Originally Posted by
NutLoose
Nothing against a carrier force, I just feel that the time for UK PLC to operate full size carriers has past. The supporting infrastructure is no longer there, defensive shield, auxiliary support fleet and the air power needed.
It all just seems a pointless exercise in overkill and is as if the Navy had fought to regain its carrier force without thinking how they would man, support and pay for them. If we still had squadrons and squadrons of aircraft to operate off them I could understand it, but to build a ship that hasn't got the aviation assets to fill it seems a total waste of money... I still think an angled deck would have also been the way to go because they instantly strangled its capability and interoperability with cross decking at the outset. Fill it with your F35 fleet and one missile and you have lost the lot..
Getting back to the. Original post, with the list of ships being shown as possible cutbacks, one feels a lot of those measures are cutbacks allowing the monies to go into these white elephants..They are and will be for years a draw on the Defence budget we can ill afford or support. I do like the 50 year life of the carriers, that will probably equate to 10 years UK, 30 years Indian or Brazillian Navy, and 10 years someone else's.
You summarise the carrier conundrum very well NutLoose Only thing I'd add is that the carriers also drove the B variant decision, which I think many would acknowledge is the least useful of the '35 variants.