Spot on! Avoid RR however… Snecma,Ge and or Klimov would be a good step on the ladder.

Why? RR technology is state of the art, would certainly rate them over Snecma or Klimov and would give GE a run for their money.

Well alas it was you who lowered it to the schoolyard with your arrogance towards other forum members opinions. Anyway as I bring evidence and all you have is unsubstantiated opinion and a complete inability to understand sarcasm, by all means feel free to continue thinking that. I really don’t mind. 😉

[I]
Er… yes, and pretty-much nobody else. If you want evidence to support my view, I can only suggest you go and look for it. I don’t have the time or inclination to do it myself, simply to win an argument on a forum. If you think what I’m saying isn’t true that’s fine.

It’s also about how many carriers, of what size.
I agree entirely! Although that article doesn’t take into account the wider political issues which are fundamental to the question of whether to get out of the business completely.

Which you have entirely failed to provide any evidence for, a simple web search of each of the major parties shows official support and a further web search of the MP’s who’s constituencies would be affected by cancellation and you will find significant desire to ensure their construction. Considering even by a conservative estimate we are talking 60+ MP’s. Here is a sample:

http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/saveourcarriers
http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/community/local-businesses/aircraft_carriers_progress_mean_jobs_and_investment_for_fife_1_1646738
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2010/10/01/lib-dem-ministers-vince-cable-michael-moore-back-fight-to-save-vital-5-2bn-aircraft-carriers-project-86908-22600616/
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/03/Liam_Fox_Unacceptable_that_carriers_have_taken_twice_as_long_as_WWII.aspx
http://www.alisonseabeck.org.uk/two-new-aircraft-carriers-must-be-built
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/hms_sultan_and_qe_carriers_safe_with_the_coalition_1_1251017

But as you can’t be bothered to back your argument I am happy to accept your admission that you have lost it.

I do totally agree that size is everything in respect of the carrier procurement…BIGGER IS BETTER! As has been discussed and pointed out many times with the CVF program in this forum the major cost is the systems and machinery not the steel. Making a carrier of lets say 40 thousand tons and similar in size to Cavour would not cost significantly less and would be far more restricted in capability.

Of course this is the problem the Royal Navy has with a far smaller fleet but a huge number of historic names to draw upon.

I would love to see Ark Royal, Eagle and Hermes used again but its hard to see any vessel being procured worthy of the name. Argus was used again via the RFA so that is always a path albeit not Worthy of Ark Royal.

I see two paths for an Ark Royal:

1)Rename PoW
2)A replacement ship for Ocean

Problem with point 2 as we have already discussed 1 is SSDR has pretty much laid out that QE class will replace Ocean.

Seem to be going round in circles here. The majority of MPs think the carriers are an absurd waste of money. That’s not just a wild assertion – you only have to listen. Failing that, one can always ask. The only major support comes from the inner circles of the Government and even some of this is half-hearted (it’s pretty obvious that the LibDems would not support the programme if they were not in a coalition, and it goes without saying that Labour would kill it off at a stroke, even if they might claim otherwise from the convenient position of Opposition). This is understandable to some degree, as the Government takes a wider view of foreign policy issues and our position on the proverbial world stage. It doesn’t mean that their view is right though. Even Portillo commented recently that he was astonished that the programme is still going ahead and still believed it was unsustainable. If even he thinks it’s ridiculous…

I’m going to take one more stab at this as this assertion is SO WRONG that it clearly shows that you have lost touch with reality.

Firstly where is the evidence that the majority of MP’s are against the carrier, you say that’s not a wild assertion then follow it with the words you only have to listen…right so in other words an unsubstantiated assertion then.

Then we move to your ideas about how keen the different parties are to cancel them your lack of actual research is breathtaking! Firstly the Lib Dems actively campaigned to save the carriers to protect British ship building. Not surprising really considering a cancellation would hurt Lib Dem constituencies in the South West! Then your assertion that Labour would drop the carriers at a stroke had me almost in tears of laughter…firstly they didn’t exactly try hard to kill it off whilst they were in power and secondly like the Lib Dems a look at a constituency map you will find that a cancellation would result in massive pain in a significant number of Labour constituencies in whats left of the Industrial heartlands of the Midlands, The North and Scotland. Labour MP’s were screaming blue murder about the risk of cancellation prior to SSDR so your conclusion is off by quite a long way. Labour relies on the North and Scotland to deliver the majority of its MP’s so the party is going to pay more attention to the needs of those MP’s then wishy washy pacifist ex CND types like Margaret Hodge in London.

So for Lib Dem and Labour MP’s cancellation involves REAL PAIN for their constituents. Hardly makes for a resounding call for cancellation…

As for the Tories I will allow this link to the Conservative web site, it was written in 2009 and it makes it VERY CLEAR that they regard carriers as an important capability:

http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/03/Liam_Fox_Unacceptable_that_carriers_have_taken_twice_as_long_as_WWII.aspx

Also you have changed your tune when you were called out on the assertion that the MOD didn’t want the carriers. Now its well they are happy with a delay…aside for the fact that as a government department tasked with delivering whats asked of it so can’t have an opinion its hardly an endorsement of your earlier assertions.

So to conclude:

History has shown a need repeatedly

The MOD is not against and wouldn’t officially say that as it goes against their remit.

Significant proportion of MP’s have actively campaigned for the carriers and maintenance of ship building capability.

All I see is your arguments in tatters…
And with that I am done!:D

French papers have their Pres onboard CdG, saying the Mission in Libya is nearly over

one of the MP’s forcibly told the chair that it should not be seen that the committee was against carriers
Yes he did (well, not very forcibly as far as I can recall), because he was visibly uncomfortable with the Chair’s assertion that the MoD had already accepted that the carriers had been redundant for years and that the MoD was prepared to exist without carrier aviation for many years to come. But even beyond that hearing, the wider political view has been pretty clear on this. It seems to be only the Cabinet and a few others who are still willing to endorse the concept. I guess that if you doubt this, you could mail the MPs and ask for yourself.

the Royal Navy want carriers as has been stated by the First Sea Lord – frankly I will favor their opinion over a keyboard over a minor author of books about retired RAF jets.
Of course they do. If they didn’t, we would have abandoned the idea forty years ago. As for your other comment, I suggest you try to avoid making snipes. They do you no favours at all.

I started writing yet another long reply to your tosh then I remembered the old internet adage “Don’t feed the trolls” and deleted it. You sir clearly are only interested in childishly getting the last word on the matter and I can’t be doing with that. A cavalier attitude to racism, accusing others of trouble making and a general arrogant attitude to anybody who has a different opinion to yourself has hardly covered you with glory or done you any favor’s. Your last comment is only further example of that! I have no desire to have my generally good standing on this forum damaged by your childish attempts to get me to cross the boundary’s of the forums rules.

Simple solution: blocked! Good day to you sir.

Again where is the EVIDENCE that the majority of MP’s and the MOD are against carriers. That’s not a snipe just a question…I watched the same hearing and I can’t find a bit where the MOD representative said they don’t want a carrier capability…I did watch the odd comment that they might of had a slightly different configuration but no more then that and certainly not a statement of lack of desire. Further from that at one point of the hearing one of the MP’s forcibly told the chair that it should not be seen that the committee was against carriers or carrier aviation and that he and other MP’s on that committee were supportive of a carrier capability. That hardly washes with your statement that the majority of MP’s are against and I go back to the point that the major customer the Royal Navy want carriers as has been stated by the First Sea Lord – frankly I will favor their opinion over a keyboard over a minor author of books about retired RAF jets.