Harry
that is a very clear and coherent summary of just how we've finished up where we are...............
usual mix of over-optimism, lack of joined up thinking and no one person in charge
That almost suggests that where we've ended up is a very bad place. I think I'd balance that with the observations that :
1. We're paying more for the ships than we should have done. However, that is primarily a consequence of endless delays in placing the order and subsequent b8ggering about, which were almost entirely driven by an argument (largely from one quarter) that the ships were much bigger than CVS and therefore too big and too expensive, whereas the actualite is that CVS sized ships would still have been very expensive, but would have had no risk hedge against STOVL failure and would not have delivered much in capability terms.
2. While many burble on about "only 12 jets" - that tends to be wilfully missing the point that the ships can economically operate many more, as well as a variety of r/w, without any sort of extra work. There are no show-stopping technical reasons why that CAG/TAG cannot be enhanced. It is merely a question of finding money over the length of a 50 year programme.
Engines, thanks
The phrase going round in about 97 to 2001 was: 'air is free and steel is cheap' - inferring that bigger ships would have lots of free space and any conversions would be 'easy'. The CVF PT were told at the time that this was hoop, but as Tuc so rightly points out, there was plenty of hubris flying around at that stage.
I would add only that it was (and remains) entirely the correct decision to build them as they are (particularly the size). I know what the through-life margins are in the ships and for once we are not going to be struggling halfway through. I think it's fair to say that the "conversion" debate at the time was all about what would happen if the FAA/RAF decided STOVL was a non-runner or had it been cancelled,
prior to build start and
after the detail design had been done, rather than a mid-life conversion. In that sense they were correct - costs
should have been relatively marginal, compared to any other alternative. As ever, timing is (and was in the case of the 2010 decision) everything, compounded by a dearth of really technically competent ship design expertise in the MoD in the very recent past.