"The warships will enable Britain to play a leading role… in fulfilling its obligations to global security... they are a downpayment worth paying on the future of the Navy and Britain's place in the world. "

Who wrote that?

The bloke who put in the tender for the MOD?

16 Billion quid!

JW, Leeds,

GJB
You sound like the French prior to WWII-full of nonsense.
Who's going to defend Britian from a large hostile nation or a combine of small nations if she can't or won't defend herself?
The world is ordered according to strength not right.
Pray for another Thatcher for your nation.

zevgoldman, middletown, U.S.A.

Are these carriers nuclear powered?

Eric, Missouri, US

Those who say that we should cancel the order and concentrate on more "bread and butter" defence spending are missing the bigger picture. More than anything, such carriers are about force projection and prestige. The value of this in foreign policy and diplomacy is incalculable. They must be built.

John Bargh, Clitheroe, United Kingdom

The Navy has been so run down with the majority of its fleet mothballed or sold off and not enough men to man its present few ships let alone more aircraft carriers. What the hell are the MOD , the Government and the top dogs of the Admiralty thinking spending nearly four billion on carriers.

Will Marsh, Carlisle, England

Last I heard was the planes wont be done till 5yrs after because of problems

John, Salford, England

The new ships will however be slightly hamstrung in only being able to operate STOVL aircraft. Much more flexible to have a conventional carrier. This is however a big step in the right direction. Much better purchase than Eurofighter.

Rob , Swansea, UK

All this moaning and saying we are too poor. We are the 4th biggest economy in the world and have 60 million citizens, bigger than we have ever been. 4 billion out of a 500 billion government annual spend. Spend more, it creates hi tech jobs in UK and encourages exports.

Leo Jones, Holyhead, Wales

Please, would someone tell me what we are going to use these ships for? We do not have enough money to run the day to day needs of the nation anyway.

Tony Marus, Erith, Kent

"Servicemen can find themselves in battle with inadequate equipment. They sleep too often in dilapidated barracks."

I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. Your average barracks isn't the Ritz, but I've never seen any worthy of the title 'dilapidated'.

Mark Johnson, Birmingham, UK

Carriers should not be top of the list on our under-sized defence budget. Either increase funding to adequate levels or spned on better priorities. We cannot be a world power with a small country defence budget.

Neil Murphy, cromer,

What a shame London won the Olympic bid. We could have had four.

S Moss, Oxford, England

So long as defence requirements take second place to the requirement to safeguard jobs, the defence forces of this country will go on paying for equipment they neither want nor need. It's Eurofighter all over again. Meanwhile, the Army still hasn't got a decent pair of boots! What a shambles.

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

Also in today's columns: £7bn for the single Armed Forces computer system.

Compared to that, £4bn for couple of aircraft carriers looks good value.

Neill Foster, Aylesbury,

Dave, carriers are a moving platform for aircraft that can bring said aircraft within strike range of anywhere on the planet. Without them, you have to borrow someone else's airfields - and they often say no. Carriers don't need to turn up in the desert; the planes can move by themselves, you see.

James, Winchester, UK

The manpower will be forthcoming I think - but fuel could well be a headache on present trends. Carriers of this size must surely be nuclear-powered to avoid dependence on (vulnerable) replenishment tankers. We have the technology, let's use it.
(Yes, I know that jet fuel is needed too).

David Thomas, Burnham, UK

When are the old Colonels and Admirals going to wake up in the real world?
We are a small country, no empire covering a fifth of the world and ordinary people are fed up with our leaders 'sending troops' to far off lands to be killed for no reason at all.
4 billion could be used better at HOME.

GJB, Slough, Berkshire

The proble with aircraft carriers is they dont tend to turn up in the desert

Dave, Chesterfield, England

given the current oil prices you might want to make them nuclear powered. A carrier is a bit useless without the power (or the money) to run it!

Roy Winn, Brookyln ,

All very nice once built. But does the Royal Navy have enough manpower to crew both these carriers. As it is a number of new, perfectly serviceable destroyers have been mothballed in Portsmouth Dockyard (a) to save some money, and (b) there are not enough sailors to man them. Not Rocket Science!!

B Clark, Chelmsford, England

Please don't trot out the Falklands as the justification for carriers. The US hasn't fought a Falklands style war since 1945, and yet its carriers are an essential part of how the US projects power around the world.

The RN have a job to do in a hostile world. Let's not second-guess them.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/USA

A good day for the Navy, Its the least they deserve for 300 years of keeping this country safe from tyrants and dictators.

Its just a shame they had to sacrifice 2 Type 45 destroyers to secure the order

Of course, defence spending should rise to 3% of GDP..is that really too much of a price to pay

Mac, Nottingham, UK