Gullwings
Exactly.
Jacko
An RAF squadron has to have a base to operate from, within a useful combat range of a conflict. What if, in a future scenario, we can't get that? But with a Carrier....
Carriers can also carry troops, in a pinch, carry refugees, disaster victims, and do something that the RAF can never-ever do, which if 'fly the flag', sail into ports and show just how impressive and important Britain really is - and why they should continue to trade with us. World politics is just one big willy waving exercise, and we need to show we have a big willy if we ever want to secure lucrative trade deals.
So yes, its expensive, but long term having two big carriers are essential.
Plus, you make it seem that the entire Royal Navy is there simply to supply a carrier. We need all those ships for other things, Jacko, and so what if they'd be deployed with the carrier, they'd just be somewhere else on the oceans using money - so the need for a defensive fleet is really no argument at all.
Also, I've had another thought about you're post about the RAF being so top heavy because the officers fly.... the problem the RAF has, is blatant rank creep, in that you have squadron leaders flying single aircraft and not commanding squadrons. Yes, ok it because training takes so long, but if you have such a situation, it needs changing - so don't give pilots a commission until they finish training! The Army and to a lesser extent the Navy manage it, so why can't you? Is it the need of the RAF to validate itself and give itself a compatitivly high number of senior officers so that they can compete with the Army - despite being much much smaller?