1) Fighters without STOVL, especially those that already need to meet short take off requirements or have uprated engines, can still operate off STOBARs. Designing for these capabilities may not even require compromise for fifth generation fighters.
2) Isn’t that why you have carriers though?
3) But would STOVL make a difference in battle outcomes in such a scenario? Is covering for this scenario for a few tiny outposts worth the costs and resources of developing a STOVL fighter?
4) Okay, but since China already has two fifth generation fighter designs it doesn’t make much sense to develop a STOVL with the intention of converting it to *another* fighter for the air force.
1)Fair point. But restrictions are high, efficiency is lower than mixed airwings potential. It's especially applicable to operational tempo.
2)You have only this many of them.
3)Short story: yes, if you can allow yourself to have it.
Even in case of forward bases, which become themselves much harder to pin down.
It's what RAF harrier force(and future f-35 force) was about.
4)If we speak about airforce, it actually does.
Air Force has one, not two. They don't need FC-31 in any form. They have hundreds of 4th generation platforms, though, which will also require replacement at some point.
Navy now has 0, but neither of variants at hand really performs what they need.
The US ‘need’ for STOVL really mostly only comes from the politicking bickering between the USN and USMC in any case.
No offense, but short answer is no. Wrong conclusions because of wrong knowledge.
1.Marine air historically has only one main mission: support of the guys in the ground. They look at everything from this point of view. This is why, say, when navy went with A-7, Marines sticked with A-4. A-7 was many times cooler airplane and light bomber, but not your grunts guarding angel; When navy went hornet - Marines again were "all in", because it allowed them precisely to get what they wanted(excellent strike fighter for their needs in this case); on the other hand, they didn't really care much about Rhino when it appeared, because, well, nothing useful to them for hell lot of a cost.
Harriers have appeared in USMC not because of the navy to begin with. Harriers appeared because moderate attack aircraft closer is better than any shiny aircraft afar. Vietnam experience. USMC Harriers, btw, represent one of the finest CAS formations in the world till today. And not because they can carry many bombs, but because they put the few they have when necessary and where it's necessary.
2)USMC have 35Cs on order. Agreement with a navy.(marine squadrons are always on carriers) But you can't forward base them.
3)a single supersonic cruise missile hit likely meant kill for an US carrier since early 1960s till now. Nothing new here. First you actually have to get this missile into this carrier somehow.