Do you deny that the RAF managed to kill off our big carriers previously by moving Australia?
This accusation appears to be one of the main influences for the modern navy's contempt for the RAF. However, the argument does not really stand-up to scrutiny.
Let's start by accepting the simplistic view that it was an either/or between carriers and a long-range land-based strike force, which by then was going to be the F-111K. The view that the carriers were cancelled because RAF lied about theoretical land-based air coverage of the Indian Ocean conveniently ignores the fact that the Wilson Government decided to withdraw from East of Suez, so any touted capabilities in that area were irrelevant. Moreover, despite the F-111K's continued relevance to a NATO-area only policy, it was still cancelled on cost grounds a year or so later. I cannot see any way that CVA-01 would have survived the withdrawal from East of Suez, even if the F-111 had been cancelled first.
The RAF lost it's hold on the strategic role when Skybolt was cancelled and the UK ordered Polaris. The air marshals of the 1960's had been brought up as practitioners of strategic bombing and the loss of this role together with the demise of TSR2 must have been a bitter blow for them. Would anyone really have expected them not to fight for the F-111? If the Royal Navy really want to look for people to blame over this issue they should perhaps look at their own staff officers who clearly hadn't done enough work on the F-111 "threat". Blaming the opposition for winning an argument seems to be somewhat immature.