From Sir John Graham.

Sir, David Hobbs (Letters, February 25) writes that the two planned aircraft carriers are “central to the UK’s perceived capability to defend its massive worldwide interests and investments at short notice”. It would be interesting to know what these interests and investments are that can be defended uniquely by them. Would not smaller carriers or cruise missile-firing submarines do the job?

As our governments rightly tell us, the problem is one of priorities. The defence budget is under grave pressure. The carriers, the largest ships, I believe, to be built in Britain for many years, will have to be manned, equipped with aircraft, defended by frigates and sustained at a cost greatly exceeding the cost of their construction. They will not be available for several years at best, during which time, as Mr Hobbs would have it, our massive interests will presumably be undefended.

It is no good beggaring the other military forces and indeed the navy itself, in order to provide a capability of debatable value. Unless we as taxpayers are prepared to spend more on defence, as I believe we must, there is surely a need for further debate about priorities, whatever our present government may have said in the past.

Incidentally, David Hobbs must surely realise that there is a difference between a ship sunk by enemy action and an airfield lost because our land forces have been driven back. The latter may be recovered, or if merely cratered, repaired: the former, with many lives, is lost for ever. In this debate I must walk the plank with Sir Michael.

John Graham,
Shipton-under-Wychwood, Oxon,
UK Permanent Representative, Nato 1982-86