OA
I thought the SDR rationale, and that in Future Navy Vision, and FMOC, was for the carrier to provide a strike capability, not provide "air cover" for the fleet...
That strike capability cannot exist in isolation from the rest of the fleet. Think of logistics. Additionally, there is a connection between carrier aviation and amphibious capabilities, which are equally important for the future. Amphibious operations demand at least a measure of air superiority, which means fighters. We should also remember that an enemy will seek to exploit any weakness, and inflicting attrition on logistic shipping, escorts, minehunters etc could well be an attractive option.
Multirole aircraft are the future.
Jacko/S41
In addition the N_a_b's comments about slippery slopes, I wonder where you get the idea from that the money allocated to the carriers could suddenly become free for other naval assets. Without the carriers the Treasury will demand more cuts.
Talking of which, when the Sea Harrier retirement was first discussed on PPRuNe you suggested that we should have a small "Euro Navy" and didn't need to worry about the sea lanes, and the RN only had carriers to justify the surface fleet. But by the time the Sea Jet thread started you were arguing that without carriers we could have more frigates/destroyers to protect the sea lanes.
See this from
The Spectator:
The case for naval investment
Also this from RUSI:
An `Awakening’ at Sea?: NATO and Maritime Security
There is a downloadable RUSI paper too that is more on topic:
The Maritime Contribution to the Joint Campaign and the National Security Strategy
The links on the page I have linked to. Very interesting stuff.