Tony Blair sent our armed forces all over the world to fight during his time in office but without sufficient weapons or equipment and thus they have suffered casualties as a result .I believe only the Iraq war was a bad call. To be able to respond to future threats the armed forces need flexibility , without aircraft carriers they would have none.To be honest the navy should have three of these new carriers and another helicopter carrier to work alongside the most overworked ship in the fleet ; HMS Ocean .

Edward Dack, Southampton, England

Henry - You will find the government has done exactly what you are suggesting - It is called the Strategic Defence Review and you can find it on the MoD website.

Peter, London, England

These Carriers are for the things we may need them for that you cannot neccesarily predict. The above posters will be all too quick to lynch the government if another falklands occurs and we are left twiddling our thumbs while some tin pot dictator decides to invade UK Soil. Some people need to grow up, think about the big picture and the real world. Defense is an imortant issue and the reason we have these "Big Toys" is safeguard UK interests overseas and at home they also kept you speaking English instead of German or the Falklanders speaking Spanish!

Johnathan Goodacre, Leicester, UK

About Time Too.

Our government is for the sole purpose of providing a state that is stable, secure and that our national intersts are looked after globally. Anyone deluding themselves this is not the case seriously needs to examine their emotions. Defense expenditure has been massively reduced, government spin deludes poeple to think our forces are awash with cash when nothing is further from the truth.

Our world is no less safe and we are fighting two campaigns (wars) simultaneously. Our armed forces have been massively reduced whilst facing the longest sustained period of fighting in over 40 years, does anyone know about the next 40. To be a force for good whilst having the means to back up words with actions you must equip for this. I am proud of our military, of the freedoms I take for granted and sacrefices the services make for us all every day. I am appaled that at the miss representation of the military, its budget and of the liberal agenda that's so prevelent in society

Ian , Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, UK

I have been unable to find out what will power these new carriers. I assume, as there has been no mention of nuclear power, that they will be conventionally powered. If so, where will the oil come from in 40 years time when they are due to be retired?

Even the smaller French carrier of around 38,000 tonnes that visited Portsmouth for the Trafalgar bicentineray is nuclear powered and the RN has nuclear submarines, why not the new carriers?

Frank, Winchester,

Stephens right. Defence cooperation with France has been quietly on the increase in recent years.Together with the two French carriers (Charles De Gaul and the projected third of class) the UK vessels will give Europe potent capability when operating alongside the US, whilst also providing the means to act independently when required. We can hardly complain that we are unable to influence US strategy as at present, when we bring so little capability of our own?.I also share Michael's view about the Destroyer/Frigate force.There were reports that the Navy had agreed to sacrifice the last two type 45s in order to secure the carrier deal, although this would now appear to have been denied. With just six Destroyers,there would barely be sufficient to protect the carriers, let alone do anything else. A less sophisticated,and cheaper,follow on class,based on the Type 45s hull must be the way ahead, even if, as Michael says, it means a two teir fleet. Quantity has a quality of its own?

Matthew Haines, Battersea, London

All these comments are worth reading as they demonstrate a level of national pride as well as historical ignorance. History as showed over the years that nations with a well equipped military are much more protected from war than those without. Granted, the UK is not under threat from its closest neighbours, but after many costly wars over the past 300 years, we have picked up the habit of pre-empting the ambitions of a potential world nuisance. This is a more cost effective way in monetary and human terms. Democracies haven't been under threat for the past 60 years because they had the most powerful arsenal in the world. Had this not been the case, things would've been very different. The world is not full of peace loving nations and Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy wronged by evil capitalist occidentals.

Alex Kay, Montreal, Canada

This is good news for the RN. However, i do hope the order for aircraft will be put in good time aswell. Building these aircraft as we currently see with the extra helicopters being ordered takes quite some time. The last thing we would want is a carrier without aircraft. Moreover, what is being done about early warning? The US and French use the E2D Hawkeye, will we? It would save on having to fly regular patrols by fighters.

Also, are the government actually looking at increasing funding for Infantry/ Army Regiments? Clearly the attrition rate is v. high and we need more capacity? Furthermore, transport helicopters and aircraft? Will the RAF be purchasing the US made C17 in greater numbers given the strong pound? It would make good fiscal sense. Likewise Huey/ Little Bird helicopters very cheap, reliable and effective in the short term.

I think yesterday highlighted just how important defence has now become politically. Time to spend more i'd say. Good on Gordon for that.

Mr. Harry T. Waters, Colchester,

What has happened Henry is that on a number of occasions Europe has been shown incapable of acting effectively (e.g. Bosnia) to prevent terrible war crimes. The USA is the only nation that currently has the capability to operate overseas with a credible air defence umbrella protecting her forces, these ships will give Europe and the UK the ability to operate independently of US help. Given we are happy to blow a few billion on hospital consultants and ID cards, I think this is in contrast a reasonably justifable purchase by the government.

After all we can't just by one off the shelf if we need it...

Stephen Bathgate, Edinburgh, Midlothian

Brilliant news. 10,000 jobs over 10 years, keeping our ship yards working, bring in some other contracts for the UK to build more and reinforcing our badly underfunded and equipped armed forces whilst protecting our future. Its fantastic news.

Perhaps we can build some helicopters for the troops as well.....

Phil, Chichester,

This is the best news the Navy has had in years, the Navy has had to sacrifice around 10 Frigates and Destroyers retired early or virtually given away to foreign governments in order to pay for these 2 new carriers over the past 10 years.

Its now time to order at least another six T45 and begin design work on a new class of frigates to replace the current type 22 & 23 frigates. This new class needs to be around 20 ships in number with some systems downgraded in able to get a greater number of ships built. I know some people will not like it but i think we need a 2 tier navy!

Michael Smith, Blackburn, UK

I agree blues.
Carriers project military power, it is better to fight ones enemies far away from our shores and these provide huge airpower support anywhere we require it, without needing access to other countries airfields or relying on American largesse to assist us.
Let those who would have peace, prepare for war was a Roman tennet. In the increasingly unstable world we see, this has never been more true.
Our armed services are remarkably small and need all the money and support they can get if they are to be a force for good in this world.
Only our politicians can starve them of the resources or send them off on the wrong missions.
Let the stones and brickbats be thrown at them.

simeone, Upchurch, England

So, defense spending is increasing all the time. Why?
Is the U.K. under threat by....France, or Italy or Germany?
After the massively expensive new nuclear sub, now two massively expensive carriers.
I for one can not see the logic.
Can anyone?

Yes We have unfinished work in Afganistan & Iraq. What about Iran. China is undergoing a massive arms build up including a new carrier, things with Russia are hardly friendly.

Lets look at this as an insurance policy, we probably won't need it, but you can bet if we didn't have it, we would need it...

Steven, London,

To Henry & Yiorgos,
Can you both see into the future ? or would you rather wait until trouble flares & find us devoid of any protection.?

England is an island vulnerable in so many ways, we must have modern defenses, who would have thought 30 years ago, we would be fighting on a terrorist front as we are now .

The world is a big place attitudes are changing all the time, we must be prepared for as many eventualities as possible.
Don't forget these ships are to have ' all components built in British yards' will provide 10,000 jobs too.

maggie Millington, Brittany, France

So the ever-green Harrier is to go, and we are committing ourselves to a joint aircraft/ship development with America? We are indeed becoming the next State of America; and had best be prepared to deal with all the enemies of the USA, which we will no doubt be acquiring along with their technology. I wonder if the new carriers will be used to attack Iran, also? Not what I would call freedom and democracy.

Howard, Johannesburg, South Africa

About time too!!. The UK has waited much too long to have a true Aircraft Carrier, had the Labour Government in the 1960's not cancelled the planned replacements for the Navy's last 'heavy' carriers (Ark Royal & Eagle) the Falklands war would have been very different - had it happened at all!!..
The run-down of the navy (& all the armed forces) in the last ten years has left this country critically ill prepared to face the many & changing threats that the world now throws at us. It is time for the politicians to realise that the safety & security of the people of this country is their primary responsibility & they should ensure that the armed forces have sufficient men & equipment in more that adequate quantities to meet whatever threat or challenge is thrust upon them. So build three carriers & twelve destroyers, enlarge the armed forces - & keep the Treasury out of Defence matters, they are more of a threat than Al-Queda to the armed forces!..

David Harrison, Grantham, UK

What has happened in the last thirty years? Well for a start the Falklands, which just could not have been retaken without the two remaining carriers at that time, and specifically the last of our 'conventional' carriers, HMS Hermes, which at 27,000 tons was just about large enough to carry a sufficient weight of air-power to enable our land forces to retake the islands, albeit at cost. Many analysts believe that without that victory, not just the Falklands but the United Kingdom as a whole would be a very different place. Incidentally 25 years later, Hermes continues to give good service to the Indian navy as the INS Vikrant.

Matthew Haines, Battersea, London

Henry, do you watch the news? Or you aware of the bombings that have happened in the Western world by terrorists? Are you aware of the fact that Iran took our people hostage recently, a very hostile act? Or you aware of the mounting tensions against Russia?

I'd say there is alot of need for these carriers in such an uncertain world. And this wasn't happening in the last 30 years, it's happening NOW.

Considering our navy is being rather badly funded, these will be a big boost. The fact is, we have the second biggest defence budget in the world. But somehow our government manages to waste loads of it with paper work etc... when it should be spent on more T45s and Stute Class Submarines. If they spent the money wisely, then we would still have a navy that we could be proud of. And this 'increase' isn't that great either, it is belown the growth rate of the British GDP. I'm hoping the ordering of these carriers will pave the way for the order of more ships to go along side them.

Les Ferris, Newcastle,

Actually Yiorgos, defense spending has decreased massively over the years - why do you think our troops are so under equiped and badly supported? If you think that the UK's involvement in global affairs will diminish any time soon then I believe you are misguided and I for one, am glad to see the government take the issue of national security seriously. As should any true Englishman. Of course, anyone else may well fail to understand the importance that we English associate with freedom and democracy and as such, their views may well be considered and ignored.

blues, st. austell,

What has happened in the world to make these weapons necessary now when we have managed without for the last 30 years and more? The government should be obliged to make a detailed appraisal of the future threats that they see to this country; where they are coming from and why, and how they see these weapons deployed. There is no decent excuse for not doing this. It is our money and this is not democratic government. Let us hope they prove merely to be big toys for the big boys.

Henry Percy, London, UK

So, defense spending is increasing all the time. Why?
Is the U.K. under threat by....France, or Italy or Germany?
After the massively expensive new nuclear sub, now two massively expensive carriers.
I for one can not see the logic.
Can anyone?

Yiorgos, Crawley, W.sussex