just a shame it has to be based so far from the potential targets that it can only spend one hour out of six or seven airborne actually hunting for them
Worked just fine in TELIC but, hey, let's reinvent the wheel to suit your argument.
As ever it's all about "servicing the ATO" (in old speak). With the "scuds" being extremely mobile (and employing "shoot and scoot" tactics) you have to have aircraft airborne and on task ready to respond as soon as a launch has been identified. Without AAR off the coast (or over "enemy" territory as was the case in TELIC) then the only thing that matters is the size of your fuel tanks (and thus your endurance on task) and not where you took off from. Ground alert and deck alert aren't a player here as they are too slow to respond (!) so, IMHO, as long as you have ATO coverage it doesn't matter how long the transit time is.
Off course you chose not to comment on the lesson identified during the early stages of TELIC planning - the need for an all-weather (at night) option. But that doesn't fit the "UK carrier is the answer to everything" argument either.
The carrier with F35 will be a fantastic capability
in the future. Until then the current UK ground attack assets available to NATO are more than capable of fulfilling all that is asked of them (and have proven themselves time and time again having been deployed on operations, in one theatre or another, for the last 19 or 20 years). We do not need, nor can we afford, anything else. If NATO require carrier aviation then, for the time being, they must look elsewhere. We do not, and haven't for a very long time, have the resources to fulfil every single capability. Time to move on and look to the future.......