Do you ever read the Anti-CVF tripe you write?
Is that a deployment of your emergency banter?
For example, how much extra do you think it would cost to crew a nuclear-powered carrier manned by c.5,500 over a 40+ year period? Moreover, as a single ship couldn't provide continuous availability, we'd still need two of them.
How much is it going to cost us to refuel this behemoth every few hundred yards, with the price of oil increasing exponentially? How much is it going to cost us to develop a bespoke future AEW capability? How much is it going to cost us to retrofit catapults and arresting gear in the future? How much is it going to cost us to service the B instead of the C? How much is it going to cost us to deploy A330s to support the carrier's combat air ops? How much if we want to increase its air defence capability? Obviously I don't have the answers to these questions but there seems to be an awful lot of hidden costs, which may not make the difference in total outlays as much of a gulf as you think; if those totals only mean 25 billion difference over their lifetimes, I would take the extra 500 million a year.
The main thrust of my argument was more to make a point that we are getting excessively poor value for money here, and the point still stands that the newest American carrier into service will cost about the same to buy, but I know which one I'd rather be on in a war zone.