Yet another defence review…..and there are those over on the left telling us that the two carriers must be scrapped.
There\’s a reason you have two: big ships like that are such complex beasts that you\’ve nearly always got one in dock somewhere, being repaired, upgraded, outfitted.
You\’d also rather like to make sure that if you\’ve got a proper shooting war that one lucky torpedo doesn\’t take down the Navy\’s entire offensive capability. Heck, the Navy\’s entire defensive capability come to that.
The bigger question of course is whether we need any carriers at all. If we do, we need two, if we don\’t, well….
Which brings us to this liberal intervention thing. I realise that Iraq and Afghanistan are, err, controversial.
But what about Sierra Leone and Liberia? You can of course take the view that neither were any of our business. But looking back at them as having happened they do seem to have made the world a better place.
And yes, doing either or both of them depended upon our having carriers to do them with.
So, without carriers (of some sort) we\’d not be able to do such liberal interventions in the future. Is being able to do that worth 1% of a year\’s government spending spread over a number of years?
Anyone who is against the carrier program care to answer that specific question?