Originally Posted by
Wander00
The Russian comment about a nice fat target seems to have some logic to it. Probably been discussed before but I wonder why we did not have more, smaller, through-deck whatevers instead
Originally Posted by
tigerfish
Sadly I fear that the idea of having two big carriers like that is totally misplaced. Where will all the staff to man them come from? I predict that we will never see both in commission at the same time. As was said earlier what we really needed was another three carriers to replace the three we just scrapped. They were about the right size to be capable of being deployed to incidents (Disasters as well as conflicts) world wide.
Remember too that the Royal Navy is not just about carriers, we also need to man up one or two frigates and smaller vessels too!
You wouldn't get three smaller carriers or "through-deck whatevers" with any significant capability for the same price as two QECs. Smaller, cramped carriers with less capability and bigger headaches share the same need for expensive propulsion, power generation and weapons systems (including C4I), and the personnel to man and maintain them, as larger carriers. QNLZ's ships' company (her main through-life cost over the next 40-50 years) is little larger than that of CVS. Cost is not directly proportional to size and the expression 'steel is cheap and air is free' is not without some validity.