The money cancelling carriers will not go anywhere else. France will build the same sized carrier, using the same design, but with an angled deck, catapults and arrester wires.

BTW the advanced LYNX is for the British Army and the Royal Navy not the RAF.

Cllr Tony Linden, Reading, UK

Carriers are a good way to keep the peace; to maintain a substantial credible military capability. They can prevent war and nip conflicts in the bud. Had there been a carrier in the Falklands area in 1982 there would have been no invasion of the Falkland Islands. They provide and create a congenial and photogenic service environment in an extended peace, and they can provide comprehensive support in disaster zones. If the money is available, I think carriers make sense. The object should be to avoid war, which is a much more expensive event than the cost of a carrier.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Also for those who are really serious about this issue sign up to UKNDA. Google it and read some of the skark facts and possible threats facing our country our the coming decades. Really frightening. If we work together we can force the governments hand. http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/supportforces/

Ben, London,

Put in perspective, £4 billion is less than half the money being wasted on the olympics and only one-tenth of that wasted on Northern Rock. The problem with the carriers is that by the time they enter service they plus Trident's replacement will be the only ships that the Navy have.

Chris, Derby,

If the contract's signed next week BAe Systems will announce the week after that it'll be twice as much and already years behind schedule.

The problem with buying an American Nimitz-class carrier is that they don't fit into any of our Navy dockyards, so they'll have to eb made bigger too.

Chris, Derby,

Stop all the interservice bickering. The solution is simple. The armed forces need more money. The army couldn't fight an expeditionary war without air cover and in the future that may well need to come from the sea. We cannot guarentee the availablity of land bases from so called 'friendly' nations

Ben, London,

They were meant to be the pride and joy of Britain’s 21st-century fleet, an emblem of its pre-eminence as a military and diplomatic power.
Diplomatic power is being decimated also, the FO
is being destroyed

diago, Santiago, c

If the budget was sufficient in the first place the Treasury wouldn't be playing the Services off against each other. Defence spending needs a significant uplift and if that means slashing some of Labours more ridiculous waste on pet social projects then good. Cameron appears no better, sadly.

Jon, Birmingham, , UK

we shouldn't go to the US for carriers - theirs are massive with about 5 times the crew of a UK carrier.

James, Ilford, United Kingdom

We could remove our forces from Germany, reduce the size of the army, plan to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, scale down the commitment to Typhoon, share carriers in a Commonwealth fleet with Canada, Australia, and NZ and get rid of nuclear weapons. Cancel the Olympics and restore the EU rebate.

John, Edinburgh, UK

Long term strategic considerations, particularly security of energy supplies, demand that naval powers must operate big carriers to remain viable. France, Spain, and Italy are doubling their carrier fleets, while USA, Australia, India, China, and Russia, are all upgrading their naval aviation

Ho Lim Peng, London,

We have a government that likes to Grandstand on a world stage, so you would have thought that they would have seen the benefit of having the ability to defend the Royal Navy. Have we learnt nothing from the Falklands War and the need for aircover.I find this so annoying that we cant just build them

Phil, Chester, England

Harry, because the people who are kicking up the most fuss are the RAF! They want as much money as they can get now.

Of course the Royal Navy needs these ships. And more smaller carriers require significantly more expensive anti-air warfare destroyers, so it isn't cheaper to get smaller ships.

Francis, London,

Carriers cannot operate on their own, they have to form part of a carrier group which composes of about six destroyer type vessels that act as defence. The government has scrapped many of this type of vessel as a way of affording the carriers themselves.
Like buying a car but cant afford the tyres!

Dudley holley, Thorpe Bay , UK

Right now right this minute our armed forces need these carriers like a hole in the head.
Our army need more boots on the ground and more helicopters to lift them over it and more mine protected vehicles to drive them on it. New money is needed for these carriers

TrevorH, OXON,

There are several options. First, go to the USA for lend/lease aircraft carriers. Second, instead of the UK building aircraft carriers we should invest in our own floating nuclear power stations manned by RN personnel. The Russians have one and we should have our first.

Uncle, Hong Kong,

The carriers are too big for our needs, and would mean large amount of our force projection in one place.

The British armed forces operate in so many places in the World, this is a mistake.

Three smaller, Escort carriers, with smaller contingents of aircraft / helicopters, would be ideal.

Bill Bird, Wallasey, UK

'where will the money come from?' THE GOVERNMENT! They need to put their foot down and refuse excessive public sector pay rises (private sector workers have to deal with pay increase below inflation)

George, Grantham, England

Anyone just thought of asking the Americans to built two Nitzm class carriers for us. Development and construction cost would be significantly lower and they would need refulling ever week!

James Cornish, Lancaster, UK

If these are not built then Britain is sending out a message that it no longer wants to sit at the top table.

Graham, Harlow, UK

The carrier programme is very important for a number of reasons including the projection of influence carriers bring. Not forgetting humanitarain missions that carriers can support. US navy did wonders for 2004 Tsunami relief in Indian ocean area.

Graeme in exile, Amsterdam,

we also need to make sure we have enough escorts to defend both the carriers and their logistics trail. 6 type 45s ain't gonna cut it.

With regard to cost, we can spend £10b+ on a 2 week sporting event, but not £4b on our national defence? Something's not right there.

James, Ilford, United Kingdom

General Sir Timothy Granville-Chapman weasel comments, very predictable. I saw this coming 2 years ago. No we should go ahead with the 2 CVS Aircraft Carriers. Its1969 all over again , when the cancelling of the then two large aircraft carriers left the UK in a mess!

Rob Olivier, London, UK

Since the potential enemies in a coming cold war are Russians and Chinese who both have a developed submarine fleet the carriers are pointless. Pestering an enemy who has no real sea capabilities from a carrier is fine, however if the enemy has submarines... Belgrano could have well been a carrier!

Andrej, Ljubljana, Slovenia

This situation is getting ridiculous. The armed forces are chronically underfunded. The goverment of the day continues to put the future security of this nation at risk by trying to do defence on the cheap. Defence spending needs to increase now! It currently stands at a mere 2.2 % of GDP raise it!!

Ben, London,

These carriers will take 6-8 years to build at least. If they are not ordered now our current carriers will be forced to retire before their replacments are commissioned! Despite recent ground wars the navy IS BY FAR the most important force. 90% of our nations wealth relies on imports and exports!!

Ben, London,

I should have thought it quite difficult to have last minute doubts on a strategic investment of this kind? One might have doubts about the overall level of defence spending, but using budget to re-evaluate strategic naval requirements seems to illuminate the problem reverse face?

Andrew Lewis, Chelmsford, England

Two new aircraft carriers is probably the best use of 4 bln the government will spend this decade. Our forces need air cover, our forces need reach.

I see the Left are in their usual confused state. These "weapons" will most often be used to aid deprived people suffering tyranny as with S. Leone

Simon , London, UK

Have we all forgotten about The Falklands? ??!!! all I seem to hear is the Bean Counters having their say, after all they don't have to worry about the poor serviceman who has to go out and proudly do his duty (with his musket).
To them life appears to be cheap!
Wayne, Sydney,

Douglas Wayne Davenport, Mount Annan, Australia

"They were meant to be the pride and joy of Britain’s 21st-century fleet, an emblem of its pre-eminence as a military and diplomatic power."
What pre-eminence? Isn't it time to stop kidding ourselves?

John Williams, Cardiff, Wales

What aircraft will these carriers operate?
The Sea Harrier will be out of service.
The Boeing STOVL is an ASCLOF (Aviation Story: Costly, Late, Overweight and Fun), and, like Skybolt, may never make it into service.
To navalise the Typhoon would be very expensive.
Buy American? French?

Richard Cooper, Dunstable,

Guys I think its time there was a peaceful demonstration at Westminster. The government needs to be made aware that they are putting the nations security in perril by not funding these projects properly and that the population will not tollerate it. Defence spending must increase to 3% of our GDPnow

Ben, London,

You'd lose a lot of money if one of these sank. A small nation like the UK today should have a diverse fleet of smaller ships to defend its interests. This is just some throwback mentality in the upper echelons wanting their empire days back.

kevin, Lincoln, UK

Without them the UK will have a negligible ability to defend it's own national interest. And if this falls through we will lose thousands of jobs. There are only three shipyards in the UK making military vessels. Without this work they close, and we lose their skills permanently.

Steve, Norwich, UK

Er, there's a simple answer. Increase the budget so the MOD can afford them... A better use of tax payers money than lesbian single mothers, the EU or the UN...

Colin, San Francisco, UK

Some Lunatic always brings Eurofighter into this argument. Given that without Eurofighter the UK would be a 3rd Rate air-power, it is a essential as the carriers.

UK defence spending is tiny less than 2% GDP - yet UK Gov finds 50 odd billion to rescue Northern Rock. Hmmmmmm.

Douglas Newell, Saltcoats, UK

Pointless building the Carriers if you dont have task forces that can defend them, which we dont.
The MOD had to scrap them under pressure from the treasury again.
Funny how we'll throw money at the NHS and allow foreigners to leach off it, but eqpt for our guys?
NOOOOOOO!!!!

Phill , The Wirral, England

I see the RAF is trying to protect its " if it flies its ours" mentality. I think that what is behind this is that for the first time since 1978 there will be a credible fast jet force with "Navy" written on the side of the aircraft.

Rob , Swansea, UK

What a ridiculous idea. Of course we should have new carriers and £4bn is fine, but we should have 3 or 4 mini carriers not 2 monster carriers that the government can be sure to mess up - they'll take twice as long to build and cost twice as much to deliver than budgeted, I guarantee it!

Rahul, London,

There is an easy way to plug this huge hole in the defense budget. Our government has put aside billions to spend on a weapons system that they themselves say they cannot envision having to use, and which is useless without conventional forces to back it up - scrap the trident replacement.

jason, dereham, uk

Put the RN in charge of sailing them and the RAF in flying from them and the Army responsible from landing from them..
Everybody is happy : whats more we might even be able to defend ourselves.

Peter Bolt, Redditch, UK

maybe, if the government had effectively followed through with this plan rather than dithering for ten years, then we might have 40k tonne carriers. Last time a Labour government shut down a carrier program was the 60's. Fortunately the navy warped planned cruisers into small carriers.

Oliver, Pinner,

What happens if you lose one? Seems like a lot of eggs in one basket, one would have thought.

Andrew Chapman, Newcastle upojn Tyne, England

The defence spending is the very best value for money of all taxpayer treasure. It creates jobs, unlike social programs that dole out money to those who refuse work, and other "benefits". Research creates new materials and life-saving techniques for the civilian world. Best of all, It defends us!

Robert Evans, Anaheim, California

Ordering defies reason as current plans(likely to be cut further) already indicate too few jets to fill even one of the CVFs (that is operationally, around 27 out of total around 80).To sum up, defence budget needs to rise to +3% of GDP with military jobs replacing useless public sector beaucracy.

Tom, Epsom, UK

It is amazing how there is always money to be spent on the various weapons of war, and on wars, for that matter, but not enough can be found to look after the elderly, the sick and those needing help.

margie , victoria , australia

Size doesn't matter so much. What matters is whether the equipment can do the job and whether it is fit for purpose. What is also relevant is whether one can rely on something else, or the equipment of a friend.
<br/>
<br/>New carriers are needed to support British policy and overseas territories.

Lester May, London, UK

You may as well scrape th entire Royal Navy unless you build these carriers because if US air cover is not present then the Royal navy cannot operate out side of the English channel.

As a Falklands veteran I've seen first hand what lack of air cover can do.

Dave, Phuket, Thailand

So this government can come up with £2.7 billion out of nowhere to solve a short-term self-inflicted political crisis...
But can't stump up £3.8 billion for aircraft carriers to last 40-odd years.

Long term priorities well in order as normal, I see.

Guy, Oxford,

MOD procurement has no rhyme or reason, nor exhibits any financial discipline. Officers make good officers...not financially astute project managers.

andy khan jackson, reykjavik, iceland

If this government can find 100 bN for Northern Rock, it can find a few for the Armed Forces. Take into account this is 3 times the Annual budget for defence, it can just find 2.7 bN at a drop of the hat for the 10p tax refund, who is kidding who here?

Richard, Plymouth,

How can defence chiefs be getting their knickers in a twist about the £4billion for aircraft carriers which offer a force projection capability whilst being happy with the £20billion already spent on the Eurofighter which will probably never even venture beyond the UK's airspace?

Harry, London,