Yes, Not a Boffin, you are quite right, the carriers in a benign air defence environment are a very good way of (slowly) deploying a respectable force and projecting power over long distance.
However, why are we spending such a large slice of our budget on a force incapable of defending itself in a hostile air environment?
I doubt very much whether your assessment of being able to defend itself in a hostile environment tallies with what CVF + Dave + MASC would actually be capable of.
In a more mischievious mode if savings are bieng asked for - how about :
1. Bin GR4 and speed up the AG upgrades for Typhoon 3 - gets a new low-fatigue life MR jet AND reduces the number of aircrew slots (ducking for cover)
2. Buy brand-spanking new F18E/F (a good eight squadrons-worth to replace the F3 and bin the GR9. The F18 can do the UK AD role and the CVF role (providing we buy cat n'trap ships). With a large enough force structure, carqual need not be the burden it would be on the mcuh smaller JFH (the USMC regularly manage to deploy on CVN). Plus - again some aircrew reduction and we get an AD fighter capable of actually "fighting" (not a slur on the F3 lads, merely a recognition of their current problems). Proven airframe with a good if not stellar avionic fit capable of interoperating with a large number of allies, known ILS burden.
Hey presto a two fast-jet class fleet. What do you mean we need a first day strike capability? Can't we get someone else to do it?