In addition to the points well made by others, since World War 2 the Fleet Air Arm have had to continually operate a long way from the UK (worldwide) on many occasions and more countries are appreciating the value of carriers to support such things. Importantly they can even help to prevent wars merely by their existence. For example, how much has this country had to spend defending the Falklands since Argentina invaded them in 1982? If we still had two proper catapult equipped aircraft carriers back then in 1982 the Falklands War would almost certainly not have even taken place! Prevention can be more effective than cure in terms of both money and lives!
As some wise people say - "If you think that Safety is too expensive to invest in, then try having an accident and see just how much that eventually ends up costing!
With regards to your Nimrod comment, of course I realise the Nimrod was RAF and I am sure that even the RAF realise what an unbelievable and incredible loss it is to this nation that it no longer has such a long range maritime anti-submarine capability. Particularly when also considering just how much money was also wasted rebuilding a limited quantity of ancient Comet based airframes rather than investing in building a new patrol aircraft type that could have actually also had a potential worldwide export market!
However, the point that I was originally trying to make was that again it is Navy lives (and those who they help defend abroad) who will be most at risk as a result of the lack of such long range maritime support for the foreseeable future. Whoever within the RAF/MoD wasted so much tax payer’s money on the wrong Harrier and Nimrod related decisions should hang their heads in shame!
