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

Really? I’m surprised that the French are prepared to accept their disillusionment so swiftly. Pity they didn’t consider the possible outcome before they started, n’est ce pas?

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.

If you can’t see the similarities between the two statements then I think it’s best we leave any discussion there.
Maybe we should then because there are no similarities. I suggest you read my comments properly.

And yet our allies seem to be suggesting that they should be unique.
Are they? Says who? And if they are, does this oblige us to act? Course not.

Funny, when I suggested something similar in response to your original comment your said was that it was nonsense
This doesn’t even make any sense

and other than that I can’t see too much else that we can provide that the rest of Europe can’t
I don’t think I ever suggested that Britain’s contributions should be of a unique nature. That obviously isn’t a pre-requisite.

I don’t know. I don’t have any romantic visions of a UK force structure. Likewise I don’t know where all the money would go that the MoD would save. Presumably it would go back to the Treasury to pay-off part of the MoD’s debt.

There is no “ideal” force structure. It depends on our abilities and our finances. I fully accept (as I think I’ve said) that in terms of purely national self defence, one could argue that virtually all assets are unnecessary, given that there is no obvious threat to the UK. But at the same time, this argument also applies to the carrier. We either face future threats or we do not. As I’ve said, the only possible way of determining whether we do face any serious threats in the future is to look at history. It tells us that we do not. So, is it really plausible for a bankrupt country to spend money it hasn’t got, on a weapons system which we haven’t needed since 1982 (and with a better grasp of foreign policy, wouldn’t have even needed then)?

Ultimately, if the UK is ever going to dig itself out of the notion that we are a military world power (a process which began around 1965 but is still continuing), then we have to adopt a more realistic attitude. In practical terms, the best that the UK can do is to be an active member of Nato and other alliances. If we are to be a useful member of these alliances, we should surely strive to contribute the most significant and useful assets that we can realistically provide. The carrier certainly doesn’t fall into this category.

The point you made is very, very stupid.
If that’s the best you can do, I suggest you move to another thread.

OK Tim what was this system that would be better value for money, that gives us a global power projection capability better then an aircraft carrier and available off the shelf?
There isn’t one. But this pre-supposes that we should still be in the business of power projection. What power are we supposedly projecting? And why?

you would of had no problem with a massacre in Libya if there hadn’t been an intervention?
Libya is none of our business. It was France who drove this one, chiefly because of Libya’s proximity. We are not the world’s police force. Likewise, if one wishes to pursue the notion that we are somehow responsible for policing the globe, then why are we not in Syria? The answer is choice, as I keep saying. Syria is too difficult, Libya is easy (or at least they thought it was). It’s nonsensical.

I have no “chip” about anything. Why would I? It is of no consequence to me, is it? I’m merely pointing-out a very clear view which prevails amongst the majority of MPs (but not the Cabinet, it seems) but which seems to be wilfully ignored on enthusiast forums.

I think the basic issue here is the one which has troubled some people for decades. It’s the old issue about punching above our weight. One carrier and a handful of combat aircraft is tokenism. There can be no doubt about that. It can be used in support of Nato or wider actions of course but then we have other capabilities which we could also provide – and which would probably be of much greater value to our allies. There has been no need for a carrier for a long, long time. That isn’t just my view – it’s the view of the MoD so it isn’t even a subject for debate unless some of you think that even the customer is wrong too. The only issue here is the notion that a carrier might be needed in the future.

As I’ve said, I’m with those (including the Chair of the hearing) who cannot see any other logical conclusion that when the customer freely admits that carriers have not been needed in the past, and when the customer is willing to operate without a carrier for years to come, there is only one logical conclusion – that it isn’t needed at all and never will be.

True, you always have the option of adding to the size of the carrier’s aircraft assets (within the capacity of the carrier) but as you will know, that isn’t going to happen. There’s absolutely no prospect of increasing the number of aircraft because of costs, logistics, aircraft servicability and the launch/recovery capacity of the carrier.

As for the other posts above, there’s not much to add. There seems to be some wild misconception floating around here. I find it comical that anyone should seriously claim that we need an aircraft carrier. This view flies in the face of reality and history. We didn’t need a new carrier in the 1970s and we certainly never needed one after that. Yes, we have used them since then, but needed them? Nope. Even the Falklands debacle (which is always used – unfairly – as the ultimate defence of carrier capability) was a “one off” which could and should have been avoided and is – by any standards – not a plausible reason for retaining carrier capability. Is there so much as one other situation where the UK has relied upon carrier power? Nope. History illustrtates that our carrier capability has been used simply because we have it, not because we have ever actually needed it. Forty years ago the carrier concept was inappropriate and unaffordable. The concept is even more ludicrous now, and yet…

I know a lot of aircraft enthusiasts sneer at our beloved politicians when they question the value of the carriers. It is almost as if the enthusiasts believe that they know better, and scoff at the blinkered politicians who have no grasp of military warfare. I can understand how some might think this way. But at the same time, I fear that a lot of people fail to understand that the majority view of our politicians is right in this instance. They have not fallen into the trap of believing the claptrap that spews out of aviation magazines and websites where the notion of carrier power is ultimately promoted because it “looks nice” and it’s exciting. A shiny new carrier with whizz-bang F-35s might be a thrill for an enthusiast but we have to take a more serious view of Britain’s history and our capabilities. Britain is almost bankrupt. We could not afford carriers decades ago. We certainly cannot afford them now – the figures illustrated the crippling effect the project will have on the defence budget. It will provide us with an almost comical token force which will do nothing other than provide our Government with an unrealistic perception that we have somehow bought ourselves greater influence. Of course in reality we will have lost the opportunity to provide a much more valuable and useful influence by spending our money on a system which is wholly inappropriate for a nation of our size and influence. Hopefully, the dwindling number of politicians who still foolishly support the concept will eventually be forced to accept that it is unsustainable. The tragedy is that if/when this happens, a huge amount of taxpayer’s money will already have been wasted – again.