Fleet air cover depends on armed time on station

The House of Lords defence debate of 15 April 1953 asked whether longer-ranged aircraft had made carriers unnecessary. A simple range figure made land-based fleet cover look viable, but it ignored time on station, weapon expenditure, the return flight, and the number of aircraft needed to sustain an armed patrol. In the worked example, a three-hour flight plus preparation and launch could require roughly four hours' warning of when aircraft on station would exhaust their missiles. Replacements would have to depart before commanders could know exactly when those weapons would be used. The carrier argument continued into the 1960s and the later Invincible class, showing why sustained coverage complicates comparisons based on maximum range.