Really, the Falklands just proved the value of the Aircraft Carrier. Now the with the advent of the F-35B. I have no doubt we will see an explosion in smaller Aircraft Carriers. As the advantages are clearly obvious to all…….:D

Yup, and if they use F35B for both navy and airforce they keep common logistics. 😉

I wouldn’t watch for the advent of lots of smaller carriers, but lots of LHD style amphibious ships which can be justified more easily by smaller navies.

As for the carriers in the falklands, if one of the carriers had been lost, the task force may have been withdrawn, however it probably would have been back several months later with bulwark and illustrious as well as more Type 42 destroyers fitted with the brand now and more capable 1022, rather then the 1960’s era type 965 radar.

And resupply of the Islands would have to be via aircraft as the UK Nuclear submarines would make any attempt to resupply by sea, suicide.

About the lines on the flight deck, that might be a sign that they decided to use rolling landings. They were considering it because it would mean larger bring back loads.

True, but it was still inservice and a suitable direct (ie; easy) replacement never appeared, the plans to use the Sea Cat launcher for the Sea Wolf seemingly coming to nought as far as deployment/procurement goes.

Probably because sea wolf required something like a few dozen tons of equipment installed above the bridge. 😉

Not only that but far more fully modernised and with a total of six Sea Cat launchers. Eagle was a very powerful ship when she was completed. You get these sorts of vessels pop up throughout the post war RN but only ever in small numbers, Bristol is another good example. The moral is that the RN knew what it wanted it just could not afford it.

Erm, seacat gets thrown overboard and replaced by phalanx or sea wolf as soon as one of them is developed.

If you built the Invincible class to a more LPH friendly internal arrangement, with that as a clear secondary role right from the start…..

If the Argentines were silly enough to attack the falklands you’d have the incoming birds shot down by the sparrow equiped cap and sea dart T82’s and T42’s. And while the argentines are off getting massacred in the skys you have their airbases getting destroyed by buccaneers and the marines getting dropped inland by helicoptor in the first wave with the gurkas following behind.

Of course if you are Reagan you will probably still have to convince thatcher not to Nuke Argentina.

If they want to play the game of “what if”……
Lets say two ships were built as part of the CVA-01 program and equiped with buccaneers and Marinised Tornados, or Bulkwark in service and the Sea Harriers capable of carrying Skyflash. Or the T42’s were all built to Batch three standards with phalanx fitted and T1022 radars.

GDP of Scotland: 87,420,196,584 GBP (2006)
GDP of whole UK: 1,408,836,002,088 (2007)
(scotland/UK)*100 = 6.21%

I know the numbers vary by a year, and they are from wikipedia, but the simple fact is that if Scotland ever declared independence from the UK, by the time they claimed their regiments from the British army there probably wouldn’t be much of the 6.21% or so they contribute to the UK defense budget left. Maybe enough for a single squadron of fighters or a frigate.

Anyway, why should Scotland be independent from the rest of the UK? it wouldn’t exactly gain them any anything.