There is the world of difference between a US CVN and the kind of c arrier we might get. An Air Wing with F/A-18s, Bombcats and S-3 tankers, plus dedicated SEAD etc.
But even then, land based air power was available first in Afghanistan (and there were an embarrassment of countries offering land basing) and the sortie rate generated by the carriers was a) pathetic and b) dependant on land based tanker support.
Historically, FJs like Harriers, Jags and Tornados can get there before the carriers, except when a carrier is already in the area.
And I'm not against carriers or heavy bombers per se. If we could afford them I'd want both, but I'm afraid that we can afford tactical jets and PGMs only. It's sad, but it's reality, and by trying to punch above our weight we'll only compromise our ability to do anything properly.
And they have all been poor, because Defence has not actually been a priority since the early 1950s. The Tories have talked the talk on Defence but have been responsible for equally ill-considered and harmful cuts as have successive Labour Defence ministers. And they will get worse, as previous military service becomes less and less common, and as the status of the job is progressively reduced. Remember that George R got the defence portfolio to make up for the disappointment of not getting the important Scottish job!
I wonder how much blame should also attach to generations of often gutless senior officers - Whitehall warriors who seem to go from being Lions in the Cockpit (or on the bridge or in the lead tank turret) to being administrative mice who lack the backbone to stand up for the interests of their services. Just wondered.....
Who was the best? Heseltine perhaps? Robertson?