There is a degree of cluelessness about this which beggars belief.
Chris Parry has clearly been there and done that (and written very well on it). However, he is clearly referring to "what might have been" and that it is unlikely that the ships will offer the same capability as a CVN68. Well, whoopee-f8cking-do! There are also one or two factual errors - not least the assertion that the "requirement" dates from 1998 and Desert Fox.
The abstract from the RUSI paper reads thus :
"As a result of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review and emerging geopolitical considerations, the UK’s armed forces will look a lot like those envisaged by the 1998 Strategic Defence Review – with a return to an expeditionary, primarily maritime-based strategy. As such, the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, despite a chaotic procurement programme and the reversion to the F-35B Lightning II variant, are likely to prove valuable instruments of state power – not necessarily, or as originally intended, as ‘strike’ platforms, but as multi-purpose, highly adaptable and widely employable assets, capable of projecting high-impact military power, both at sea and from the sea."
Doesn't read like someone who thinks they should be binned to me. Funny old thing, the phrase "Dinky Toy" is conspicuously absent as well......
The sh1te that has appeared in the Telegraph as well as the ST has clearly been cherry-picked and quite possibly by someone who spends a significant amount of time licking windows for employment. Had one asked "are the QEC an improvement on CVS?" the answer would be yes. Had one asked "Other than the STOVL mode - which is not locked in for life (unlike CVS) - is QEC constrained in its potential?" the answer would be no. Had one asked "what organic AAR or buddy-buddy potential has the RN had since 1978?" the answer would be "f8ck-all". Had one asked "would you rather have QEC or not?", I'd be astounded if the answer was not "hell yes!"
All of this "debate" about QEC is essentially mischief making. Those still pushing the "it's only six jets" line need to take themselves outside and ask how many jets CVS was supposed to carry and if they get the right answer, then ask themselves whether there are any limitations over the next fifty years that would prevent QEC carrying more than 6 jets if required. Note that SoS has already said he envisages a minimum of 12 and that the deck is designed for the best part of 40. If F35B gets canned, then that is another debate, but wishful thinking won't make it happen either. There is a significant investment in the ships - and for the umpteenth time, they are actually big enough to have an alternative if we need to. Not something that you can do with your "Wasp/LHD" option.
Should QEC have had EMALS and F35C? Yes IMHO, but it ain't going to happen. Does that mean we should bin it and be a frigate & destroyer navy? Again IMHO, no. Will we have something significantly more capable than CVS and with the potential to grow further? Yes. Has the procurememnt been handled well? F8ck no - but a significant chunk of that has been down do (in no particular order) - a good SDR98 which was criminally underfunded by a certain one-eyed scottish pillock and not repaired by his "boss"; putting the aircraft acquisition in the hands of an organisation openly hostile to carrier-borne air; an RN hierarchy that at crucial times did not understand what it needed to ring-fence; and a high-profile equipment programme in the midst of the sort of land war SDR98 (and SDSR2010 for that matter) assumed would not be a UK commitment.
This is a long game capability. It will take some time to acquire, train, make use of and then understand the potential.