Heathrow, High Expect,
I understand your point that a carrier is at risk, just fundementally disagree that it is a game changer.
The reason people develop weapons to counter capabilities is because they view them as potent and threatening...that's why no SAM was ever designed with the F3 in mind.
. (Calm down chaps.) My point? The Chinese know how useful a CVN can be...even if some within the RAf and UK press don't.
What we (may) (supposedly) have is a country with a (potential) (unproven) chance at constructing a kill chain that results in you being denied a capability. Does that mean that from the get go your capability is null and void? No, absolutely not.
The Typhoon (as far as I am aware) has no great LO or EW string to it's bow. Are we saying it can't fight anyone with access to SA2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 20? Are we extrapolating and saying that because everyone's got SAMs and we can deploy less than twenty Typhoons we shouldn't even bother pitching up? No. And rightly so.
This has happened since the dawn of time. Since one side showed up with Goliath and the other brought David to the fight. Weapons and weapon systems have strengths and weakness. There's always a counter, and usually a counter to the counter. (Oh and weapons hardly ever work as advertised these days...only today I saw another advert claiming the Typhoon was multi role and 'nothing comes close'!)
Carriers have had their dawn, and will have their dusk. But not yet. For now they are a flexible and potent piece of sovereign territory. That can be found by few, targeted by fewer, and that answer to no one.