I won’t presume to pronounce on the merits of the expenditure of £4bn (as of today’s estimate, didn’t hear if that included the aircraft fit or not), force projection capability vs. properly equipping the currently deployed personnel. But I am intrigued by the choice of names; Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. My sketchy naval history ends at the conclusion of the Second World War, so subsequent to that time there could have been other ships with these names but if so I don’t recall hearing of them. I don’t believe either name has been used for an aircraft carrier. PoW is a particularly interesting choice as I believe it’s immediate predecessor had the notoriety of being the first capital ship, able to freely manoeuvre and whist in open water, to be sunk, along with Repulse, solely due to aerial attack when attacked by the Japanese in the Far East in 1939 or 1940. PoW was one of a class of five battleships King George V, name ship of the class, Duke of York, Howe and Anson, mounting 14 inch guns and built under the treaty agreements in force between the wars and limited to 35000 tons.
The last Queen Elizabeth I’m aware of was the name ship of a class of ‘fast’ battleships which came into service in the early stages of the First World War, comprising the illustrious Warspite, Barham, Malaya and Valiant, mounting 15 inch guns in a layout which influenced many succeeding classes for the Royal Navy and others. All of this class, with the exception of Queen Elizabeth, were present at Jutland as 5th Battle Squadron, where their mis-handling by the squadron commander, Rear Admiral Sir Hugh Evan-Thomas and the Battle Cruiser Fleet commander Vice Admiral David Beatty was pivotal to the outcome of the battle. Queen Elizabeth was present during the Gallipoli excursion until withdrawn when it was decided she was too valuable to risk in the restricted waters of The Dardanelles. Which I guess begs the question; if the Falkland Islands, say, were to come under threat again, would a £2bn investment be risked?