How a Falklands carrier sinking could change the argument for carriers

The discussion considers proposed attacks on Veinticinco de Mayo by Sea Harriers or a submarine. A Harrier success could have strengthened the case for British carrier aviation, while a submarine sinking could have encouraged arguments that carriers were too vulnerable to retain. The likely Harrier strike is described as a bomb attack because Sea Eagle was not yet operational during the war. The panel distinguishes that weapon from the helicopter-launched Sea Skua used in the Falklands, whose small warhead was intended for smaller combatants. Some details of Sea Eagle's dates and later operators remain uncertain in the conversation. The concluding argument is that a ship's vulnerability must be weighed against the capability it supplies; a single loss would not settle the case for retaining carriers.