Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 8,594
- Reaction score
- 9,304
Maybe they could have included the contributions to NATO's Atlantic Striking Fleet in their arguments as well as East of Suez? Kinda requires someone asking "what if those idiots in charge abandon East of Suez" and planning around that, though.The RN made a fundamental mistake in basing its arguments for a carrier force on "East of Suez" rather than contributing to NATO's Atlantic Striking Fleet.
CVA01 and Ark/Eagle become defensible as a two carrier force.
The RN was never going to get two CVA new builds unless it stretched procurement over two decades. CVA01 should have entered service in 1972 with CVA02 following in 1982.
But things in 1963 looked very different and East of Suez was still seen as essential.