Originally Posted by
Asturias56
" really should have done this on the other thread, but lets also "fact check" the nonsense here."
It is not nonsense that a very large sum of money was spent on what is, TBH, a niche capability that has little relevance to modern warfare. The carriers were /are a Blair-Brown vanity product.
All that money, the port infrastructure and the training and the crews could have been spent on reinforcing/replacing the surface fleet (which is now microscopic) and even buying another SSN. To deny that the Carrier purchase has not affected the rest of the navy is just defies belief.
Little relevance to modern warfare, when the USN had two busily engaged over Iran and MN has one in the Med. With the Chinese, Indians and others building more. Hmmm.
The training and the crews which are broadly the same as their predecessors, so no new money there. The size of the surface fleet is down to two things - firstly poor logistics support in the T45 coupled with a propulsion design based on a false premise. The second is a result of a game of chicken between BAES and MoD over ordering T26 and the appalling productivity of the Clyde in delivering them.
Since 2017, the Clyde has delivered 1900 lightship tonnes per year, while employing the same number of people as a certain 80s/90s yard which put out three times that amount with the same number of people and considerably worse facilities.
One assumes you'll blame "the carriers' for that as well?