Well, excuse me for being tedious
, but I think links to the
Sea Jet and
Future Carrier threads would be appropriate. I was going to post news of the steel order on the latter.
And thus far, HNS has not been the stumbling block that the carrier adherents want to believe, and if it ever is, then the op is probably politically unsustainable anyway!
Now what was the reason the USAF F111s had to take such a long route and refuel so many times for the strikes against Libya in 1986? Unlike the aircraft from the Sixth Fleet carriers.
Perhaps agreeing to disagree would be a good idea, however, you may find
this interesting, even though it is only up to 2000.
We actually had 49 frigates/destroyers in 1990, now we have 25. Other types of units have been similarly cut. Part of this is the change from being primarily an ASW force to an expeditionary force, which is why carriers are so important.
Violet Club/Evalu8tor
The US binned all their nuclear Tomahawks, so we would have to develop a new warhead from scratch. Do you
really think that would save money? Likewise an air launched cruise missile - not to mention the issue of whether or not the RAF would need dedicated aircraft (and support infrastructure). Even if it was just a tactical type weapon as the WE177 replacement was intended to be it might be a very expensive way of saving money. What aircraft did you have in mind by the way?
Some have suggested a SSN/SSBN hybrid, with a few missile tubes, that can use the tubes for TLAM, UUVs etc when not undertaking the deterrent role.