Originally Posted by
Not_a_boffin
The carriers were first mooted in 1996 - and those who were mooting on here were not around at the time. These tasks for frigates that you bang on about may not actually require a frigate, but that's largely because you don't understand what they're for.
The factors that are "hollowing out" the navy as you put it (RFA pay and conditions, failure to order and build T23 replacements and amphibious doctrine) really do not have anything to do with the carriers.
The 1990s - a decade of post Cold War peace marred by armed conflict.
As I recall our existing carriers were frequently busy on operations in the Mediterranean, Adriatic, and Arabian Gulf, doing roles that can only be done by carriers. Those operations highlighted the value of carriers but also the limitations of small decks and hangars, so obviously larger ones were shown to be desirable. The aircraft that would succeed Sea Harrier/Harrier GR7/9 was also going to be physically larger requiring a larger ship. Prior to the 1990s, our carriers were busy usually on NATO tasking. The CVS/Sea King/Sea Harrier had an important part in deterring the Soviets, and in the NATO war plans.
Some people blame the carriers for everything from wet weather to wet farts - but where is the evidence?