All you see is what you want to see. All of the political comment doesn’t bear scrutiny. The reality is (as you well know) that only some of the cabinet and a few others, support the carriers. The vast majority (and I do mean nearly everyone) do not. We all know that.

Three PMs (Blair, Brown, cameron) supported
Several Ministers for defence (Hutton onwards) supported it
Defence Select committe support it (

We support the decision to proceed with both the Queen Elizabeth class carriers and to develop the JSF carrier strike capability

.

The above covers the decision makers in possession of the most available facts outside MoD

I can quote numerous individual other MPs that support it.

Can you show even one piece of evidence to support your view

.
But has China invaded other countries?

Well yes. Tibet & Nepal sprint to mind

But I agree with your general point that the west can hardly criticise China for developing a carrier capability when it has one or is building one of its own

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.

Indeed. Compare and contrast with the Australian decision on the RFA covered in the other thread…

Today at Fleet Base West the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence announced that the ex Royal Fleet Auxilliary Landing Ship Dock Largs Bay is to commission into the Royal Australian Navy as HMAS Choules.

Many of you will recall that former Chief Petty Officer Claude Choules passed away in May of this year, our centenary year. He died in Perth at the age of 110. This was a significant moment when the world lost its last living link with those who had served in WW1.

Who would you rather have a ship named after? Don’t think that one needs a poll

Chox, in terms of self-promotion recently I can positively say that the RAF has been more active than the other 2 services put together in the last year or so. Whether it be in media releases, MoD intranet or the MoD magazines there has been a continual outpouring of “success” stories to improve the RAF’s reputation etc.

Clearly in the run up and aftermath of SDSR they felt they very existence was threatened as a number of people were calling for their abolition. So such a PR exercise is to be expected, but I think it is hard to deny it.

As to whether we will “need” an aircraft carrier, I think it is hard at the moment to construct a circumstance when we would “need” Trident; the SSNs; Typhoons; Armoured regiments or many other aspects of our defence.

But like any insurance policy, by the time you need it, it is too late to buy it

I am aware that the Thales design team said that 2 islands reduced air turbulence. I am also aware that some others (who did not have access to all the design data) said that 2 islands would make it worse.
I think Fedaykin has more than adequately covered the space aspect.

Kilo, I never claimed that having Flyco aft was better, although it is worth noting that it will be in a similar position on the Ford CVNs given their aft island location.

Nor am I jumping on you because you criticised CVF, I am trying to explore the merits or otherwise. You said that removing an island would be needed to make it a rwal carrier, and your responses since then have made it clear that you prefer a single island.

I have mentioned some clear advantages for 2 islands with respect to radar/comms arcs and separation of antenna; duplication of control centres allowing operation of the ship in the event of one being damaged etc.

What is the advantage of a single island that outweighs this?

Wow!!!! Add three cats, lose that front island and it would be a real carrier!:D

Apologies for bring this up again (but I have joined since then), and I know it was said tongue in cheek but..

Add 3 cats – CVF will have 2 I believe. Does that mean that the Fords will have 5? Why the increase? My understanding was that EMALS would have a shiorter cycle time and be more reliable so that if anything fewer catapults would be needed than Nimitz. I also understood that by and large sortie generation rate on Nimitz was limited by refulling and re-arming delays rather than catapult numbers and so for Nimitiz the extra catapults were really only needed because of the reliability of steam catapults. Are USN really aiming for a much higher SGR? Have they upgraded their arming and fuelling systems so much that they could cope?

Lose that front island – A controversial point but why would the RN want to? Assuming that the aerodynamics are OK (and is anyone on here able to 2nd guess that?) the extra island brings a lot of advantages in systems terms (better separation and arcs for comms and radars, better resilience to battle damage etc).

…and it would be a real carrier!: I know this was the most tongue in cheek bit, but many systems (command & control, ATC, radar etc) on the Nimitz would never have been acceptable for the RN. I don’t know much about Ford, but does anyone know how much of such systems will be brand new, and how many will be just upgrades & cross-decks? Even significant upgrades wouldn’t get close to the requirements of QEC.