Are the Navy’s new carriers already obsolete?

MAX HASTINGS is correct (Mail): most of the Navy’s available escort force of destroyers and frigates would have to be deployed solely as escorts for our two new carriers. The answer is not to scuttle the carriers but to increase the number of suitable escorts — which we’ve been scrapping! There is no doubt a task force based around an aircraft carrier is a formidable military unit, and several other navies have brought ‘flat tops’ into service, including Japan, Thailand, China, Spain and Australia. It is also noteworthy that India, receiving vast amounts of foreign aid from the UK, has two large carriers. I agree with Max that the Government needs to make some brave decisions — including not to scuttle two Queen Elizabeth class ships, but to order more vessels to operate with carrier taskforces.

IAN RICHARDSON, Durham. The sinkings of British ships in the Falklands War and the bombing of the Sir Galahad would not have happened had we had two proper fleet carriers. These would have been able to keep enemy planes 100 miles away. Instead, we had mini carriers with 12 planes each able to fly for short periods. If we are to fight in distant waters again, we need these new carriers — as long as they are fitted with catapult equipment to launch long-range patrol planes.

Name supplied, Portsmouth. AFTER serving for two years (i.e. full commissions) on four aircraft carriers, namely HMS Eagle, Victorious, Ark Royal and Hermes, I am amazed that the Navy launched its largest aircraft carrier and then named her HMS Queen Elizabeth. The ship is just so much ironmongery and — especially because of her name in this day and age — a floating target. Whoever decided on this name must have got their brains from a butcher. KEN MIllER, lt RN rtd, Allestree, Derby.