At the risk of being tarred with whatever brush is doing the rounds from the other 20 CVF threads, I agree with the thread opener to a fair degree.
To operate carriers you have to be able to protect them - and that isn't just a case of having 2 fighters on CAP and a helo hoping he's in the right sector to contain the submarine threat. Carriers NEED supporting frigates/destroyers/SSN/MPA, and unless we're talking about invading Luxembourg they survive a damn sight longer if they're outside enemy landbased air threats, and inside friendly air cover.
I think we should have carriers, but only if we can afford to provide the rest of the TG and have a good array of aircraft onboard* - otherwise what purpose is served by having a single unit that will constitute a devastating loss if anything leaks through? We don't 'project power' worldwide any more - we do still need to be able to protect the sealanes to the UK, we're an island and still need to ship material in and out, and we need to be able to perform anti druggy/anti terorist stuff... we buy shiny toys at the expense of the workhorses of our defence capability.
No 'anti Navy' stance intended here, in an ideal world we'd have a suitable balance of forces - it's a fallacy to say that we have to plan for all eventualities, unless we can afford to cover them all.... if we don't have the money to conduct all the ops, cover all the roles we ought to, then we have got to concentrate on the areas that most directly impinge on national security - and that isn't 'being able to refight 1982 properly'. Unfortunately we've had a succession of governments who have funded a national, coastal defence capability, then started wars a third of the globe away.
Dave
*Which is a nice way of saying 'we can't afford it' of course.