A letter to The Times has been published, from retired senior officers, including two from the R.N.; pointing out, that with the decommisoning of the Ark Royal, and the loss of the entire Harrier force (in favour of retaining the Tornado's) it is in effect giving an invitation to Argentina to again invade the Falkland/Malvinas: as the U.K. would not be able to retake the islands afterwards. It also means that for at least 10 years the R.N. will no longer have any fixed winged aircraft embarked.
I was listening to the BBC this morning (as I sat in the customary traffic jam on my way to work) Dr Liam Fox (Defence) was being interviewed on this matter. He made my day when he claimed that we would not need an aircraft carrier to launch any aircraft during any possible conflict over these islands; presumably the surviving Tornado's (and Typhoons) would be able reach there by 'overflying' or using landing rights. The only nations that could possibly offer landing rights (apart from Argentina
) would be Chile or Uruguay, if we are talking about a realistic radius of action; but somehow I don't think they would want to annoy their neighbour by doing so.
This sounds like another 'time-honoured' stich up by the RAF lobby, who, historically, have made some pretty ludicrous assertions about the effectiveness of shore-based air power in a maritime conflict at any distance from home. Like it or not, the only really sensible way to get aircraft to where a conflict is taking place in a maritime environment, for a nation like the U.K. is by a floating airfield - an aircraft carrier. But hey, lets not upset the RAF and the politicians