I'm curious if all the modifications made to the NATF were really out of a necessity for carrier suitability or to simply modify the design into a different design so it wouldn't be the same as the USAF design
Consider the Following
- The USN (post 1953): Seemed to hate the idea of navalizing any USAF planes even if it could be done, despite the fact that they successfully managed to make the FJ-2 work, and from there produced the FJ-3 and FJ-4. I'm not sure why this mentality took hold at this point in time exactly, but look at the F-111, the F-16, and so on: It seems that the Navy was terrified of accepting that any USAF design could be adapted to USN specs. It would seem that they somehow felt that if they did, they would lose the ability to build their own customized designs (and this would lead to their industry shriveling up), then the USAF would force airplane after airplane down their throat, then they'd move to take over Naval Aviation and sink all the carriers and scuttle the Navy.
- McDonnell-Douglas was a sub-contractor on the F-23: Both McDonnell and Douglas had great experience building many aircraft for the United States Navy (Douglas: SBD, AD, F3D, F4D; McDonnell: FH, F2H, F3H, F4H, F-18) and did say when the F-23 was built that it had many characteristics already present to make it suitable for carrier use
.
BTW: Rickshaw -- yes, I reframed the question for you