More than £1 billion would be wasted if aircraft carriers are scrapped (From The Northern Echo)

The government has a difficult decision to make. Do we want to exert military influence overseas or not. If so then these carriers should be built as air support in hostile teritory is essential to support ground troops, without air support ground troops would be almost ineffective. To scrap these carriers would leave the UK forces as virtually a local defence force only with little or no overseas influence. The way the army and airforce resoucing is now thats all we effectively are anyway (but they just wont admit it). If these carriers are built then the support forces have to be there as well as each carrier will need a fleet of supporting ships for protection and resupply which is more cost. There are no half measures on this one - its either or, So which should it be?

I'd first of all like to point out that Britain won the Falklands war. Where on earth did the idea that we lost came from?
Secondly, the idea that cancelling the new carriers would mean the end of the Royal Navy as a major force or mean the end of British naval shipbuilding is completely untrue. The rest of the fleet has been gutted to pay for these ships which, if built, will probably be mothballed or sold off after a few years service as they will be extremely costly to equip, operate and maintain. It would have been far more sensible to opt for 3 or 4 smaller flat tops similar to those being built by Italy, Japan, Spain and Australia (amongst others).
Building these carriers has more to with the Royal Navy's delusions of grandeur than any real operational need. This would allow for reasonable numbers of frigates, submarines and auxiliaries rather than the skeleton fleet (which will no doubt shrink still further) that we now have. There aren't enough escorts to put together a viable fighting force, so the new carriers are largely symbolic.
It would be better for the long-term future of the shipbuilding industry for larger numbers of smaller ships to be built, with a sustainable long-term plan and a regular "drum beat" of orders. There are many within the Royal Navy who share these views, and recognise that having two very large carriers at the expense of just about everything else is a mistake.
As a final point, cancelling the CVA project in 1966 was probably the right decision. We could not afford them, they were not needed for the Royal Navy's primary anti-submarine role and, again due high operating costs, would probably not have been retained for long. The Invincible class ships have given excellent service at a price the Royal Navy can afford.

That we went to war in the Falklands using helicopter carriers to carry the Harrier Stol aircraft was not the result of great planning; the same metallity is operating around these "proper" aircraft carriers. We know no longer produce the harrier jet, it was given to the Americans who have produced the next generation which we are supposed to be flying from the proposed vessels. They are not cheap, so will we be able to afford them? The Government will not consider getting rid of the Trident subs even though we will never use them, why? Ordinary subs carrying cruise missles are much more effective as shown in the recent war zones. Common sense would see our navy with a couple of smaller carriers that could support ground troops and no trident. But sense, common or any other kind has long been in short supply where military spending has been concerned.

Hermes and Invincible were our Falklands carriers. Neither were particularly large ships, but they could carry the Sea Harrier and Harrier GR3. Without these aircraft it's hard to see how the war could have been won. The Sea Harrier of Falklands fame was the FRS1. A very capable aircraft though limited in armament and a decent radar. It could only carry two sidewinders and the radar could not look down. However, it did the job and proved that the Sea Harrier was a really superb aircraft. The later FA2 Sea Harrier had the ability to carry a number of missiles such as AMRAAM and the latest Sidewinders in greater numbers and had a superb radar system. This carried out fleet defence around the world. All the Sea Harriers have been pulled out of service now, so the fleet has no air defence outside of the ageing Type 42 destroyers Sea Dart range. The current Harriers are GR7s and 9s. They can carry a Sidewinder, but have no radar for the air defence role. The new F35 won't be in service for at least 5 years, so we are really looking bad on air defence now. We'll get involved in another out of area war and have to learn the lessons all over again. It's what happens when politics gets in the way. A sorry state indeed.

Everyone complained that our boys in Afghanistan were underfunded, just as everyone had complained that our Pre-Falklands ships were short of the right weapons and systems, all brought about by political waffling and expedience. When we lose more ships, there will be another round of arguments. Politicians fail and they send our young men and women to try to put things right again, and they send them out badly equipped. Instead of flying visits to the war zone, politicians should be made to go there and stay there while the fighting is on and see exactly what they have caused. They should share the pain and one or two should come home in flag draped coffins too. I really despair of these people who have no knowledge of what they do. They have no idea of the reality of actually being there at the front, day after day. If they did, there would be no talk of scrapping carriers and scrapping air bases and aircraft. If they want to go on pretending that we are a major world power and getting our servicemen and women into tight situations, they need to enforce the building of new and capable ships, aircraft and give our front line troops the very best equipment available. Our people do an excellent job despite the political bean counter's faffing about. It's about time we had politicians that actually had some idea of running a country.

Someone said once that most industries and companies had 10% dead wood on the staff. In politics, this appears to be reversed, regardless of parties. 90% self serving, unimaginative hangers on.

Unless it is decided that our global role is past now, we need these carriers. We need adequate air defence for the fleet. We need a good combined fleet and we need politicians to get an education, so that they may indeed understand what they are doing in defence and in every other aspect of their duty. The clock is ticking and our current carriers will be gone in 5 years. What will we do then ? So get off the fence and make your minds up.