Fair point Dodes but the point I was suggesting is that our carriers are possibly better value for money than their US counterparts. The design of the existing Nimitz carriers goes back decades and they are incredibly manpower intensive. Their upgraded successors in the Ford class are encountering huge cost overruns, technical problems and an inability to get the lead ship operational which is now years behind schedule.
By comparison, our two QEs, although costing more than planned (partly due to a deliberate extended building period) seem to be getting through their trials relatively successfully. PoW was not originally due into Portsmouth until next month but initial trials were completed ahead of schedule.
Obviously a 65,000 ton carrier isn't going to have the same potential striking capability of a 100,000 ton one and tha actual strike capability will be determined by budgetary considerations (the price of the F35) rather than the characteristics of the carriers themselves.
I suspect that in years to come, the RN and the country will appeciate the versatility of having two big flat decks capable of multiple roles just as the much more cramped Invincible 'through deck cruisers' performed well in excess of their originally envisaged roles over their careers.
The bane of the RN has always been ships built down to a price so that they rapidly become obsolete and incapable of upgrading, the batch 1 Type 42s are a classic example. Despite their current engineering problems, which can be overcome, the type 45 destroyers offer the space to give them long service lives. Much cheaper than having to build replacements after 15 years or so. I have read reports that the type 45 issues were identified at the design stage but were ignored due to the short term requirement to save money. Nothing new there.
Colin