Jonesy I suggest you move-on. I’m not going to waste people’s time by repeating myself. Read my previous answers if you’re seriously interested, although I assume you’re not. Failing that, listen to the TV, listen to the people who actually have a clue what they’re talking about and maybe then you’ll see why so many of us think Fox’s SDR is ludicrous claptrap.

The folks on Newsnight said it all a few minutes ago, really. A shabby tale of economics-driven spin-doctoring and shameful inter-service rivalry. Ludicrous and lamentable.

Bazv, I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with much or even all of that. But as I said previously, that wasn’t my point. Even if you accept (as indeed I do) that carriers were needed in 1982, that does not provide a case for buying carriers now. It merely indicates that our defence thinking and foreign policy was flawed at that time. Naturally, anyone could claim that any potential future scenario might require carrier power but there are two key points here – firstly, this doesn’t mean that our participation in any of these future conflicts is essential, and secondly, even if we have the capacity and will to participate, what kind of significance is a dozen F35s if not merely over-priced tokenism? Either way, the concept of sacrificing so much for so little is just ludicrous.

It’s interesting that the notion of defending one’s sea lanes is raised, just when Nimrod looks like being a possible victim of the carrier farce. On the one hand maritime power is irrelevant and on the other it is vital, it seems?

It would be foolish to write-off the political decision-making of the 1960s. The very early 1960s are certainly nothing to be proud of but the subsequent years in which Britain found itself in a very similar state to 2010 make a good comparison. TSR2 was cancelled and quite rightly too. It was a brilliant design but dogged (doomed in fact) by the way in which its design and production was set-up. Healey (because of Callaghan’s financial constraints) rightly understood that Britain could not afford to sustain the status quo. F-111 could undertake the same roles more cheaply. He also rightly accepted the folly of supersonic Harriers, jet transports and much more. He also understood the absurdity of large carriers. It is widely accepted that Healey was one of the best Defence Ministers this country ever had even though far too many people erroneously dismiss him as the “vandal that cancelled TSR2”.

Britain finally accepted that playing on the world stage was unaffordable and withdrew from East of Suez. TSR2 was therefore redundant as was its replacement the F-111. AFVG was a dead end. Carriers were an unaffordable luxury but the Navy persisted with it’s obsessive thirst for air power and eventually got their Through Deck Cruisers, a design which was absurdly ineffective from the outset but suited the Navy as it was the only way through which they could stay in the fixed-wing business. Even then these “carriers” had little to do with need – they were proverbial straws that the Navy grasped.

History is merely repeating itself again. Britain is in a similar financial fix. It is trying to maintain a world presence in the face of crippling costs, and the Navy is still trying (successfully it seems) to convince us that a country with hardly any future defensive and offensive air power, should divert huge sums of cash to support a dozen F35s for the Navy to parade around the world, to impress nobody but themselves. It’s utter nonsense.

“we can’t defend ourselves” “but we shouldn’t have a navy” how are those two views compatable?

This isn’t 1945. We can only afford to defend (both with defensive and offensive power) the UK mainland, unless you’re suggesting that we are still going to try and engage in the defence of the remaining outposts of the Empire. It’s a question of getting real, understanding just what a state we’re in, and how we should “cut our cloth” accordingly. I never said we shouldn’t have a Navy. I said we shouldn’t have a carrier – a view which has been held by many since the 1960s.

MPs are against the carriers? erm wrong, they are backed by the majority of the last governement and the current one.
Nonsense, hardly any MPs support the hair-brained notion other than the remaining (and dwindling) supporters of the US-led “world policeman” concept. The tragedy is that Fox seems to be stupid-enough to buy into this claptrap.

And then where is this magic threat to the UK that we will not be able to defend?
I have no idea. Point is, neither have you and – more importantly, neither does Fox.

Then I would remind you the UK is a nuclear power.
Lovely, we will rely on defending ourselves against any imaginable threat with a response of nuclear destruction. That sounds plausible…

I’m afraid you assertions are just wrong.
No they’re not. You just disagree with them. I agree with the military experts and politicians who think the path being embarked-upon by Fox is utterly ridiculous.

See I would love to know where your work has been published
No you wouldn’t, you’re just making pointless sarcastic remarks.

Adrian’s “Testing Colours” … personally I’ve enjoyed more hours looking at those pictures than any other book! (no prizes for guessing what aircraft types I find fascinating):D

Jonesy, it’s not about “losing an argument” at all. I don’t have any interest in winning an argument with you. Why would I?. I’m just pointing-out the realities of the situation. If you think you’re impressing anyone by trying to “nit-pick” through specific lines to try and score points, I’m afraid you’re not. Likewise, if you’re not bright-enough to understand what I’m saying, that’s fine, but resorting to childish comments achieves nothing and makes you look even sillier.

I’m a military aerospace writer with thirty years of experience under my belt so it’s not as if I’m clutching abstract thoughts out of the air. I have friends who are senior officers in the Navy, so it’s not as if I have any proverbial axe to grind with regard to that service either. I’m just trying to explain the realities of the situation. If you can get your head out of the enthusiast magazines, stop believing every political sound bite you hear, then maybe you might get a grasp of what I’m trying to convey to you.

In simple terms (and I’m sorry to others for this repetition), Britain could obviously make good use of a carrier force. But it is not essential and has not been essential since WWII. All of the “vital” engagements since then have not been vital at all, they have been conflicts of choice. Obviously, they might have been regarded as hugely important, but this viewpoint is inevitably related to how much money one has. Not surprisingly, engagements seem less important when they are too expensive to contemplate. This isn’t just my view, its accepted political wisdom too.

Jonesy’s silly comments about Tornado aside, we are all aware of what an important and valuable asset Tornado is. Harrier is valuable too, but if the RAF is being presented with a stark choice between the two, it makes perfect sense to dump the Harrier. But the real crime here is that they should not have to make this choice. If we were not pouring phenomenal amounts of money into the carriers, no choice would have to be made.

Ultimately, if we are to saddle ourselves with massive spending for many years on these carriers, we will ultimately get ourselves just one carrier sailing the seas, equipped with maybe a dozen fully operational and serviceable aircraft. By any standards this is nothing more than a token. A very nice token of course but one which we will have obtained at the cost of destroying our ability to defend the UK in any credible way. Fox evidently sees this as perfectly acceptable but as I’ve said before, history tells us that “ten year rule” arguments are foolhardy. Showboating around the world to join whatever conflict looks politically fashionable is fine if you can afford to do it. Point is we cannot, especially when our real defence capability will have been destroyed in order to achieve this ability.

No matter how one looks at this saga, the carriers cannot be justified. Hardly any politicians can or will defend them as everybody knows what folly they are, given our current circumstances. Fox and his cronies will try to portray the SDR choices in the best light possible and the media will probably be stupid-enough to believe his comments. But make no mistake, this is an act of supreme stupidity, prompted by the Navy’s almost fanatical eagerness for perceived supremacy over the other services. It’s no way to run a country.