The UK carrier fleet is most effective at its original role – countering Russian submarines in the North Atlantic. Small size was fine when they were planned as primarily ASW helicopter carriers, but the lack of adequate force projection capability was amply demonstrated in the Falklands War (if the aging Hermes hadn’t been available, the lack of fighter cover might have cost far more lives). I guess this is why the Invicible-class is long overdue for replacement by the two planned “proper” aircraft carriers – but in the meantime I’d have to agree with Andy that this is mostly a political gesture rather than a truly useful military act.
clairobscur: the Invincible-class were never intended as true multipurpose aircraft carriers, but as anti-submarine helicopter carriers with a small fighter complement for defence and to counter political criticism that the Royal Navy was being neutered and reduced to frigates and destroyers.
The new CVF Future Aircraft Carrier project is likely to involve two 50,000t vessels with a complement of around 40 aircraft (30 multi-role fighter/bombers, likely to be the European Sea Typhoon or the US JSF, and 10 Merlin helicopters).
Andy: ‘…there may be an occasion when there really is some mission the Brits’ (non-special forces) could carry out with some degree of usefulness which the US could not amply carry out itself…’
During the Gulf war, the British took all the aircraft off the Ark Royal, replaced them with 3 Chinook helicopters and converted the ship into a special forces platform. That was, in fact, a very valuable mission.
As Crusoe pointed out, the Ark Royal was meant to patrol the North Sea and Atlantic access routes, not to project British power, and in fact the aircraft it carried were Sea Harriers, whose mission was to support ASW helicopters. The Ark Royal has just come out of a major refit and now has the most advanced communications facilities in the British Navy, giving it excellent capabilites as a Control & Command center coordinating both airborne and land-based operations. Other, larger carriers cannot be converted so easily and I’d hazard a guess that this is the reason the Ark Royal will be so useful, rather than the aircraft it carries.
Saddam doesn’t have to worry. The Ark Royal has already been sunkby U-81.
I bet you’re an absolute scream at parties, Jackmannii.
Doh, you’re right. I should have said “Clemenceau CLASS carrier Foch”. Sorry about the confusion.
A little good-natured chivvying aside, LC, we shall be frightfully grateful for the assistance of the Royal Navy. After all, you’ve shown yourselves able to beat up on small nations which threaten the tattered remnants of your colonial empire.
And in case something should go wrong in an invasion of Iraq, you chaps have a proven record of conducting successful evacuations. 
Coolest name: H.M.S. Indefatagible. (sp)
I did indeed think of the Ark Royal of W.W. II when I saw the OP.
Now, about carriers. The US navy carriers have nukes. I mean, if they decide they need one, they aren’t going to sail back to Virginia Beach or Plymouth, right?
The Brits don’t have nukes since their carriers are designed for ASW. The USN carrier should scare the bad guys spitless and the Royal Navy is a sign of solidarity of the Good Guys.
Nukes on surface ships were banned sometime in the 1980’s by Regan’s administration to placate the public. While it’s certain that one or two carriers have a couple onboard secretly, ballistic missle submarines are the U.S.'s main projector of nuclear power from the sea.
UnuMondo, Navy veteran
Wanna bet?
WE do still have a maritime nuclear capability (through tomahawk), not to mention our sub fleet.
Best ship name HMS BAttleaxe (known as “the mother-in-law”)
I was under the impression that our (UK’s) nuclear weapons were all based on Trident (sub based).
I wasn’t aware we had any nuclear tomahawks.
From this site
A) TLAM-N’s are not carried by surface vessels any longer. Also, officially at least, there is no nuclear ordinance carried for any of our ship-based naval aviation. Fas.org has the lowdown on that.
B) Too much Red Storm Rising for you, methinks.
I always wondered what became of the Village People.
Brutus – I get the reference, but there genuinely was an HMS Battleaxe (Type 22 frigate), sold to Brazil in 1997 and renamed Rademaker. Or were you just talking about the spurious nickname?
Thanks, UnuMondo.
I’m very surprised, but thanks.
I knew that was a real shipname in the RN (I didn’t know about the sale to Brazil, but the Brits have to make room for the Horizon frigates I imagine). But I had to get a good and pointless Clancy reference in this thread, and he provided the opportunity! 
“I’m not trying to denigrate our efforts to provide the US (or is that provide the coalition?) with some degree of support, but it seems that where we really can have an effect is diplomatically (trying to get the Europeans ‘onside’ and in the security council) and in ‘signing up’ so a coalition can be said to have formed.”
The Germans Chancellor, today, spoke out againt any action with regard to Irag pending a more detailed discussion of why any action at all is needed.
I don’t believe a “coalition” exists, and Bush is just engaging in what Gary Trudeau so eloquently called “Operation Frequent Manhood.”
That’s damn funny for a Canadian, dude.
I’m impressed.
Put a mule between two equally testosterone poisioned leaders…but I mix my metaphors or something.
No worries!