Both carriers to be "carriers"?
The Defence Management item linked by 163627 makes some sense to me. I haven't read the former NATO ambassador Burns full item but if the summary is accurate, deploying the second carrier under the NATO banner would be better than it sitting idle most of the time.
Only trouble is it would now have to have another NATO member's F35B's to fly off of it which is a bit of a limiter. Unless we were to operate F35B's from it under a NATO banner with shared crew and costs shared with other European NATO partners? It would help fill the gap left by the US looking towards the Pacific.
Not optimum use from a UK viewpoint maybe but I'd rather see it used that way than sold for a song to a far eastern buyer.
Last edited by Lowe Flieger; 16th May 2012 at 14:39.
Reason: typo