Originally Posted by
typerated
Not quite. I was talking about lack of destroyers/ frigates . There was a strong argument at the time that the carriers would soak up a too big a chunk not only of the RN's budget but also manpower. All things being equal we could have had many more destroyers/frigates in their place. The navy had eyes too big for their budget. The poor readiness of the RN is at least partly a consequence of their pushing to get the two carriers.
If the carrier decision was happening today they would be canx immediately.
The lack of destroyers and frigates is a consequence of two things. Deferral of the FSC programme twice in the noughties (which has exposed the limited design life of the T23) and the pitifully poor productivity of the Clyde especially and Rosyth. The manpower issue is down to pinch point trades and lack of sea drafts, not the carriers which absorb just about the same as their much smaller predecessors.
It remains incongruous to say the least, that the RN is copping flak because the premier RAF base in the Med has been left unhardened and undefended while our most expensive tacair assets are deployed there.
I expect that's the fault of those vulnerable carriers too......