WEBF
You really are living in the past.
The MOD has reviewed all of its requirements and tested them against a set of scenarios. In not a single situation was the future (or present) carrier shown to be 'necessary'. Yes it improved flexiblity; yes it widen the choice of of options open to the commander but at absolutely no stage was it proven to be an essential requirement. They even had to invent a situation where it would be required so that they could test the other assumptions over rates of effort, logistic support etc.
So instead of trying to drum up a fictious requirement accept the future carrier for what it is: a floating option for the delivery of offensive air power in support of the air/land battle. Which complements but can never replace the shore based force.
The inescapable deduction of all the clever thinkers (including the Naval Staff) is that a carrier borne air-to-air capability is simply not required.
The SHAR capability was an embarassment during ALLIED FORCE over Kosovo - why? because there was already more than enough air defence cover and to meet the political posturing of involving the CVS we had to divert much needed AAR assets away from more important tasks (such as supporting the bomber offensive).
The SHAR has had its day and, good though it was once, its time to come to terms with the new realities and scrap early to maximise savings. The CVS of course can continue as a command ship or in the LPH role.