NB: conventional carriers are really expensive to operate, and regardless of what is written elsewhere, there are very few countries in the world rich enough to have them.
In my view the Rhinos could be used to augment a USN CAG. The problem you will find is with the RAAF. Air Force pilots can be quite alarmed (shall we say "scared"?) by moving airfields/decks, and the techniques needed to operate from them, so I am not sure our best are good enough.
Should they manage to pluck up the courage and do the hard yards to become Carrier Qualified, then that would still mean our force projection capability was available only on the basis the Americans were with us.
I have said elsewhere that I believe the F35 is the future. It will prove to be a brilliant aeroplane with many thousands seeing service across the globe. It reminds me of the day we brought my small squadron of 7 aircraft to the fray over Kosovo. There were never fewer than 200 combat aircraft over hostile territory 24 hours a day for 6 weeks, and that was because 600 F16s (along with many hundreds of other types, including several hundred tankers) had been deployed by the USAF and NATO allies. These F16s were over and above the normal reserves back in the USA and Europe, and the several hundred deployed on operations over Iraq at the same time. The point being that there are thousands of F16s now, and there will be something like twice as many F35s in due course. Worries about cost and performance will all be overcome, and the aeroplanes will be everyones' favourite in its day. Suggestions that the F35 is a lemon sound like the bitter ramblings of a tired old guard who are not yet ready to hand over the baton to the new frontline team.
In the Australian context, I find it incredibly interesting that the Navy is being supplied with aircraft carriers, and we seem to be coming up with strange names and weird excuses as to why they shouldn't be equipped with aircraft. There is nothing surer than the fact that, despite its great range and weapon load, no F35A will ever operate offensively or defensively in support of these large aircraft capable warships because they simply won't be able to be where the ships are. The F35B will be able to operate from these ships, and its weapon load and range will be infinitely superior to the F35A in that scenario. IE: the ships will be capable of operating "blue water" and that is the intent of their acquisition. I say again, the F35A will not be able to operate wherever the ships go, therefore buying just the F35A will be consigning Australian troops and sailors to battle without air cover!
F35C advocates must remember Bob Hawk decided conventional carriers were too expensive close to 30 years ago. Since then, consecutive governments of both persuasions clearly believe STOVL operations are not too expensive because they have already bought the ships. A mix of F35As and Bs is not going to be much more expensive than a full fleet of F35As, and despite the growing list of myths and old wives tales, STOVL is the future for embarked operations. Real aeroplanes must not depend on ship machinery for launching and recovering because if that machinery fails the dependant aeroplanes are expensive scrap (who cares how much extra range/payload it could have carried if only the launch system hadn't failed...)