It is excellent to see such enthusiasm! There is merit in the argument as well! If the Raptor was available for sale, the long cry from the RAAF about their inability to retain trained fighter pilots would be solved! You'd only need a couple to man the few afforded. Also, training would be cheaper/easier because complicated formations/tactics would be a thing of the past...the Raptor up threat would probably be on his/her own!
Although a fleet air arm would be great for prestige, we simply don't have a navy large enough to support a carrier. A carrier on it's own is a sitting duck, Consider our nearest potential threat has ordered Kilo class subs as well as Korean type 209s with vastly superior lethality.
This is always an emotive line. If carriers are such targets, how come so few have been sunk for real? The number is none since WW2? And if something moving around with loads of onboard self defence systems as well as associated systems on accompanying escorts is vulnerable, what of the completely undefended (by comparison) RAAF bases? Last time I checked they were in a fixed, well published position and had no CIWS or SAMs, and they are completely dependent on just a few Army owned Manpads! (and maybe they still have some old Rapier?)
The concept that the Navy just float around waiting to get sunk by submarines is frivolous. Ships can fight back either independently, or as a part of a fleet, and they can operate offensively. RAN also have submarines, and they also work with the fleet. Do a realistic threat reduction on how often these local hoards of Kilos and 209s get out to sea (let alone submerge) and the picture changes.
Cost is the issue and what the country can afford is the only real argument. Alongside capability and affordability, the other factor in favour of the F35 is the operational flexibility offered by the F35B.