What makes the carriers terrible? The fact that each one is more fuel efficient, crew efficient and has a higher sortie rate then all three of the predecessors combined? We will also get enough F-35's to fill 3 carriers although the standard load out of jets will be much lower due to standard peacetime sorties.
And just as an added bonus the UK makes money off every single F-35 sold, the whole programme is actually worth billions in profit to UK industries.
Back on topic, you want someone to blame for the privatisation of the NHS? Blame the opposition who instead of striking while the iron was hot simply decided to embark on a civil war instead. The Tories should have been crucified for recent actions but instead we get a circus of the pathetic and miserable who can't muster half a fart against them.
Just to jump off topic for a second.
In terms of the carriers they're terrible because they lack an over horizon AEW radar ability. On the US and French carriers this is done by the cat launched E-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye and it's pretty critical for actual force projection which after all is the entire point.
On the older UK Invincible class, they concocted a part time AEW solution by putting a Sea King up to it it's maximum height and relied on it for part time AEW.
The F-35B is like all SVTOL variants, of questionable efficacy. It's fuel load is reduced by about 1/3rd compared to the F-35A, and unlike previous SVTOL fighters use of drop tanks is extremely problematic due to any external ordnance ruining the stealth profile (the stealth profile being the only thing stopping the F-35 from being a complete flop). It's range, G-loading (7.0g for the B vs 9 for the A) and payload capabilities are pretty poor compared to the F-35A and F-35C (neither of which are stellar performers in these categories). There's also the additional issue that the F-35B internal bays are a bit smaller than the F-35A and F-35C which rules out internal incorporation of the current version of the Brimstone missile. The F-35 design itself already makes some pretty big concessions to it's multi mission role, the F-35B extends those concessions to the point I don't see ever operating in a situation where there is not already air superiority.
The production tranching and staged buy, means that while we'll buy 138 of the F-35B's we'll pretty much only ever have around 30-40 available (the maximum capacity of a single QEII class is 50). We'll also not get the first tranche of 28 until 2023 which is 6 years into the QE's service, we wouldn't be able to operate a full capacity mission regardless of circumstance until nearly 2026 or nearly a decade into the ships life span.
We've spent £6 billion and counting on a bang average at best solution, which we'll half fill with a pretty poor variant of a pretty ropey plane. Large carriers we'll never ever fill. If we were going to go for ski jump carriers it's madness to have went for two of this size. You're talking ships with massively more displacement than the Charles de Gaulle (42,500 tons vs 70,600 tons) yet unarguably less capability.
