When one is asked to play ball, one expects that the one asking will in turn play ball.
A carrier wasn't the only means to cover all airpower needs in a specific instance and so somehow this invalidates the both the use of that carrier in not only that instance. But can be used to justify never having a carrier at all?
It is clear that the MN want a CV to succeed CdG at very least. If they are getting somewhere with the civilian government, it must be that their arguments are persuasive.
Perhaps you should ask them?
Again with the man. Can we please stick to arguments?
You gave that as justification for a “moderate” sized carrier in a debate about size/ac type and capability and my points on any threat being IADS these days with a sobrique from you about El Presidentes and coastal states. It is a very weak justification because the ship was not necessary and made a minor contribution that its airwing could have from land.
An even smaller ship would have been even less useful.
The real issue is that small carriers, with attendant low capable aircraft, are not able to have a useful effect. Hence CVF, Indian and Chinese carriers, and no doubt CDG’s successor(s).
The MN like the RN and USN will want and argue for all sorts of things. It does not follow that it is in the national interest or even the MN’s actual real world interests for that to arrive.
As I said, I suspect the Franco-German angle will be the background to any future ships.
