Sorry for taking my time to reply - you know how it is....
andrewn
Like pr00ne says, most of the sections of the carriers were built the carrier were built in non Scottish yards. The components going inside the steel shell came from all over the UK.
The QEC take approximately the same manpower was an Invincible, and needs the same level of escorting and support. Why would they need more? Possibly less, as she can provide more air defence, and I assume will need replenishing less often - more efficient propulsion. Where does this idea come from? By the way, you seem to have forgotten about the squadron of ASW helicopters aboard the old CVS (which was their primary role), and the Harrier GRs...
Asturias56
Why? For the last few years we have been deploying LPH/LPD task groups and contributing frigates and destroyers to American and French carrier groups, so why not deploy our own carrier group? Even outside of NATO, allies may contribute ships. The Netherlands has said it will be part of the QE based task group.
The QEC will be busy - mostly as part of NATO, sometimes outside. Presence is a naval role, and one that helps maintain peace. Will deploying a carrier based task group be more or less demanding for the RN than an amphibious one? I understand that WestLant 19 will ne the RN's major depoyment this year, but that has not stopped Operation Kipion in the Middle East, BALTOPS (with UK LPD, LSD(A), and RFA Argus with 3 x Merlin HC4, and 2 x Wildcat AH1), NATO commitments like standing maritime groups, and national tasking?
Easy Street
Clearly maintaining a CAP is easier with a larger number of aircraft. An experienced RAF AWACS person suggested that this is not the best way of using fighters, if you have AWACS and/or organic AEW. As F-14 is no longer in service, and Sea Harrier/Harrier GR9 are no longer in UK service - a better question is how does the speed of F-35B compare with F/A-18 Super Hornet? You know the Super Hornet took on the Fleet Air Defence role from Tomcat? I am tempted to say a STOVL launch can put more jets in the air in a hurry than hooking them up to the catapult shuttle,raising the JBDs, then shooting it off and starting again?
Does the enemy have bases he can use that out nearer than the local friendly one? A speed/time/distance issue perhaps?
Not sure why you have ignored my point about task group ASW, but never mind
Do you really thinking losing something like an LPD and several hundred Marines will not be a huge strategic shock to the UK/NATO/free World? Really?. By the way, when did we lose an LPD in 1982? RFA Sir Galahad could not be counted as a capital ship, and by that stage of the conflict the landings had taken place, and the war was being won. Fearless and Intrepid were not just full of troops, but also provided the landing craft to get them ashore. Losing the requisitioned QE2 or Canberra.when they were full of troops prior to transferring to the LPDs and ashore would have meant ENDEX.
Militarily, the greatest setback for British forces was losing the SS Atlantic Conveyor. Three Chinooks, six Wessex, and Lynx, about 200 1000lb bombs, and various ammunition stores were lost. If the Chinooks had not been lost, it is unlikely the Welsh Guards would have been sitting aboard a ship in daylight during an air threat warning. The BOI (on the net) for RFA Sir Galahad and Sir Tristam state that the only thing that would have made a definite difference mas more air defence aircraft and being able to use them more effectively.
Likewise, when some of suggested that if a third Sea Wolf armed frigate has been part of the task forces, the answer has been "possibly..but...", however being able to use the Sea Harrier more effectively by having Airborne Early Warning could have countered the Argentine attack, low flying and coming from the North - an unexpected direction that meant the Super Eterndards need to top up with gas from a tanker twice.
It was lack of AEW that caused a new tactic to be devised by Woodward and others. Pairing a Type 42 destroyer with a Type 22 frigate. The T42 had longer range radar, and missiles, and could control Sea Harriers. The Type 22 had Sea Wolf, and had newer radar which suffered less from surface clutter. On 25 May 82 (minutes before Atlantic Conveyor was hit) four Skyhawks were out to sink them - as the Sea Harriers they had been controlling were achieving success. Coventry's radar detected them at long range and directed a pair of Sea Harriers onto them. However, due to concerns about encroaching into her missile engagement zone, the Sea Harriers were called off.
One ship with Sea Dart (medium range SAM) and another with Sea Wolf (short range but effective) against four old Skyhawks? No problem, apart the fact that Coventry's old radar could not get a lock on the targets, Broadsword's computer failed, and Broadsword got him - bombs did not explode. In a couple of minutes, they reset the computer, and are tracking targets. However, communications with Coventry had broken down, and as she was about to engage with Sea Wolf Coventry sloughed into her firing arcs....
Coventry was hit by three bombs, and sank quickly. Calling the Sea Harriers off was a mistake and has been acknowledged as such. Although most modern weapons are fired vertically, eliminating the problem with arcs, power and computer failures still happen. If the Sea Harriers had engaged the Argentine jets the sinking would not have happened. If the task group had had AEW there would have been no need to use the 42/22 combination like that.
In a major war the enemy would seek to destroy our centre of gravity. Are you really suggesting an amphibious task group, a mines counter measures force, or a collection of important vessels full of troops, MBTs, artillery, Typhoon spares, helicopters, field equipment, and so on, would be better off without the protection of organic fighters, the ability to hit enemy ships at range, and the means of 24/7 dipping and long range task group ASW?
In a limited war, or a non war intervention such as the eighties tanker war, an opponent may well still have submarines and jets, possibly with anti ship missiles. The ROE are likely to me more restrictive, and prohibit ships engaging targets at long range, due to the problem with getting a visual ID. Sinking or disabling any sort of Western warship, or auxiliary, is likely to seen as a coup by a third world despot.