Jacko,
There are too many aspects in your piece above to put in quotes but a response is needed.
Throughout you arguments you seem to imply that the cost of deploying land based air power is minimal and certainly nowhere near as expensive as by sea - no one has yet shown this to be true. I seem to recall in the distant past that to deploy a "fighting squadron" of Jags to Denmark took more than the entire RAF AT fleet and that was just to get them there. Resupply continued to take up most of the AT. In a day one scenario it is likely to take up to 2-3 weeks to establish an RAF fighting Sqn in a tactical FOB with sufficient stores and weapons. The whole point of the carrier concept is that it is available, fully resourced, on day one - and in the previous period it has been stationed for coercive effect whilst diplomacy has its go. Precisely why the US have up to 5 CVNs stationed around the world on a permanent basis (and MEBs for that matter) - the USAF simply can't get there for the day one situation (well not every time).
As far as the Strategic Deterrent goes it is the Government that decides whether it wants one and how best to deploy it - just how would the RAF or Army do this......and does it want to anyway? Simple fact....all the nations with a Strategic Nuclear Deterrent deploy it by submarine, if there was a better way I am sure they would do it.
In our financially constrained times just what are our AD sqns defending against? What is the threat? And since when is Tornado a CAS aircraft?