I would tend to disagree - the UK still has the ability to support a useful force at a distance of several thousand miles and has a useful "kick in the door" capacity that is only shared by maybe a half dozen countries and outmatched by maybe two or perhaps three.
There's little point in focusing on Europe as a point of influence because there's very little we can do as a country to make a meaningful impact - all of the things we've built up that are relatively novel aren't very useful a land war in the heart of the old world. There's a reason the RN puts little time into NATO taskings - they're usually off elsewhere operating at distances that a number of European navies would find difficult to support.
Add to that, we're still the preferred dance partner of the US due to our proven ability to drop right into a US formation and network effectively.
As for the deterrent - it's useless at most levels of combat - I think we should have it and maintain it (now, more than ever, given POTUS's uh..I dunno how to phrase this and not be political..um..well, let's just say the US appears to have a slightly more inward looking stance.)
However, as a military factor, I think the ability to support ships, aircraft and troops at long distances without much external assistance is significant.
We *could* recast ourselves as a regional power but right now, we're hanging on to the "reach out and touch" capabilities.
Bringing two carriers to the table also makes us "partner of choice" in any international coalition - that's a very big lever to apply to weighty problems.
Even the US, with it's huge carrier force are looking at the UK and really expressing interest in working alongside a UK CSG because it takes a bit of pressure off their stretched forces. Yes, absolutely, the UK CSG isn't a patch on a USN one but you know what, it's still enough of a threat to make a lot of people quite nervous if it showed up off shore.
That's my 2c worth.
I know I'm butting in, and
@StobieWan is much better informed than I am. However he brings up some things that raise some question marks. This "useful force" that the UK can support, what exactly would this comprise? And could you really support it for a decade like you state in a later post? To me it seems doubtful that the UK could do these things on its own. Could you really support a division sized force in a hostile environment for that amount of time, and could you as you say "kick in the door" and put this force into contested territory completely under the British Flag? I'm seriously asking, because I have serious doubts about this.
In your later post, I assume you allude to Afghanistan when you mention supporting a force for a decade. But you Brits weren't alone there, just like the Dutch they operated as part of a larger military presence under the umbrella of the US. Was British logistics done independently from the US? Where those troops not supported by that wider coalition? Where assets and capabilities not shared between allies? I'm asking because I may well be wrong about these things. Another important thing is that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars where run on the last remnants of old stocks that the various militaries could hang on to. And most of that materiel is now either run down or obsolete.
But as far as Afghanistan goes, I don't really think this is a fair or realistic example for your argument. As far as I know that was a coalition effort and many capabilities like logistics where shared between participants. The dilapidated Dutch army could send almost 2k troops and even the Belgians sent people. You can look down on France, but they operate in large parts of the Sahel with very modest international support. Yeah they needed some airlift in their initial surge. But again I ask, did the UK forces do all of their logistics in Afghanistan completely on their own? And could the UK for instance deploy a brigade to Nigeria or Kenya when Boko Haram or Al-Shabaab was at the gates of Abuja or Nairobi?
As for the UK's "special" relationship with the US... Well, to me it looks "special" only when it suits the Yanks. Remember the Falklands? As long as you do what they tell you to do you can be their "special" forward depot where they can station some aircraft and personnel so the Yanks can have them closer to area's that are actually important to them. Of coarse they will let your pretty new carrier on the tail of one of theirs if that makes you guys feel "special", but if it's between Britain and something where the US has legitimate interests they'll drop you first chance they get.
That's why the other poster's idea to trade the carriers for expanding the submarine fleet sounded like a refreshingly good idea to. Going from for to six boomers would ensure a much more credible and sustainable nuclear capability. And expanding the number of SSN's from seven to twelve would be a great idea in any situation because one SSN can have the sea control value of a battle group. Nuclear weapons may be an expensive paper tiger, but it is the only thing the UK has left that makes it a world player. Without them you don't get a seat at the table!
Finally I think the "Battle of Britain mindset" for me has to do with Britains idea of itself in the world writing checks it's economy can't cash.
