In the modern war scenario would you place any aviation assets on the falklands requiring a long runway when you knew your enemy had sub launched cruise missiles?
Seems like a recipe for loosing a lot of aircraft.
It seems to me that the only advantage a manned bomber would have in a rerun of the Falklands would be the ability to strike during the period a sub is steaming to it's station.
That requires a capable aircraft with the range to be available immediately.
This wasn't even the case in the 1982 war.
Surely the cruise missile scenario is just a rerun of the transfer of the nuclear deterrent from air to sea and for similar reasons.
Providing you have sufficient cruise armed subs and given the cost that is a question in itself, the long range bomber seems to be absolete.