WEBF
1. No - it was all about saving money. We hadn't seriously used a carrier for 7 years on Ops and the new ones were frighteningly expensive. Fully accept the argument about cost/value, but I refer you to my first sentence.
2. No - Policy remains saving cash.
3. They would if anyone believed the SDSR assumptions were anything other than a thin veneer of tosh on a cash-saving Review.
5. We'd use another country. Spain looks good, Corsica would work, Crete at a stretch. Someone would certianly ask an Arab/N African state.
7. That would be too embarassing. Rather points to the truth of the cost-driven v strategy-driven review.
8. US not flying bombing missions. In any case, why would UK Govt provide deck for US Air Ops - not politically a vote-winner.
Did you really believe that the SDSR was driven by strategic planning assumptions?
