SSSETOWTF
I do appreciate all those factors and have been involved in putting those type of costs together. However, the through-life ones (fuel, pilot training etc) do not belong in the "conversion cost" element, which is being sold as the reason for any possible switch back to the B.
The one bit that may be applicable is any texaco addition to C, although, again, you'd think that belonged in the aircraft cost. (Personally think we'd need to do it for B as well, with larger CAGs/SRVL, but that's another argument).
I'm in the C camp, on the premise that B is still a riskier option (no fallback and potentially the last STOVL jet ever) and that the cat n'trap fitted ship offers the possibility (way downstream) of incremental acquisition of better capabilities (AEW/ASW etc), instead of being hamstrung and tied to helos by the operating mode of the ship. The ship is large enough to do things properly so the old CVS size constraints are no longer a factor - it would be a shame if we boxed ourselves back into a corner on manipulated info.
I think that's the crux of it - if it really is £1.8Bn and the costs can be openly explained, then fine - if we can't afford that, then go to B (happily). But at the minute, I'm afraid it all looks a bit dodgy.