Blah
Its a shame when people feel the need to get personal. HM Forces has enough enemies without us turning on each other...
As for carriers, there are several reasons why we will probably get them into service and the primary reason is that they will be built in Scotland and in Gordon Brown's constituency.
There are equally sound military reasons on both sides of the argument - just needs people to accept that. It has already been formally announced that GB military planning assumes we will never go to war without the US during large-medium scale ops.....leaving us going it alone for small scale dust-ups. Immediately after that announcement, questions were asked by intrepid counters of beans why we needed carriers then...oh....alright....perhaps a couple of teensy-weeny ones. There is no debate about that; if you manage to find a senior RN officer alone, slightly tipsy and feeling sorry for himself, then they will (off the record) grudgingly admit that they have stripped the fleet in a frantic attempt to afford 2 carriers with no guarantee they will ever be delivered. I have even found one who confessed that he saw no real value for them for future ops (yes, I have the name.....address...and accept all major credit cards)
Personally, I have my doubts as to the value of carriers (eggs...basket...one..centre of gravity....bang glug glug) unless they can launch (and recover) tankers, AEW, EW etc etc. I also stand by the theory that we will never go to war without USS Uncle SAM.....I might be wrong, hey, its not important.
However, the smartest trick the RN ever pulled was naming them....