If you want to have something that arrives quickly, the best approach is not wing in ground effect vehicles, it is just using aircraft alone in the first place. Back in the late 70s, there was a suggestion of airborne aircraft carriers based on the 747. You can even read the original document proposal, and here is a nice overview.
In a nutshell it was suggested that a 747 be used to carry up to ten microfighters into battle, with each carrying a small payload that could be swapped between missiles and bombs as needed. The fighters can load inside the carrier aircraft, where they can switch weapons and allow the pilots a break when they're not needed. The small fighters would theoretically be good dogfighters, as light fighters like the F-5 were used by Top Gun instructors for a reason(the fictional MiG-28 in the movie Top Gun was actually the F-5, real Russian fighters are all odd numbers).
There was also a proposal to turn the 747 into missile platforms, carrying as many as 72 cruise missiles or presumably a couple hundred bombs, as well as creating radar and aerial refueling aircraft using the same platforms. Combining these would give you a fairly interesting option for an air force that relies on remote bases.
Now for the problem. Lightweight fighters of that type have been almost entirely phased out for a reason. Every modern air force flies fairly large multirole fighters that are double or triple the weight of these proposed microfighters. They'd never have radars to match something like an F-15, nor would they have enough missiles to reliably get kills given failure rates in practice. It would also be just plain expensive as a capability, and even if it were militarily effective, it would not replace aircraft carriers.
The thing about aircraft carriers is that they aren't for a quick reaction, they are for having a sustained presence and waving the flag with an airbase that can't be politically pressured to leave as easily as an airbase inside a foreign country. Neither 747s or WiG carriers would be capable of this.
As for submarines, if a fleet like this were actually possible, you simply wouldn't use them as part of your fleet in the first place. Submarines would form battle lines in the estimated location of the enemy fleet and hopefully get lucky, serving almost as a mobile minefield. This is what was done in World War Two, when fast carriers were 10 knots faster than submarines on the surface and 20 knots faster than they were submerged. I'm also not sure how WiG craft and submarines would interact.
When it comes to questions like this in general, you have to ask the question of why this was not done by anyone. If any concept would revolutionize the way militaries fight, someone would be building it. Just before World War Two, while every army didn't recognize the best way to use tanks, aircraft carriers, or strategic bombers, everyone who could were developing them before the war started. Anyone who didn't build them couldn't. The fact that airborne aircraft carriers or WiG craft never really were built tells you that air forces and navies didn't really think they'd work. It's actually evidence against the concept being effective.