and how successful was it given the deaths/destruction?

First of all, it's Great Britain, not Great Briton. Second, I'd like to point you at this thread.

after WWII but clearly GB went from undisputed dominance of the sea for a long period of time to one of several naval powers, and not the strongest.

For most intents and purposes it still remained at least the second greatest navy in the world, second only to the USN, at least in WW2. I can't speak for after the war, though.