LJ,
Well yes, but....
The cost quoted for aircraft carriers here is just the cost of operating the ship - not the cost of operating the aircraft. In 09/10, all costs of operating Harrier would have come under the RAF 'Combat Aircraft' heading rather than 'Naval Aircraft'. I don't think these figures have sufficient granularity to make a judgement.
Justanopinion,
although in this theatre could do it without land based AAR if required
is factually accurate, but we are actually refuelling the carrier-based aircraft to get a decent vul time out of them. Buddy refuelling wouldn't deliver anywhere near enough fuel. Actually it seems like we are getting slightly more out of the land-based Rafales than we are out of the carrier-based ones - not just due to the regular 'down-days' and port visits the carrier has, and despite the fact that the land-based Rafales are at one of the most distant bases. Also, to put a misconception to bed, we don't actually launc from a runway or a deck to respond to events on the ground - we react from our airborne assets. Carriers are good for holding the ground alert lines to backfill the programme as they're closer, but don't reduce 'reaction time'.
Before I was in Italy I was in Afghanistan and there are lots of similar misconceptions and overstatements of what carrier air brings there.
FACT 1 - there are parts of the globe where you need a carrier to affect them.
FACT 2 - a carrier is probably one of the best ways to project influence and statemetns about military intent in coastal areas.
BUT
FACT 3 - the Libya operation could just as easily and just as effectively be done without carriers.