Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "HMS Malta - Guide 246 (NB)" video.

Nothing more expensive than Parliament cutting costs.
8
@stewartellinson8846 The captain's Maori regalia was preserved, and returned to New Zealand in 2005. Had the carrier HMS New Zealand been built, it's very likely the piupiu would've still been worn by the captain any time the ship went to war. Ships in the Royal Navy always carry the history of their namesake, after all.
3
Likewise if either the 1952 fleet carrier or CVA-01 designs had been built. Any proper fleet carriers still in Royal Navy service (or even put in reserve recently enough that they could be brought back with reasonable speed) in the early 1980s would resulted in Argentina dismissing the idea of grabbing a couple of little islands as a pipe dream.
2
@cogidubnus1953 Certainly unlikely that Vanguard would've been retained. Even with a much larger fleet carrier around, a battleship was no longer the ideal carrier escort ship. Had the Maltas been built, though, it would've probably been Eagle and Ark Royal that got the axe earlier than in reality on the premise that we've got these bigger and newer once so the Audacious-class are obviously redundant. Whether somewhat newer and dramatically more capable Maltas could've lasted to the 80s? Well Ark Royal in reality almost did, being decommissioned in 1979. So it's possible at least one Malta would've lasted that long. In this alternate timeline, the colossal waste of time and money that was the Victorious rebuild would've never happened (literally her conversion cost would've covered building at least 2 of the Maltas in a postwar angled-deck configuration, yet resulted in a near-useless carrier that could only handle 8 Sea Venoms and 8 Buccaneers), and the wartime carriers plus Eagle, Ark Royal, and the Centaurs would've been discarded sooner than in reality to appease Parliament's desire to turn warships into razor blades. So there's at least some chance Gibraltar and New Zealand could've lasted into the 80s.
1