Really?

[Zigenare]

helicopters are aircraft;

I still reckon we'd be better off with a reactor in there.

[OwlHoot]

Can't help thinking aircraft carriers in this day and age are massive great pink elephants. Or is that white elephants?

One nuclear depth charge set off below it, and the whole thing would split in half and sink in minutes, if not seconds

[DoctorStrangelove]

I seem to recall dear old Putin saying as much.

Useless on their own, it requires a small fleet of support ships.

[Yorkie62]

I seem to recall dear old Putin saying as much.

Useless on their own, it requires a small fleet of support ships.

Yes they do require a number of 'protection vessels' when in theatre because they are themselves normally very lightly armed by comparison to a Frigate, Destroyer or Cruiser, but flat tops are still of significant tactical importance. How else would you be able to provide air support to troops on the ground when miles from home, e.g. Falklands, with no access to a suitable land based airfield.
Remember, we now have no long range aircraft capable of providing such support from dear old blightly, and even when we did, they do not carry the sort of Precision Strike Effects weapons that either the Typhoon of F35 Lightning can/will carry.

[GreenMirror]

If the UK spent less on defense and more on its economy(like Germany) it would be a lot better off.

If we need to fight a war just unleash the nukes.

[Yorkie62]

If the UK spent less on defense and more on its economy(like Germany) it would be a lot better off.

If we need to fight a war just unleash the nukes.

You mean the very expensive Nukes on the very expensive Submarines?

I would agree that that is possibly the only realistic solution to the middle east peace but the consequences would be disastrous for the world, not just humanity as a whole. The problem with Nukes is that you cannot contain the effects. They are the only weapons that are designed never to be used.

[Zigenare]

You mean the very expensive Nukes on the very expensive Submarines?

I would agree that that is possibly the only realistic solution to the middle east peace but the consequences would be disastrous for the world, not just humanity as a whole. The problem with Nukes is that you cannot contain the effects. They are the only weapons that are designed never to be used.

You forgot the... very expensive Nukes sat on very expensive missiles (leased from the US) on the very expensive Submarines?

Speaking of which, looks like Burghfield is expecting some new work after all the building that's been going on there!

[Lance]

You mean the very expensive Nukes on the very expensive Submarines?

I would agree that that is possibly the only realistic solution to the middle east peace but the consequences would be disastrous for the world, not just humanity as a whole. The problem with Nukes is that you cannot contain the effects. They are the only weapons that are designed never to be used.

Nukes are a lot cheaper than a conventional force though.
https://fullfact.org/economy/what-cost-running-trident/