FODPlod,
Nope, not gonna let you get away with that misrepresentation. Read my post, I specifically said:
"what contribution to the battle does an 'integrated weapons system' carrier make that an airfield does not?"
An airfield also provides a range of services other than its runway. It too is equipped with radar, comms, barracks, hosppital facilities etc). My point is, what specifically does a carrier bring to the party THAT MAKES IT UNIQUE FROM A FLOATING AIRFIELD?" This was in specific reply to Obi's quote that "the Carrier was and is an integrated weapons system, not a floating airfield"
My underlying point is this: if we are going to spend a shedload of money on some new ships, then the reason we are buying carriers, rather than any other naval vessel, it is specifically because they launch aircraft. Otherwise we should be buying another type of ship.
Besides which, once you strip away all the guff that essentially says how clever you are because you understand the integrated nature of warfare, and how stupid I am 'cos I don't, (because of course, airfields aren't at all integrated in how they produce their output, nor in the way they contribute to the overall battle) you still haven't answered my question, so I ask you again:
What exactly does carrier offer that is different from a 'floating airfield'?
Edited to add:
Note that if Obi had written, "the Carrier was and is an integrated weapons system, not a floating RUNWAY", then I would have agreed with him. So maybe this was a Naval specialist not understanding the integrated nature of an airfield...