I don’t recall the Navy being in the driving seat when CVA 01 was cancelled
Well they were – until it was cancelled. The history of that era illustrates how the Navy’s political influence was far beyond that exerted by the other services. Indeed, the saga of the Sea Harrier and the TDC was how we got back into the carrier business. Had it not been for the Navy’s manoeuvrings, we would have abandoned carrier warfare in the 1970s. Okay, some will doubtless say that this would then have created a disaster in 1982 but the Falklands was (and is) a “one off” which really can’t be used to extrapolate a wider picture – even though people inevitably try to.

Of course it’s true that Britain’s world view did shift significantly in the ‘sixties. The book I wrote on TSR2 last year illustrates the political saga pretty clearly. It also refers to just some of the many instances where defence policy was driven by the Navy, rather than by sound political thinking. It was only the presence of sound thinkers such as Healey that we finally started to draw-back from the unsustainable “world power” position which Britain was trying (hopelessly) to maintain.

This should have been the end of any notion of carrier power but, thanks to the Navy, we eventually returned to the concept almost by stealth. Absurdly, we still seem to be stuck with it for decades to come.

It’s very simple; If we accepted in 1970 (or thereabouts) that we didn’t need a carrier force, there’s no plausible reason to suggest that we need one now, especially when it is so small as to be pointless. The only argument in favour of a carrier is the notion of an uncertain future. As I’ve said, this is not a sound argument as it is open-ended. If we use that argument to retain a carrier, we have to use the same argument to maintain Trident and many other capabilities which the service chiefs might care to propose. Obviously, pretty-much any weapons system can be justified on the basis that we might need it.

Clearly, the reality is that the carrier is a political purchase. It has no defence significance whatsoever. This is where I came-in with this thread. The absurdity of the vast sums of money, the wriggling of the MoD and the proverbial white elephant in the room – the very obvious question which nobody could ask – what on Earth we were buying the carriers and aircraft for. Gilbert & Sullivan at its best.

I suggest if you want an intelligent response you should come with with an intelligent argument
I’d be inclined to ask the same of you.

the logic in the one you presented had a hole that a metaphorical 747 could be flown through.
Inexplicably, you have failed to do this… :rolleyes:

I can positively say that the RAF has been more active than the other 2 services put together in the last year or so.
Agreed. But in terms of direct and indirect influence on our politicians, it is the Navy which has always been in the driving seat.

But like any insurance policy, by the time you need it, it is too late to buy it
As I said in the previous post, this is a flawed policy, as it is open-ended. Therefore it seems clear that there are other motivations behind the carrier purchase.

these are symbols of power, not necessarily realistic elements of a national defence
Of course they are. Point is, we can’t afford them. Likewise, it is difficult to see how one carrier with less than a dozen operational aircraft, could ever be described as “power”. It is a meagre token gesture by any standards.

But with the USA already contributing a greater share of GDP to defence than we do, it would be morally wrong to cut our own forces back so that we are completely dependent upon it.
Of course we are – in reality – already dependent upon the USA. But if we follow your argument, then obviously spending billions on a carrier does absolutely nothing to enable Britain to maintain even token independence from either Europe or the USA. Quite the opposite in fact.

If we decide to play a less intrinsic role in any future conflicts, reduce our commitments towards NATO and a cooling of the ‘special’ trans-atlantic relationship with the US, then perhaps you may have an urgument. However, given historical precidents, these scenarios are highly unlikely to occur any time in the near to medium term.

Very true. But you have to consider how political will is driven by military (in this case naval) thinking. Politically, we know that the majority of thinking accepts that this is an unsustainable position now.

Every operation we’ve been involved in during that time was an operation of choice, by your reckoning we don’t need any armed forces then, you’re arguement is nonsense.
Clearly, based on that comment, your thinking is nonsensical.

what your advocating is moving towards a self defence only doctrine
I would think that is an obvious conclusion. Surely, you’re not suggesting that it is acceptable to allow our purely national self defence interests to be jeapordised (if not destroyed) in order to maintain a pretence of being a world power?

Your “PC gone mad” defence reinforces the initial impression. If you’d disowned that aspect of it, said it was nothing to do with Islam, Muslims, or the origin of the name, & only to do with Saddam – or even ignored the Muslim thing & just said it’s Saddam & nothing else – you could have got away with it. But no, you had to dig yourself in deeper.
Not at all. It simply illustrates the almost hysterical fear that some people have, when it comes to dealing with such issues. It is a symptom of a media-fed belief that even a light-hearted reference to any issue related to race is somehow unacceptable. I think most of us accept that this is not how most people truly (if only privately) think.

The Falklands didn’t have any direct defence significance to the UK.
Obviously it did, unless the Falklands are somehow no longer British.

er, i’m on this too. Why is the name Hussein a joke?

It’s a joke because it’s ironic, given the recent history of our armed forces. But then you know that. You’re simply trying to pursue an increasingly tired notion that one cannot even make a joke about anything connected with Muslims without being branded a racist – and of course nobody has ever quite established how racism became a dirty word. It’s all nonsense and I’m glad that the Great British Public is finally starting to grasp this, given some of the comments we’ve heard over recent days.

Anyway, with regard to the subject of this thread, I find it comical that anyone could try to defend the carrier purchase. Six (or twelve on a very good day) F-35s is nothing more than tokenism. It’s absurd to suggest any differently. I don’t know how anyone kept their faces straight at the hearing when Hussein announced that we’d have six operational aircraft by 2020. Sixty might be significant but six? It’s a joke. It’s a classic example of Britain trying to punch above its weight and our beloved Navy still failing to accept that we do not “rule the waves” any longer. As we learned through the hearing, we almost lost the Tornado fleet in order to finance this ridiculous white elephant. Make no mistake – it is a project which only the Navy wanted, in order that they could remain in the fixed wing business. These people have no regard for our defence needs or our dire financial situation – they simply prefer to carry-on pursuing an out-dated notion that the Senior Service should prevail. It’s a disgrace.