It was always a pity that the Vanguard lasted only 15 years in Royal Navy service especially after the Queen Elizabeth class ships managed 30+ years. The US Iowas have lasted over 50 years. Except for main armament the Vanguard was a match for the Iowas and outperformed them in heavy weather conditions.

From Wiki:
During NATO exercises in the 1950s Vanguard's main deck was dry in heavy North Atlantic swells whereas US Navy Iowa-class battleships had their forward turrets awash with spray.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_V ... I03681.jpg

How would the Argentinians have reacted in 1982 to having 15" broadsides bombarding them while the Marines landed??
Used as a last ditch blocker for the carriers Hermes and Invincible. How much damage would Exocet do to 14-15" side armour.

Naturally it comes down to money. Britain didn't have any battleships for the Falklands for the same reason it didn't have any fleet carriers. By that time Britain was a has-been/secondary power. The navy wouldn't be able to justify the crew or upkeep of such a ship. While it might be convenient to have at certain times, the Battleship's role post-WWII was rather niche, and vulnerable to nuclear submarines which were faster than their WWII contemporaries.

Whilst the most modern anti-ship missiles could sink such a ship holing it below the water-line, it's an interesting thought that an armoured warship might potentially have been robust against missile attack in the early 80s. I've heard the argument mentioned before, but it's difficult to know without combat examples. The only one I can think of is the Roma, which would suggest that guided weapons would indeed have replaced the torpedo bomber as the battleship's nemesis post WWII.

I quite agree that it was money that killed any potential UK battle fleet from existing post-WW2 whether it be carrier and/or battleship based. Having to rely on cruiser/carrier hybrids for 35+ years must be very galling to British pride. The Invincibles will be pretty worn out by the time the Queen Elizabeth Class are completed 2016/18. Will the UK take it as a straight swap the 2 QE's for the 4 Invincibles? I would certainly like to see a couple more of the Invincible type (or even smaller like the Italian and Spanish examples) being built to complement the QE's. Make the QE's more attack based while the new asw carrier would carry the ASW warfare contingent (funny that). I know it is the "God of Money" that the UK Admiralty begs to that will decide such things but it would be nice to see the UK have a couple of balanced smallish Battlegroups centered around the QE's.

(I may be from New Zealand but I still have a 'Commonwealth' pride, she is our Queen too!!)

Little known fact - NZ was the first Commonwealth country to declare war on Germany in 1939 (because of the dateline). We would have looked pretty silly if the rest had decided at the last minute not to. We would have had to put our 40 million sheep under arms to help....

Given the dire state of Britain's finances, I wouldn't be surprised if the government shelved the option for two carriers and built only one. IMHO the only realistic way Britain can maintain a credible battle fleet and nuclear deterrent is to totally synchronise development of procurement of such systems with France (also struggling to pay for the same items). I'm doubtful of the political will for such a solution though. Both sides of the channel need to wake up the the fact that they can't go it alone forever.