When you said:
"It seems to me that carrier aviation cannot be entered into gradually to suit your purse. There is a minimum cost and that is not small. Indeed it is so not small I don’t see how the UK could seriously afford it. Does it not also mean that with all your eggs in two or maybe three baskets you don’t like to risk them much? Therefore you also stump up for their protection force. Then the whole lot needs replenishing. Does the UK ever want to risk say 3000 chaps and half their aeroplanes to one hit?
A carrier task force is a wonderful political/military option to behold – but is certainly not what I mean by operating site flexibility."
I read it with enormous interest. Was the great JF going to pronounce carrier aviation a thing of the past?
Then you disappointed me and said what I'd have expected - that we need something bigger than the Invincibles.
But I don't understand (dumbo, I'm afraid) why these cogent arguments don't apply equally to the Invincible-class or similar sized ships. OK, sink an Invincible and you don't kill 3,000 people, but it's still a massively expensive and hugely vulnerable investment, isn't it?
Why do you think we still need these? Where would you use them? Where could you not equally well use land-based aviation?
Acronym alphabetti-spaghetti de-code:
CV (F) Carrier (vessel) future - UK requirement
FCBA Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (UK Requirement)
FOAS Future Offensive Aircraft System
HVA High Value Asset
SSN Nuclear sub
JN (Nacko Jacko!)