Having re read my post it occurs to me that it could have been worded better. I didn't mean to imply that the RN/FAA have a bad name but rather a vocal minority, almost all of whom are not current RN and almost none of whom are current FAA, seem to be determined to make the RN/FAA look a little silly with, at best, semi-informed opinions on subjects that they clearly don't know much about, even if they did several decades ago.
DBTW hits the nail on the head - it is all about power projection. Air defence, wherever it is based, is an enabler and RAF types tend to get a little dismissive of Air defence in the RN because before JFH the carriers were seen as very much a self licking lollipop (what is the carrier for - to carry harriers; what are the harriers for - to protect the carrier). Whilst this is a massive simplification there is a large element of truth to it - the RN really had no way of projecting power at range.
And because I can't stop myself - putting an IR missile, no matter how good the missile is, on a subsonic aircraft with no radar is of limited utility beyond enhanced self defence. Paticularly if the bad people decide to fly in a cloud.