The needs to operate on a carrier are different than the needs for a land based aircraft. They are subtle, but significant. As others have pointed out, the F-35 attempted to address these issues and wound up way over budget. (It was made even more complicated by the addition of a STOVL version for the Marines, the F-35B).
CATOBAR aircraft differ from conventional aircraft in subtle, but very important ways. Takeoff and landing on a carrier is significantly different. Its landing gear must be significantly strengthened to handle the "controlled crash" of landing on a carrier deck, and the sharp deceleration of the arresting cable, and the sharp acceleration of the catapult when taking off. It needs a strong arresting hook to snag the cables on landing. The engines can't melt the carrier deck or blast shields on takeoff.
The short flight deck and tricky approach requires a lower landing speed, and better low speed handling requiring a significantly larger wing area. This also gives more lift to keep the same cruising range despite all that extra weight.
The limited space on a carrier often requires folding wings, the joints must be able to handle all the stresses of combat maneuvering. More weight and more complexity.
The aircraft must be able to be maintained and repaired while at sea with the stores and equipment available to a carrier. It must be resistant to salt water, particularly hard if you're using advanced skins to reduce radar cross-section. The limited storage space means it ideally has to share the same fuel and weapons and other consumables with other carrier aircraft.
Finally there are self-inflicted inter-service incompatibilities. The US Navy and Air Force use different aerial refueling systems requiring different parts and plumbing.
Most navies look at all these extra requirements (and weight, always weight) and are satisfied with lower performance, usually lower takeoff and landing weights meaning less fuel and less stores. For example, ski-jumps like on the Admiral Kuznetsov are simpler and cheaper than catapults and reduce the strain on the aircraft making conversion to naval simpler, but they limit the takeoff speed and weight of the aircraft. Better to have some sort of fixed-wing air capability within their budget than none.
The US Navy doesn't have any of that. They want a naval aircraft that is the equal or better than land based aircraft. That comes at a cost in weight, money, and complexity.