Defend The Homeland
Trim Stab, I think you need to be careful what you wish for!
Warning non-aviator posting! (I know that bothers some!)
Post cold war government defence policy has been; 1) Defence of the homeland including the strategic deterrence) 2) Projection of limited expeditionary influence.
2) Has meant development of a maritime oriented capability and strategy, hence the long winded aircraft carrier programme. This was started in the 90's following on from building a strong amphibious capability. (I think the strongest for at least 50 years) As far as I am aware, this policy is still in place, even post SDSR. (Demonstrated by the retention of Ocean / Illustrious as well as Albion & Bulwalk (now of course one at a time) and most of the bay class) Without strike and air based AD, there is of course something deficient in this capability. So that is why we have an aircraft carrier programme!
I think the expeditionary strategy will always be up for review. And if the government decides we don't want to do that anymore, the aircraft carriers will go. But if that happens I think you will find all the forces will be impacted. The Navy will lose it amphibious capability, the Marines will fall out of favour and the surface fleet will be further reduced. But I would speculate that there would be no JCF and Tornadoes would also be retired as soon as Afghanistan is done. Defence of the homeland means Typhoons will some multi role capability. I think the slashing of the RAF would extend beyond that as well.
So assuming we do not lose the expeditionary capability, I think we need the carriers. I do not buy that Libyan style ops are the future. To be clear, a maritime strike capability, flown by whoever, provides that role best. (Based on all post WW2 conflicts with one exception!) Remember you can take a carrier air wing ashore, but not the other way around!
The fact is that the carrier problem is caused by governments, not the Navy. Had they been built when they should have been they would have cost half the money. But even at £7 billion, over 50 years they will offer good value for money. Far more so if we did not insist on flying expensive F35s of them! I am not saying that an F18 is the equal on a F35 because I wouldn't. (See the top line of this response) Just seems to me that if we really think we need to reconsider building carriers because we can't afford them, then F18 costs become very attractive.
The core issue here is that we as a country do not get enough value from our defence spend. It is no good saying we are the 4th largest defence spender in the world when we constantly overspend on our equipment procurement.
This statement seems to impact everything we buy. I get the reasons for not buying off the shelf, in order to maintain our industry capability, but if we do need figure how to design and build for world markets, we will always be in this position. In the Navy world, designing the world's best air defence radar for 6 ships is crazy. (T45 and Sampson) I think this applies across defence. So we either figure how to compromise on our requirements so we can sell what we design, or the government needs to acknowledge that it costs more to get the same capability and spend accordingly!
Last point, the future of the services is by no means certain. However, one thing seems clear to me, this is not a good time for cross service rivalries. If attitudes don't change, I think all the services will lose out!