Orca,
Surely a man of your pedigree cannot deny the basing availability or flexibility offered by a STOVL platform? It was the very reason GR7 and, later, the GR9 were in AFG first, and for such a relatively long tenure for a start. Having 200nm of extra range is very nice and I still believe the C would be the right platform in some (not all) cases. Cost, Schedule and Performance are normally prioritised in that order when things start getting hard for programme management. If cost wasn't an issue for CVF (which it is!) and an issue for JSF (which it is!) we'd have the lot, on time no doubt. Sadly the Defence Board is faced with losing one if a change is not made - e.g keep F-35C but lose one or both CVF. Keep the carriers but maintain the original plan/requirement. Lesser of two evils.
Deploy 'ability'? Good point. Hopping a C ashore would present the same issue but you can't do it easily from a CVF autonomously because you won't have the sort of lift platforms to haul the support eqpt 200nm to the FOB. It comes down to what you want to do and for how long.
I join the many on this thread eager to hear the imminent decision and reasons why. Hopefully it will allow the fine people working hard on delivering the aircraft to get on with it with some stability.