General comment: I think we have thoroughly demonstrated at this point that STOVL imposes limitations on the "dustcover" (airframe) that are costly to the CTOL variant. CV + CTOL may not be as difficult (cf Rafale).
Ken... I would ask you again to stop YELLING IN ALL CAPS. Anyway...
But the bottom line is that the number of carriers that are built is not determined by the perceived vulnerability of those carriers.
Not correct. No intelligent strategy would rely on so small a number of assets if they were not regarded as highly survivable.
Indeed. That being said, what was proven to be the most effective carrier killer? Another carrier.
Not correct. The threat to the carrier came from massed air attack (nobody cared where they took off from) and from submarines.
What is also true is that post WWII no carriers were sunk, no carrier was denied the ability by an opponent to accomplish whatever mission it was given, and in no way was any carrier made "obsolete" by any of the weapons and combination of weapons that have been described/listed here.
Meaningless, I'm afraid. As you know, there was no active conflict where this situation would have arisen.