Very definitely not a plea for a repeat of F111 and F35. But then again they were very different things. A low-level strike bomber asked to be a long-range carrier based interceptor and a strikefighter asked to do several things, including be cheap(!), be STOVL, be an F16-alike, be an A6(ish) alike, all in one airframe. A big ask.
All I'm suggesting here is that the early stages of what appears to be an air-dominance type aircraft design and requirements exercise does not dismiss immediately the need to fly off a ship - preferably using catapults and arrester gear. If it becomes a serious cost/performance limiter, then fair enough, drop it, but we should try to avoid repeating a situation where the question is never even asked, because either "SHAR flies off ships" or "CVS is too small".
You never know - there might actually be an export market for it.........as well as potential closer to home.