1. Yes, but will be able to refuelled at sea, has better catapults (leccy-magnet flyboy flingers FTW!).
2. MAY not be used, could be used in a different role (helo carrier and so forth)
3. No. There is no navalised Typhoon, nor has there been any serious plan for one.
4. We have adopted a better technology that will result in planes capable of carrying more payload further with at least the same other performance characteristics as F35B (speed and so forth)
5. No, we have kept Tornado, since it is the only truly globally deployable and fully capable strike aircraft that we have, and that we have crews for. We are scrapping Harrier, because Tornado can carry anything Harrier can further, faster and a lot more of it, as well as carrying a lot of stuff that Harrier can't. That will leave us with a globally deployable air superiority fighter (Typhoon) that has a useful strike capability as well, and a globally deployable strike aircraft (Tornado) that can (with refuelling) carry anything we want to drop to anywhere we want to drop it.
6. No. We have no fixed wing naval air, this is true, but the QE will fix that (although not as much as we'd like, I agree). We have a very viable air force, that's capable of operating globally, albeit that there are critical weaknesses in some areas (maritime reconnaissance and attack, for instance. If you want to bitch about something, bitch about the cancellation of Nimrod followed by the Navy's announcement that due to that, it's spunking another billion pounds on its search for something to fill the gap).
There's some elements of truth in what you're saying, but a lot is inaccurate.