Russia and France, which spend about the same amount of military spending as Britain, both have only one aircraft carrier. It can be seen from this that it is an indisputable fact that Britain cannot afford to buy a double aircraft carrier. If British spending continues to fall, sooner or later Britain will or mothballed the prince. Britain should now begin looking for a successor to the prince. 
Heavy aircraft carriers are the toys of the superpowers. The GDP of the UK is not low, but the UK really cannot afford to buy a double aircraft carrier. Aircraft carriers are toys for large countries, and small countries simply cannot afford them. The Brazilian Navy, which made a big incident, looked at São Paulo, who was constantly **, crying and fainting in the toilet. Even a country like France can barely operate a 40,000-ton nuclear aircraft carrier, or two 30,000-ton Catabar carriers. At the end of the 20th century, the French Navy, in order to raise funds for the construction of the Charles de Gaulle, had to pay a low price of ** grams. The second ship of the Lemon So-class aircraft carrier. 
It is no exaggeration to say that the simultaneous operation of several heavy aircraft carriers is the preserve of the superpowers. USSR in 1990. with two Moskva-class *** aircraft carriers and four Kiev-class aircraft carriers; The Kuznetsov is undergoing sea trials, and the Varyag has already been launched; 1143.7 Ulyanovsk is under construction. The Kyiv-class attendance was very high, and the problem of power plant failures, which was a headache for Russia, was not a problem at all in the eyes of the Soviets. Modernization programs at the Kiev level are already being prepared. 
After the collapse of the USSR, various shortcomings of the Soviet Navy broke out. The Ulyanovsk was abandoned, and the Varyag was **. The four Kievs, which are currently in service, suffered a power outage and had to be retired from active service. In 1994, Russia tried to keep Baku, the strongest in Kiev, but Russia finally recognized the reality and abandoned its plan to repair Baku. 
The Kuznetsov became the only Russian aircraft carrier. However, the "Kuznetsov" suffered from a number of diseases, and in the 90s of the 20th century, it lost its ability to sail due to large-scale theft. When the boat comes to a halt, fireworks are set off to celebrate. In recent years, there have been frequent fire accidents, and it can be said that it is a ship in trouble. 
The rapid decline of Soviet aircraft carrier cruisers was due to the fact that Russia's economy simply could not afford multiple aircraft carrier formations. Kuznetsov's various illnesses reflect the fact that Russia, not to mention multiple aircraft carriers, is unable to cope with a single aircraft carrier. The UK has experienced similar experiences many times. 
After the British Empire ceased to exist, the British Royal Navy quickly began to ** aircraft carriers. There are very few newly-built aircraft carriers left, and the Type 1942 fleet aircraft carriers are being sold everywhere. Many countries such as the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, India, etc., have become aircraft carrier countries due to aircraft carrier sales. The development of aircraft carriers in the world has entered the first era. 
Argentina expressed its gratitude to the British aircraft carriers Indeed, all countries in the world were disarmed after the end of World War II, but the main reduction was made by old artillery warships such as battleships. The aircraft carrier, which represents the future, is not the main object of the great disarmament. As the winner, the US Navy did not dismantle a couple of aircraft carriers, let alone sell them everywhere. But the British Navy ** aircraft carriers for the sake of money. Isn't this the case because Britain can't afford to buy multiple aircraft carriers? 
The United States said that why should the aircraft carriers of the active fleet be dismantled? Britain in the 60s of the 20th century still had underwear to some extent. Britain at that time was quite capable of building a 60,000-ton or even 80,000-ton supercarrier. However, Britain made up its mind to abandon the CVA-01 aircraft carrier and chose to build a 20,000-ton invincible-class full-deck anti-submarine cruiser. 
It was clear to politicians at that time that Britain was no longer a superpower and that Britain had few overseas interests. Does Britain no longer need and cannot afford large aircraft carriers? Therefore, even the resignation of naval officers did not shake Britain's determination to cancel the CVA-01 aircraft carrier construction program. 
Not to mention, due to the rapid development of missile technology, Britain in the 70s of the 20th century believed that it no longer needed aircraft carriers. After the completion of the construction of the Invincible-class light aircraft carrier Invincible, Britain once planned to give the Invincible-class light aircraft carrier** to Australia. Australia has even come up with a name in mind. If it weren't for the sudden Falklands War, the Invincible would have died in Australia long ago in the name of Australia.
Now what? If Britain was a sunset empire back then, then Britain today is a sunset empire. The relative strength of Britain is much less than that of the 70s of the 20th century. Britain believes that Britain no longer needs aircraft carriers. Is it not as good as Britain back then, can afford two 60,000-ton aircraft carriers?
It must be admitted that the Royal Navy is indeed reluctant to abandon the Prince of Wales, and the Royal Navy has also developed a catobar plan for the Queen-class aircraft carrier called Project Ark Royal, but it is the Royal Navy that is unwilling to use it? At that time, the Russian Navy did not want to abandon the Varyag or the young Baku. Didn't the Russian Navy bow its head in the end?
It is an indisputable fact that Britain is no longer strong. What Britain needs is not a 60,000-ton bigwig, but a 40,000-ton conventionally powered version of Charles de Gaulle. Queen-class aircraft carriers are seriously beyond the capabilities of the British. The Queen-class aircraft carrier has a full load displacement of 680,000 tons, second only to the American aircraft carrier and the Fujian ship. A large sea fortress that should have luxurious shipboard equipment.
Turkey thinks more than the British, but the Queen is a STOVL aircraft carrier, not to mention a catapult, not even a blocking line. The range of options for carrier-based aircraft is rather narrow, and it can only carry vertical take-off and landing fighters such as the F-35B. What's even more amazing is that the Queen-class aircraft carrier is equipped with only two MT30 gas turbines, and its top speed is only a pitiful 25 knots.
South Korea wanted to develop a Stobar version of the KF-21, but the British did not think so, and even if the British figured it out, they would not be able to install a arresting cable on the queen to carry conventional take-off and landing aircraft, for example, the Typhoon. After all, the speed is too low, and the Stobar carrier-based aircraft really can't slide. However, in the early stages of the design of the Queen-class aircraft carrier (around 2000), a Stobar version of the Queen, equipped with four MT-30 gas turbines and a top speed of more than 28 knots, was considered. But Britain vetoed the plan to save money. At the same time, Britain has also pushed itself into a corner.
In addition to being expensive, this plan is good in all aspects, and the aircraft carriers of France and Italy have erections, and the 60,000-ton aircraft carriers such as the Queen-class aircraft carriers should also have them. And the queen cannot carry fixed-wing AWACS aircraft, and the quality and quantity of escort ships are not very good, so the queen should have Q45 air defense. As a result, in order to save money, the British not only cut off the queen's drooping hair system. Even close-range firepower was weakened to the point that only the phalanx formation remained.
It can be said that the design process of the Queen-class aircraft carrier is full of money-saving. In order to save money, high-performance solutions were cut, in order to save money, the necessary blocking cable for large aircraft carriers was abandoned, and in order to save money, the catapult that should be equipped was abandoned.
When it comes to selling gantry cranes in the UK, second-hand ones are more expensive than brand new. Who isn't confused about this situation? To save money, both power and anti-aircraft fire were reduced. In order to save money, the number of F-35B purchases was significantly reduced. The vast British purchased only 48 F-35Bs, and they had to share them by sea and air. In order to save money, after the construction of the Queen-class aircraft carrier was completed, the gantry cranes used to assemble the Queen-class aircraft carrier were sold.
At that time, Britain operated three 20,000-ton light aircraft carriers at the same time, and there were not so many things. For the Queen's unfortunate experience, we can only say that the famous saying "air is free, steel is cheap" is objectively correct. Yes, the increase in performance is much greater than the increase in money. The problem is, when you increase performance, you also have to increase money! What is the point of the UK asking for an increase in tonnage without increasing the money?
If the queen controls the tonnage to 40,000 tons, the shipyard does not need to be greatly expanded, the gantry crane does not need to buy new ones, and there are fewer subcontractors, thus reducing costs, the queen's position may not be so embarrassing. As a result, Britain cut a series of important equipment for tonnage, and the direct result was that the Queen became a very large amphibious assault ship. The tastelessness of the queen was already decided when the British decided to build the queen.
If the queen looks like this, the world will only laugh at Britain's greed for big things and its pursuit of perfection, instead of laughing at Britain's ambition and short-sightedness to build a prince, and there are voices in Britain that want to abandon the prince. When various problems of the Queen-class aircraft carrier emerged one after another, the voice of the sealing prince also kept coming. Now British sources say that the prince may be mothballed or ** due to insufficient military spending. While the release won't be earlier than 2028, the continued presence of this sound is a bad sign in itself.
Russia did not consider retaining the provisional number 1143 of Wickramaditya0, but the situation forced Britain's military spending to increase significantly due to financial problems. Since you can't afford to raise your own children, letting others raise them has become a last resort. This was true in Russia then, and it is also true in Britain today. Therefore, it may be a matter of time before the prince leaves England. As for the buyer? Australia said, I have been waiting for Australian numbers for more than 40 years? Hurry, hurry, ship. The pace of development of the Northern Navy is simply terrible. You have to buy even if you want to sell! By the way, take your carrier-based aircraft wing. Australia does not have the money to build a carrier-based aircraft wing.