Carrierfan:

You are correct of course, nonetheless the fact that our current monarch just happens to be Queen Elizabeth cannot be discounted, and must have an effect when government considers the ramifications of mothballing a nearly new carrier, as against converting it for CTOL operations.

Personally, I think we are overdue for an HMS King George VI. The late King was a naval veteran of WWI who surely deserves to have a ship in his name. Traditionally, the first capital ship built in a sovereign’s reign was named after him, thus King George V had a battleship of that name, but when the KGV class were being built in the late 30s, George V had another battleship named after him. Odd that.

Leon:

If you really think a Type 45 could be built in a year you are living in cloud cuckoo land. With the best will in the world, and no matter how much money you threw at it, it could not be done.

As to the British economy, we spend less than 2% of GDP on defence. The government would rather increase spending on foreiegn aid than spend the money on the defence of the realm. They think that “soft power” will give Britain influence, making her an “aid superpower”. I think that’s a load of nonsense, but the fact is that that is what the government thinks, and spends its wealth accordingly. The money is there, and that is how they prefer to spend it.

PhilipG:

My point is that if Britain had had a fleet carrier in 1982, the Falklands War would never have happened, so any possible problems regarding launching aircraft in bad sea states would not have arisen.

The actions of Thatcher and Nott in slashing the surface fleet, especially the carrier and amphibious forces, simply invited Argentine attack. The fact that Thatcher actually believed Ark Royal, already scrapped by 1982, would somehow magically be available, is truly shocking, and demonstrates how little politicians, even control freaks such as Thatcher, truly understand. We see this today, where Cameron is throwing his weight around as if Britain had a 300 ship navy. One day reality will bite, very hard, but sadly it will not be the politicians who die for their folly.

If they are, I’m not aware of it.

I think it’s about time the Red Arrows disbanded too. If we cannot afford to keep our Harriers, how can the RAF justify using a squadron of its best pilots as a display team? They contribute nothing to the defence of the realm, which as far as I know is meant to be the RAF’s raison d’etre, rather than providing entertainment at air shows.

To be fair to the RAF, they had a squadron of Buffaloes on standby to cover Prince of Wales and Repulse, but Admiral Phillips never asked for them. They were sitting on their airfield when they could have broken up the Japanese attack. Sadly the whole Malaya operation was marked by quite outstanding levels of incompetent leadership by all three services.

Trident:

I understand your point, but to my mind it still seems jarring to announce both a new carrier and a missile system which, if it worked, would effectively render the carrier obsolete. The conclusion I draw is that the missile system probably does not work as well as the Chinese would like us to think. They hate the ability of the US to dominate the seas close to China, so why not put a few doubts in their mind? Doesn’t mean the things will work, and I suspect they won’t.

I AM having kittens about CVN-78. Its going to be named the FORD for petes sake!!!!!!! A politician who was not elected to the Presidency!!!! Honestly……They will be having them named after corporate sponsors next. (USS Bank of America?!)

I quite agree. Gerald Ford had a brief and comically inept presidency. The only thing of note which happened during his term of office was that the USA stood by and let its ally South Vietnam fall to a Communist invasion, the very fate which over 50,000 Americans had died to prevent. That merits a carrier being named for you? I wouldn’t name a coal barge after that cretin.