Boffin - I agree they will have to change their priorities - otherwise they can't support the carriers. My point is that the roles which will be downgraded are also critical to the national defence. So you protect the carriers and can exercise a great deal of power over a small area or you can disperse the escorts and cover more areas of concern........ The argument between us is which is more important .
WEBF - A carrier force operating in the N Atlantic cannot "deter, reassure, and influence" actions in the Gulf today, tomorrow or even next month - sure they look good but if Iran snaffles anther UK tanker in the Straits of Hormuz tomorrow what is an RN carrier group several thousand miles away going to do? Yes you can send the Carrier Group to the Gulf - but a bit like the Russian Navy on its way to Tsushima it takes along time and they have a lot of time to be ready for you.
This argument has raged over 14 years 300 pages and TBH we''re nowhere near agreeing
The naysayers argument is summed up in post #5 by Occasional Aviator-
"Not meaning to troll, but what capability will CVF/JSF Really give us? As I understand it, we are only ordering 2. Now, the Yanks can afford to have a carrier battle group on station permanently covering pretty much every likely trouble spot, but with only one to position we will either have to be prescient or we will be projecting our air power at fast walking pace"