Oh I do agree NaB - there are conceivably situations when a carrier is the only viable option. The situation you describe - running a fighter wing from a completely bare airfield with absolutely no HNS - possibly being one - and in that situation you're not going to be able to do much more than you could from a carrier anyway.
However, let's be realistic - you're not going to fight an air campaign to support any size of land or amphibious op against a half-decent enemy off a carrier alone. That's all I'm saying.
Let's get carriers for power projection, influence, supporting small-scale focussed interventions etc - but don't allow them to be seen as a substitute for proper air forces. Land-based and carrier air are complementary..... Carriers are sometimes the only way of getting air power to a crisis, but will never be as effective or as economical as operating from tarmac.
The think I'm concerned about is that if people continue to peddle the line that carrier air can do everything that land-based air can do and more, better, we'll end up with an unbalanced air force - which is as bad for a nation's standing as an unbalanced navy.