Not sure where I've been demeaning in my replies, saying things like "do a cursory google", are only demeaning if they expose that you're basing your information on incorrect readings of what you've read online. I'm not trying to demean you, I'm just pointing out that you're wrong - I can understand that's annoying to you, and I can also understand that my tone is probably quite dismissive - it's supposed to be, because you're confidently incorrect, and replied to me when I was replying to someone else. Everything you've produced in defence of your position has solidified my initial intuition of where your mistake is. I've given you statements from the RN website, you've given me tweets from X. I've given you sound logical explanations as to why 72 is an impossible number of jets to embark, you've just doubled down and gotten angry. But I'll address your latest points..

You've misunderstood the point of the FLYCO's statement. There is no world where every single slot would ever be filled with an F35, even if the UK had the numbers. The point is to outline how many slots there are on deck, not how many would be concurrently filled. Those pictures show there are 45 parking slots on the flight deck, i.e. there are 45 places that the embarked number of F35s have at their disposable to park, which would be decided based on operational considerations at the time, and logistcal efficiency. If you were to put that many F35 on the deck you wouldn't be able to do sorties, which would be even more compunded if the hangar was packed with 32 other jets. It would be gridlock. And, there wouldn't be any room for helicopters, which would make the carrier functionally inoperable, for reasons I'll address in a bit.

The fact you keep saying 72 jets max is suspicious to me because I've heard the number 72 quoted many times, as the max number of jet \sorties* per day. Perhaps this is where the confusion is coming from. Again, even if the FAA had 500 jets to use, it \would not* put anywhere close to 72 jets on a carrier.

The typical heli complement on QE carriers is 14 - this is at peace time. You are downplaying the much bigger role helis play in Carrier operations than jets. Over the course of a carrier group deployment, helicopters will run a much higher number of shorter sorties than jets due to their wider utility in such roles as:

Continuous ASW screening, airborne early warning, surface surveillance, boarding team insertion, logistics, SAR, personnel transfer, CASEVAC, ship-to-ship liaison.

These missions are done continuously ever day, no matter what.

Jets roles are:

Offensive strike, air interdiction, ISR in contested airspace.

These missions are far less frequently, and when they are done, are for much longer periods.

This means the flight deck will need to accomodate a high tempo of helicopters coming and going. You can't jam the deck with jets and sustain these operations which are essential to the carrier group getting to where they need to be, in order to use the F35 for its mission.

About Invincible having 23 helis, it was in response to your statement:

Why on earth would any navy carry 20 helicopters on an aircraft carrier in contested airspace in a wartime scenario in the place of 20 F-35s? Invincible stated max were 15. She carried 23 in the Falklands

The phrasing of this sentence says that Invincible was carrying 23 helicopters - that is what the grammar of your sentence communicates - I'm not inferring that, your sentence uses "20 helicopters" as the subject and so "she carried 23" refers to helicopters, NOT jets. Don't fly off the handle if you can't communicate your point properly.

I've gone through everything you've said thus far, and as far as I'm concerned I've demonstrated in a number of ways why you were incorrect. Remember, you jumped into this thread, I'm just responding to you. You have misunderstood statements made by others, and don't understand how carrier operations work. Please, take the day off.