However, the uncomfortable truth here is that CTOL did not necessarily equal one carrier. I think it was Gerald Howarth who noted that it was hoped that converting the second ship (ie QE) would be looked at in 2015.
What the current debate has done is highlight that at no stage has the provenance of these "conversion" costs been exposed to real scrutiny. I think I am correct in saying that it is still unclear whether the "£1.8Bn" or whatever it is today has been generated by ACA, by MOD or by Aunty Betty in the commons tea room. I hope the "costs" are opened to scrutiny, but doubt it will happen.
This has stitch up (with saving DPOC as a non-carrier capable frame) written all over it. Forget all the nonsense about UCAVs. Whether the next generation aircraft is manned or unmanned, high in the requirements list ought to be carrier compatibility. By going STOVL, it is pretty much guaranteed that "carrier compatibility" will be too difficult and expensive.
What seems possible is that the 1.8Bn is a total cost, including DLODs etc. and includes things beyond just the conversion costs (e.g. extra manning/training etc.) - it begs the question as to whether the SDSR decision was properly costed (or rushed) or whether it omitted some costs that have now become clearer or have just risen.
What I would like to know is who actually pushed for the B >> C switch during the SDSR - was it a political driven request - perhaps driven by Liam Fox and his "advisors" in pursuit of the catchy headline, or a jolly good idea from one of the floors of MB to make some short term or through life savings that was actually pushed in the first instance by some in MoD?
I wonder what side of the B/C fence some of the key actors are actually on - e.g. CAS, FSL etc.?