Good morning Orca,
You are not thick. I suspect you might know what I am going to write. My comment was slightly tongue in cheek and was looking at things from a cost point of view. There are political reasons and strategic/ tactical reasons why a carrier might be used irrespective of cost. Here are a few indicators of cost items, irrespective of the number of aircraft on board the carrier.
- A Crew compliment of 679 ships crew and an air element of up to 1,600 (when fully manned)
- Designed to take 40 + aircraft (maximum of thirty-six F-35s and four helicopters)
- Requirement to provide aerial refuelling, AEW, MPA. SAR aircraft guard and COD. Do these aircraft make up part of the twelve aircraft to be deployed, or are they in addition to twelve F35s?
- Other vessels required to protect carrier. Let’s assume one Type 45 (crews compliment of 190) and one Astute class submarine (crews compliment of 98)
- Also a requirement for RFA replenishment vessel/s. The MARS tankers have a crew of 63
- Training costs for aircraft carrier usage are higher than for land based training
- The life of the three vessels will be shortened by deployment
- Increased crew costs for deployment. Don't need so many personnel if deploying on land
Those are significant support costs for twelve aircraft. It would be a lot cheaper to fly a whole bunch of aircraft to an airfield and deploy from there. I suspect this will be the first option for politicians. Politicians would also not enjoy the pride of the Navys' fleet getting damaged.
What have I missed? Oh yes, parking fees and a myriad other costs.