If the Brits are sour on the F-35 then what about their carrier?

Palpcaso asked the question that keeps popping up whenever the obvious is pointed out.  The Brits can't afford/are becoming sour on the F-35....so what about their carrier?

Note I said carrier, as in one because it appears to me that their is no way in hell they'll be able to afford two.  I doubt that they will even be able to afford to keep one in drydock.

But back to the issue of the Queen Elizabeth.

I think you're going to see rapid remarketing.  They're going to fool the world, the uninformed and the unknowing into believing that they're gaining more capability while the truth is stark.

The pitch.  First the Brits are going to relabel the Queen Elizabeth.  They're going to claim that the plan all along was to develop the world's most capable helicopter carrier that could in an emergency flex into carrying STOVL aircraft.  They're going to say that as the world's most capable helicopter carrier, it will be capable of conducting missions alone that would take an entire USN Expeditionary Strike Group or a Marine Expeditionary Unit.

And finally they're gonna chest thump and brag and state that by making this change they're increasing interoperability with the US Navy and Marine Corps because this ship will be able to slide into the sea base role and add value that isn't found short of a full deck aircraft carrier.

This is where its going to get goofy.  They're going to push scenarios where the USS America deploys only with F-35's and refueling MV-22's and the Brits provide the ground troops....and they're going to say how this new stance makes the Brits more equal partners with the US while at the same time being able to restrain "US aggression" because we'll be depending on them so much more.

It'll all be bullshit but that's how the Brits will turn shit into sugar....or at least fool their population into believing it.