Of course I will disagree.....not because I am biased but because your argument is wrong.
Widger I don't think that you can say the way Harrier was operated from "carriers" would be the way that F35 would be from the QE class. The huge difference is that the Harrier GR was thrown in late on in life - with F35 it can be planned from the start. Everyone can go to F35 with an understanding of what is required from them, fundamentally different to some guy who "didn't sign up to be on a bloody boat".
The point is, that for the QE class to be operationally effective, you need to have a weapon system, (which is all that F35 is) onboard when you need it. That means the whole system operational from the stick monkey, to the chock head. That takes time and must be continually practiced. With limited number of airframes, that challenge becomes even more difficult as you cannot just 'roule' squadrons through the platform. To do other wise is like deploying a soldier without a rifle or body armour......oh!
At the end of the day there needs to be an assessment (I really don't want to call it a TNA) and the secret is to find the right balance of what has been done before and what new technology enables. This would then drive how much time is needed on board, in the sim or on a dummy deck etc. You then flex this depending on defence need - if we need aircraft in afghan for another 15 years then you lean carrier training as much as possible. If we are going to the Falklands which has been taken because everyone was drunk on Friday night, then you major on carrier ops (or lots and lots of tanking!).
With F35C, you could do as the USN has for years and support the 'Stan' from the sea, without the need for HNS. You cannot do Maritime 'part-time'. When the need arises, you need a operationally effective unit. Yes it takes time to transit to various parts of the world but, that time can be used for final operational training, not training the pilots how to do a recovery in IMC without the availability of a diversion.
My personal opinion is that the RN will simply have the attitude that they are Naval Power assets and should be on the carrier whatever and will be extremely reticent to let them go elsewhere. I have seen this attitude again and again with the RN - they are extremely protectionist. By contrast the RAF will simply look how best to employ Air Power in a given situation. But I am sure you will disagree.
The RN has learnt to its cost, time and again since 1979, of the Defence stupidity of getting rid of its carriers, with the associated very capable aircraft (F4/Buccaneer/Gannet). Tactical Support to maritime Operations (TASMO) was a downright lie and never worked outside UK home waters or within a hour's flight of Singapore! In almost every campaign since 1979, the RN has come up against the limitations of the Invicible class and Harrier (Falklands, GW1, GW2, Adriatic), with the limits on numbers of FE@R capable of being carried, limits of MTOW, Bring-back, hot and high performance, range etc. They (RN and RAF) did a fantastic job making the most of the aircraft but, it was always a compromise, one which meant that the real benefit of Carrier based Air Power has been lost on a generation of both the public and UK Service Personnel, hence some of the rubbish spouted on here and other forums.
QEC will enable the operation of air platforms, not just F35, the capability of which will not have been seen since 1979 in the UK. The only question, is what aircraft/UAVs will operate off the vessels and can they be afforded.
Your comment that the RAF will simply look how best to employ Air Power is not worth justifying with an answer.