Just sticking with the carriers,....We have a ridiculous situation where, the sensible requirement for UK security to have 5th Gen combat aircraft has been corrupted. Notwithstanding that the RN have an impressive submarine capability that includes the UK Nuclear deterrent, the aspirations of the Navy top brass rose, unfettered almost, to include a brace of (almost) Capital ships, at the cost of a better balanced surface fleet and, to the gross detriment of the RAF. Furthermore, the capability of the UK carriers is overstated. They are vulnerable and, their specifications and limitations have neutered the performance of the 5th Gen aircraft that they will carry. The carriers vulnerability is well known and compounded by the fact that in a serious conflict, at sea they represent targets that are likely to be proportional and free from collateral risk, such that they may be targeted by Nuclear weapons within the limitations of LOAC. The use of Nuclear weapons against fixed base airfield targets is generally much more difficult within LOAC. Moreover, the fatuous argument that the location of the carriers would be unknown to a capable enemy is, just that. The RAF have been lumbered with a 5th Gen combat aircraft that is unfairly compromised by the requirements of the Navy carriers.
I firmly believe that continued progress down this flawed concept of capability should be brought to a cost effective close. The most likely way forward might be the continued operation of a single carrier. The Navy may wish to consider the ways to better balance their fleet. The RAF should be equipped with less compromised 5th Gen aircraft and not shackled with the Naval limitations. Just my opinion.
OAP