at last we can start building these things. The real shame is treasury penny pinching .They should be nuclear powered and have steam catapults,hawkeye aew and command and control flagship systems.
<br/>What we really is more investment.especially naval.
<br/>Hopfully that will come later.

Simon, Hertford,

The reason the 1st is to be called "Queen Elizabeth" is that it was going to be the name of the UK's supercarrier back in the 1950s before it was scrapped as part of the infamous 1957 defence white paper. The 2nd will be called "Prince of Wales", I believe after the Royal Navy's last battlecruiser.

Will, Gibraltar,

it's the Navy, of course it's a cruise ship....

Percy, Colchester,

Hopefully the Navy will ft these two vessels with arresters and catapults, so that they can operate a wider range of aircraft.
Limiting them to F-35B's is stupid. The F-35C has twice the range, twice the payload, is cheaper, will have lower maintenance costs and accident rates.

Fit catapults!

Dave Morgan, Portree, Scotland

Great news that all the fuss is finally over. Shame that BAe Systems are involved though. They've completly failed to deliver other high-value projects such as Typhoon, Nimrod 2000 and Astute submarines on-time and to budget. Hopefully better financial oversight will be in place this time.

Chris, Derby,

About time too! and with 5 to 6 years until they enter service there's plenty of time to recruit and train the crew and the extra plots - all we need now is to spend more generally on the armed forces to give them the support and equipment they need & deserve. Should be called Ark Royal & Eagle tho!

David Harrison, Grantham, UK

We train for the last war not the next.
A carrier aircraft needs 3-5 times as many support people than a land based aircraft. Falklands aside, there are very few theaters where we do not have access to airfields. If Military power is limited by finance this programme is prestigious but inefficient

nick, bristol, UK

Matt Cornish,

Actually, the new carriers can be later modified to accept conventional carrier aircraft.

Jena, Guatemala City, guatemala

Great news. Can't help but think senior army and airforce officers will try and quash this project though. If they had a major problem with the aquisistion why didn't they speak up years ago?? Now bring on the support vessels, destroyers etc. Yes weak liberals will also do all they can to stop this!

Ben, London, UK

Let us know how much each carrier is worth with the required support fleet of destroyers, frigates, subs, planes etc. Probably more useful than the Olympics but it should be seen as job creation for the next election. Cutting fuel tax might get more votes - hint, hint.

Paul, london,

Best news I have heard all week. I wonder how are weak and feable liberals will try and scupper the project though.

Pete, St Albans, England

why have not harland&wolff ship building- yard in belfast have a share of this contract? the northern irish pay taxes the same as every-one in the uk

james, doncaster, uk

"Dreadnaught" & "Ark Royal" would have been better names Also: Still uneasy about the fact that at 65k, tons they'll be about on par with the old Forrestal class in the US, but limited to only F-35 aircraft. Chance lost to fully equip as "conventional" carriers a la Nimitz class. We'll regret that..

Matt Cornish, Camberley, UK

Good news and they will be great ships but not a very original name. Won't people mix it up with the cruise ship of the nearly same name?

Jerry, seattle , us