The point of Monarchy is continuity - so no name changes are needed.
I am intrigued about the sudden flurry of name related interest, especially when something like the
MARITIME OPERATING CONCEPT - THE MARITIME FORCE CONTRIBUTION TO THE INTEGRATED OPERATING CONCEPT is public, and puts the carriers front and centre. On the topic of Carrier Strike, it said:
•
Project decisive air power from a protected maritime task group,
including gaining and retaining the necessary degree of sea control to ensure Freedom of Manoeuvre.
Having this in black and white is significant, considering the number of people who think that the carrier will just provide offensive air power against shore targets and that other warships will provide all the air defence and ASW. It also make the point that the carrier's aircraft provide a protective umbrella over a large area in which friendly forces operate, despite the attempts of numpties to claim that it is 'defending the carrier'.
Physics and Maths (and Geography) are involved in answering questions such as:
Why do you want to use aircraft for air defence when you have surface to air missiles?
Why are low frequency towed array sonars more effective than hull mounted ones?
Why are dipping sonars important and why is collocating multiple ASW helicopters useful?
Why does a task group of radar equipped warships need an airborne radar?
Why does an AAW radar such as SAMPSON need to be mounted on a tall mast, and how does that influence ship size?
Why does an ASW frigate need a different hull form and machinery to an AAW destroyer?
Why is Radar Cross Section important, and why design warships to minimise it?
All these things have been discussed at length. including here: Late 1970s US Congress Report - The US Sea Control Mission (carriers needed in the Atlantic for Air Defence and ASW) - including Maths/Physics
Currently eleven pages long, there is a focus on the use of carriers in NATO's plans to fight a war at sea, with contributions from a former US Navy EA-6B Prowler Naval Flight Officer with extensive carrier experience, studies by US Congressional and other researchers, academic papers, articles from the USNI Journal and other learned sources, papers written by former Soviet Naval Aviation types, talks by historians, as well as news articles. There is vey little off topic nonsense, no inter service bitching,no conspiracy theories about Australia being moved on a map, just speed/time/distance considerations, electromagnetic wave propagation issues, basic underwater acoustics, probability...