Tourist seems to believe that the demise of the fixed wing carrier was due to false claims by the RAF of ability to project air power worldwide . In fact, it was HM Govt that abandoned the strategy to project military power worldwide and withdrew all forces east of Suez.
The fixed wing carrier with all its essential supporting vessels simply did not fit into this new concept of ops and it is questionable that it does today. Had it not been possible to park the carriers so far East of the Falklands that the Harriers could barely reach their targets, it would not have been possible to protect them in the Falklands war.
Perhaps Tourist is unwise to put forward this argument today when all defence expenditure is up for grabs. If Gordon examines this topic he might get ideas.
As for the suggestion that the RAF tried to hijack the Falklands war - it is a fact that both the Navy and the RAF were supporting a predominantly Army land battle to retake the islands - both classic roles of naval and air power.
I doubt very much if anybody not in the Navy viewed the war as anything other than a fine example of what our three services could achieve together despite repeated defence cuts.