Why a third Queen Elizabeth-class carrier had strategic value

Should Britain have built a third Queen Elizabeth-class carrier despite the class's early problems?

Yes; Britain spent heavily to slow the two-ship program, a third hull would benefit from accumulated yard experience, and three ships preserve two-carrier availability when one suffers a defect or accident.

First-of-class and return-to-carrier-building problems should be expected after a long construction gap. A third ship would likely be the best-built because the workforce and supply chain had learned from the first two, while its cost must be compared with money already spent stretching the program. Most importantly, three hulls allow two to remain available when one is in maintenance or unexpectedly disabled.