Engines,
I have no problem with discussing if the Tempest should operate off an aircraft carrier - but the argument was descending into a recap of the purpose and survivabiity of a carrier itself - which seemed better suited for the New Carrier thread.
As I stated myself I do not see the practicality in the expected programme. The lifetime of the QE2 class is covered by that of the F-35 and I cannot see them being retrofitted for catapults therefore UK funding for a carrier variant seems unlikely - and no other customers seem apparent.
Designing in the capability regardless seems moot. The French did that for the Rafale so it could operate off the Foch - the “ten ton” weight limit etc - which led them to drop out of what became the Typhoon. A carrier aircraft is a compromise because it adds the additional weight in structure, undercarriage, hook and materials etc to survive operating off a carrier and in a salt environment - and a compromise by definition means you compromise the design of a land only based aircraft.
If if you need to do so, or see extra sales from doing so, it might be advantageous to do so. But if you don’t you compromise the design against other new competing land only aircraft - which might lose sales as a result.
To retunr to my original point - who are you going to sell it too?