Short on air bases perchance in the middle east ?, no Saudi Arabia as an aircraft carrier now. Thousands of troops locked up guarding restricted amounts of apron space abroad ?.

The tory SDR will simply be cuts with the same lack of foresight as the 1980′s, when they laughably claimed to be the party of defense.

The Carriers are a good use of Defence money, no matter how tight the budget. The nation was proved wrong on the matter of having no naval air capacity in the early 1980s over the Falklands, and after that war, no matter your opinion on it, the government of the day ordered 2 extra Invincible class carriers. Carriers are an adaptable, multi-mission asset which can do more than give a nation mere prestige. Carriers give the military a power projection capacity unlike any other, as they can combine ground troops, naval strength and air superiority in one component. And due to this multi-role capacity, from dominating sea lanes for miles around due to air capacity to amphibious operations, they are good for all arms of the forces, not just the Navy but the army and air force too. And if recent UK adventures abroad show, both recent and historic, power projection will remain a key component of the armed forces regardless of the operation they are sent on.

They can provide a humanitarian role as well. When natural disasters struck in Haiti and after the Indonesian tsunami the vessel dispatched to help out in search and rescue and humanitarian assistance were carriers, as they could carry men, supplies and aid in such large numbers and deploy it by small craft and air effectively that they prove invaluable.

Their longevity, at the moment predicted to be 40 to 50 years after construction is complete, will make them an invaluable tool in an ever changing world for the foreseeable future. Their multi-mission capabilities make them almost indispensable also as for a nation that plays such an actiuve role in all forms of world events like the UK will always need ships capable of projecting power and assistance where ever it is needed. Due to this they are a much required part of a modern conventional nation who plays a very active role in the world.
Trimming the defence budget for a war which may be over in a matter of years may prove disastrous and any move to cutting long term projects could be fatal in future scenarios where we could be found lacking. Value for money is key in defence, especially at the moment, and I for one would rather see us go for the french alternative to the JSF and cut back on our nuclear deterrent to create a much more powerful and capable conventional force than waste money on what are clearly political weapons. No nuclear weapons, more conventional forces should be the SDR’s motto.

The key issue is how we see our forces operating in future, what do we expect the operations to look like? Do we want to retain an expeditionary capability or not? If we do want to retain an expeditionary capability where do we anticipate operating, bearing in mind that current operations are taking place in one of very few completely landlocked countries. Do we really see a near future with no ”state-actor” threats, can we rely on host nation support. Do we really see no requirement to advance from the littoral? Amphibiousity without the ability to provide air cover is suicidal.

If we’re convinced that none of these things are what we want to be then it certainly reduces our requirement to invest in either the Army or the RAF.

Ship to objective manoeuvre isn’t really required at this stage in the Afghan campaign, but I can see a lot of circumstances when it may have been used early on.

Most terrorists don’t have boats (only Somalian pirates do) – and I can’t think who we’re getting geared up to fight next.

It’s clear to anyone who knows about the Navy that aircraft carriers need protection – and without it any battle will be a re-run of the Battle off Samar.