Interesting that the First Sea Lord should state his belief that the RN's force of 32 frigates and destroyers is over-stretched in carrying out what he seems to view as its most vital current role - protecting shipping, oil rigs, etc. from terrorist attack. It was even more interesting that he laid the blame for this overstretch on the need to provide escorts for high value units and shipping.
Does Sir Alan himself view the Carriers as an unwelcome diversion of resources? Would he rather see the Navy buying more frigates than these two ships? Is he one of those rare senior officers who is more concerned with his service doing the actual job in the best and most cost-effective way than with obtaining the most exciting, technologically advanced and glamorous kit? Is he, perhaps, an officer who accepts that the Navy's post Cold War role should be more limited, and one who embraces the shift from blue-water to littoral ops?
He's certainly one of those who was willing to sacrifice the Shar and to accept the resulting capability gap. One wonders whether he'd lose the CVFs and JSF with equal equanimity?
We can all think of senior RAF officers who've been more concerned with pouring more and more money at Eurofighter, FOAS, etc. while being content to underfund current programmes, and to fail to spend money on necessary upgrades, so I'm not for one moment suggesting that the Admirals have been alone in being 'dazzled' by the glamorous big ticket issues and items.