FB-11 - You know as well as I do that the F.3 doesn't actually have to do anything to prove it's worth. It's primary purpose was always air defence of the U.K in much the same way that the Lightning and Phantom did before hand. There has never been a requirement to shot something down to show it's worth . Use over Iraq during various operations has somewhat vindicated that decision as a relatively low cost development of the GR.1.
As for defending ships Vs land bases - a couple of GR.7's damaged on the ground in Afghanistan isn't a great deal . Can you recall many instances where offensive flying operations have actually been stopped due to ground threats to Coalition forces in the last twenty years. As for the number of people required to do this - I am sure you can provide the crew numbers to man a carrier and it's air group for comparison.
Regards a carrier group being able to a number of things - indeed they can . However that's very much dependent on being in the right place at the time. From memory when the RAF deployed Chinook's to Pakistan - the chosen method of delivery was Globemaster II not ship. Similarily at numerous times in the past the C-130 has dropped many tonnes of relief supplies in various parts of Africa. Something that a carrier group clearly cannot do.
Much as I applaud you hanging on to the carriers - I feel that maybe the loss of the Sea Harrier is the thin end of the wedge ! When the number crunchers add up the figures for 'x' number of shiny new JSF's to fill our carriers and compare that to the cost of using Typhoon to do a similar job from land you might be disappointed .