Ocean was already built and almost in service when the 97 SDR came about so you can't include that, the Albions were being built to replace the Intrepid class, there was no requirement that UK Carrier and Amphib roles would be incorporated into one, how many times do I have to keep repeating this?
Worth pointing out that there was a 6 year gap between Ocean going into service and HMS Invincible going into reserve and the decisions were taken by completely different Governments.
The ships you are advocating don't meet the carrier strike requirement as set out in the 97 SDR, again, I'm repeating myself again.
No possibility of a capability gap was invisaged in 97, the circumstances under all the requirements for these ships was set out are different to now and there's little chance the RN would of expected labour to cut the fleet in half while the economy was enduring the longest boom time since the second world war. You're using your 20:20 hindsight to win a discussion again.
So we're back to the ships that you are advocating building which don't meet any requirements, cost more to build and require well over a thousand extra crew to man.
I understood our discussion was around the total cost comparison between the F35b &c. You suggested a CATOBAR design from the outset would have been cheaper; which I agree, would almost certainly be the case, than the half measure we ended up with. Equally if designedd just for STVOL then there would have been even more options to reduce cost/be more flexible (i.e. 3 & docks).
You read to much into the SDR, as though it was a huge change in direction for the RN, or the beginning of something really radically new. It was far more evolution than revolution, really confirming the direction things where going anyway. The Falklands War having already re established the concept of a out of area capability (as you point out LHD/LPD repacements/new build already underway). It did formalise the process for Invincible replacements (30-40,000t design studies I think), but the fact they were going to be replaced, was really decided by their role in the Faklands (as had the LPD).
So my point has always been, with a modest bit of vision (USN having done so in 1973): Ocean should never have been build (role could have been undertaken by an Invincible) & LPD & Invincible replacement/requirement should have been merged (there requirement might have been mention in the SDR but there came from an ongoing requirement and existing ships they were getting near replacement.
I don't know where you get the extra 1000 crew (all but the last Wasps were steam turbine), ther aircrew will be broadly similar if you are operating 90 aircraft (fixed & helicopters) off 2 or 3 platforms. I would recon you would have a modest saving if you are not operating 2 LPDs (I assume the Ocean will not be replaced with the CVF so a saving there if reduction of flexibility).
We can argue over hindsight over the current budget issues, I would say they are less related to the current economic crisis, (although there may have been more flex if it was better times) than the irresponsible request of the defence chiefs. We have discussed before the huge jump in logistics/assault capability and the the CVF v Invincibles is another, but you could also say the same for the original T45 schedule.
While writing this I just saw Hammond on the Andrew Marr show, when question on the CVFs he said: the design study had spent c£39-45m with maybe £10m exit costs, and around £50m to build ramps on the CVFs so about £100m total cost. He also the real issue was the last Government building 65,000t ships without CATOBAR when the types of ships we had traditonal operated VSTOL were about a third the size.
Allowing for a political cheap shot at Labour, I would say politicians rarely put forward designs, it's the services that say what they want.
