I have infinite patience, particularly with slow learners.  Lets take it from the top.

 

This thread, concerning CVF, got hijacked by someone with a bee in her bonnet about Thales. She's deluded enough to think she knows more than expert design teams working on the design of a very complex naval system of sytems (I actually hate that expression, it demonstraes ignorence of system science but it's a bit clearer to slow learners) that has to provide formally approved capabilities for litoral warfare (hence the requirement to be able to embark (I believe that's the correct nautical term) Army aircraft, etc.  The rants reminded me of the old woman watching military a parade in which doted on son is marching and saying 'Ooo look everyone's out of step except my Tommy'.

 

It (the discussion that is) then moved to FI for logic that passed me somewhat by but something to do with USN learning carrier lessons.  This include the immortal nonsense about FI campaign having similarity with WW2 Pacific, well its true there's islands in both places but that's about it.. We've gradually demolished this cobblers, it's been hard, and the diversions, non sequiters, irrelevances, etc have been a marvel to behold.  The lastest is something to do with Guam, same logic applies, has bugger all to do with FI or UK carrier designs.

 

Turning to FI, the lastest is about Arg building fast jet airfields, this line has know changed to a field expedient strip for tactical transports.  Totally irrelvant and of no obvious military significance, Stanley airfield was functioning.  Pebble Island demonstrated what can happen to airfields too close to coasts.  A counter-air campaign doesn't have to be conducted entirely by aircraft when there are other options.

 

We've also discussed, somewhat irrelevantly, FI, although there is a common point.  RN seems to see carriers as vital to their future, in 1982 the CNS was also in a tight corner about the RN's future and in the best Nelsonian traditions grabbed the opportunity presented by Arg naughtiness.  As I've pointed out the commendably speedy dispatch of the TF probably wouldn't have been supported if the CDS was in town, instead a more measured plan may well have been adopted. 

Grow up. Do you honestly believe that resorting to ad hom attacks makes your case any more convincing?

The same goes for Herald too, assuming he doesn't get himself banned for his shameful behaviour responding to Bluewings.

Regarding the thread 'hijack', would someone explain to me quite how you hijack a thread about an aircraft carrier by discussing the design decisions and the design authority pertaining to that particular carrier?

In comparing historical campaigns, it was my impression that this was identifying the uses of carriers. In this respect, the use of carriers is more similar to certain Pacific engagements where carrier-based air engaged land-based air, than the Indian Ocean campaign where hostile air was small and badly supported. Some of the second world war operations in the Mediterranean would also be of interest for the purposes of carrier design, although that is more protection of supply lines against land-based air than defence of a relatively static fleet on the offensive.

Neutralizer:

Obviously I haven't wasted my time to going back to one of the initial posts, but IIRC the basis of the criticism was that Thales had something to do with it.  Now I'm not a Thales shareholder but I can't for the life of me see how a personal hate of a particular supplier adds anything of value, even if it is valid (which on the form to date I doubt). 

 

If you are going to usefully criticise a complex system then you need to look at it as a systems and what the customer wants to use it for.  Personal prejudices and selective attacks on specific features have nothing whatsoever to do with this.  You have to see the full picture, understand it and analyse it system terms.  Anything else is merely underinformed wafffle.  I realise that thinking systemically can be a bit taxing.

 

Comparisons also have to be valid.  I can't for the life of me see how the massive support and effort provided over the hump in WW2 has anything relevant for FI in 1982 given Arg capabilities, and just in case I don't think the Berlin airlift does either.  It's yet another irrelevant diversion.

 

Incidentally  I neglected to comment on a previous stupid remark.  To the effect that CNS was 'ordered' to dispatch the TF.  This remark demonstrates a very high order of ignorance as to how things work in London. Ignoring all the detail about the Defence Cttee, the PM could have asked for options from MoD, although I suspect CNS didn't wait for that.  He would have outlined his proposal and would have been authorised to proceed, this is not the same thiung as being oredered to send a TF, although I realise that for someone who may not really understand how governments work it is attractively simple.  If CNS had said we'll dispatch a naval force and SF while we develop a more detailed plan, etc, then I have no doubt that this would have been approved.  I also suspect it is closer to the sort of proposal that CDS would have put forward if he had been in town.  It'll be 5 years before the records are released under the 30 year rule, but I'll bet that CNS also envisaged rushing down there and jumping ashore with the embarked force.  In the event while they left on 6 Apr they landed 21 May.  I suspect such a long time for an embarked force to be afloat (ignoring the load shuffling at Ascension, another indicator of the rush job) is not normally considered good practice for amph ops in ad hoc transports.  The fragility of this plan is also highlighted by the subsequent dispatch of 5 Bde.  There I definitely see the wiser head of CDS, trouble is much as he might have liked to have started again it wasn't a political option.

If your conditions are "heavy threat from land-based air power, lesser threat from hostile surface elements", then you need to look for similar conditions. This is why Okinowa, for the sake of example, is more relevant than Madagascar, even though the latter includes British forces of similar scale to the Falklands.

Numbers mean little compared to the operational conditions. Otherwise you might compare Roarke's Drift to a special ops raid.

The stress is getting to me... ;-)

Comparisons do have to be valid, but they don't have to be all-encompassing, merely relevant in the area of interest.