The reasons are several: one major one is that naval aircraft require reinforced undercarriages and airframes in order to land safely. When you land on a carrier, you are coming in on a very short runway, and need to stop quickly.
To do this, a landing arrest cable is needed (in the case of most modern carries, they have 4). But it is incredibly easy to miss those or get a "spitting" one (when it for whatever reason pops off the hook), so when you come in you have to increase thrust to full (throttle up) so that if you miss you can take off again and come back around.
If you try landing like that with an F-16, you'll rip the entire undercarriage of your plane right out. So all that has to be built heavier and reinforced, with landing gear struts, tires and whatnot that can handle it.
Also: those folding/ variable geometry wings require more onboard mechanisms to take the brunt of the workload, and more maintenance to keep functioning. That means easy accessibility and reliability under less than ideal conditions.
You also have specialized functions as well: the F-14 is a fleet interceptor, while the F/A 18 is attack. Each of these require specific parameters and whatnot (although the newer "Super Hornet" fills the draft nicely).
On that note, Russia did do this but there are reasons you don't see them use that extensively. The modifications needed to make them shipworthy increase their costs even more than to simply build a purpose-built craft for the role.
You have to understand that nature of naval aviation and the tolls that the sea environment takes on planes to begin with, let alone the rigors that carrier duty imposes. A plane built for normal flight duty will fall apart if you try to use it on a carrier unmodified.
It simply cannot take the strain and stress, they're just not built for it. If you want to see what kind of failures happen when you try to use one for both Project VFX, which led to the F-14 Tomcat, demonstrated it.