Would carrier spending counter land-based bomber advocacy?

Would the expanded carrier programme counter the influence of land-based heavy-bomber advocates?

Yes, because aircraft firms would see more money in naval aviation and have reason to support carrier-based requirements.

Extra carrier construction creates a sustained market for naval aircraft as well as adding ships. Manufacturers would follow the available money and advocate for the service buying their products. That commercial interest provides a counterweight to organizations and theories centred on land-based heavy bombers. The effect is institutional and economic rather than proof that one technical argument automatically defeats the other.