The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history. I don’t know who first said that, but many people here are trying to prove it.
“1) It's a rarely needed capability which can be provided effectively using land based air power and/or allied assets” from Jacko (not picking on you especially, just you gave a succinct post that illustrates my point above very easily).
Anyone heard this argument before? Remember how half-arsed it turned out to be then? You’d have to move Australia a little more than the 300 miles the RAF moved it for the F-111 proposal to persuade anyone that the F3 could cover the globe. Allied assets is another argument advanced then that held no water. War is the time when you realise how few real allies you have, and who does not want to get involved.
“2) It's increasingly irrelevant to post Cold War and littoral operations”
This is not even an argument, until there are no Styx/Silkworm missiles out there in the hands of unstable governments, no potential enemies with air attack capabilities. Remember Falklands. Remember Nott. We thought that then. Felt like idiots when not only did the impossible happen, it was our cutbacks and plans for more that precipitated it.
“3) The capability gap you're whining about will be exceptionally brief”
No need to insult if your arguments are coherent. The gap had not even developed in the Falklands and the capability was needed. There was very little warning. What is the relevance of the gap length, then?
All your arguments were those discussed in the Dartmouth History of Naval Aviation syllabus, they are almost identical to the arguments advanced 30 or so years ago for giving up carrier aviation. The history lecturers at Dartmouth may both have been tending towards being nerds, but they knew their naval history.