Allow me to repeat the top and tail the Magic one’s argument:
“It is fair to say that carriers have not been essential to any of our ops since 1982. People can bang on about HNS but this has not been a show stopper in practice. However, carriers have been exceptionally useful in many ops and particularly during the Balkans where carrier assets sometimes allowed air to be maintained over B-H when all the Italian bases were red.”
“In summary, land based and maritime air power each have their pros and cons. I don't think carriers are essential and those who describe CVF as being the 'cornerstone' of UK defence for the next 50 years are imho exaggerating. Is it ‘highly desirable’ enough a capability to push through? Personally, I think so and I think CVF/JCA will offer an exceptionally versatile and flexible capability that we need and should be funded.”
Where MM and I disagree is as to whether CVF/JCA is useful enough to justify spending on it at a time when that’ puts capabilities that really are essential (not just nice to have) at risk.
He thinks that it is, whereas I’d rather spend the money on tankers, a NimR replacement, a PR9 replacement, robust SEAD, more recce, etc. And the carriers and JSF would pay for a great deal of kit
And if you think that’s as tedious as WEBF banging on about SHar, or if you think that makes me a ‘f*cked parrot’, I’d suggest that you take the plank (of inevitable, repetitive, blinkered, dark blue, pro-carrier prejudice) out of your own eye, Widger.
These are difficult, dark times, and we need to challenge our assumptions and be prepared to slaughter a number of sacred cows or risk complete collapse. I’ve tried to react to the new budgetary realities since the end of the Cold War, and we have to realize that while we might personally support the increased taxation that would allow Cold War levels of spending, (or taking the money from areas which we don’t view as a priority) the general public don’t agree, and so it’s not going to happen. And that’s why, very reluctantly and sadly, I no longer automatically support the ‘nice to haves’ that divert money away from core capabilities that we need.
I hope that we can keep the Reds, the QCS, the horses and breastplates and busbies, Victory, Dartmouth et al, but can’t seriously argue that we should spend money on them and watch core capabilities being sacrificed. And I have moved from being a dyed in the wool believer in carriers (as I always used to be, in the glory days of Cold War spending levels - especially after visiting USS America and USS Forrestal and watching them in action).