I have some questions about modern aircraft carriers and the tradeoffs they make when choosing between straight or angled runways when used with modern jet aircraft for rolling takeoffs.
This question is not about old (e.g. WW2) aircraft carriers with straight decks nor is it about propeller planes or jet aircraft with VTOL or STOL.
So let's establish a few things first (obviously please correct me if I'm wrong on anything):
a. Angled runways allow simultaneous launching and recovery.
b. Angled runways allow aircraft to bail out and try again during recovery.
c. Angled decks have a shorter takeoff runways and shorter landing runways than straight decks (which can just have a single longer runway for both tasks).
d. As a result of (c), assistive devices for landing and takeoff (such as catapults) are much more critical with angled decks than straight decks. (FALSIFIED because carrier decks are several times shorter than required and a little extra runway length is not going to matter)
So here are my question:
Are modern non-VTOL/STOL jet aircraft still not able to take off from the single longer runway of a straight deck without catapults?
If the following image is correct, on modern straight decks, aircraft stored at the end or on the sides? Because it seems that if the aircraft were stored on the sides, although you couldn't perform simultaneous launch and recovery, you could at least switch between launch and recovery fairly quickly since you would not have to move any planes out of the way except for the one that is on the runway. You could also bail from a bad landing.
How closely does this "fast-switching" between launch and recovery compare against actual simultaneous launch and recovery?
I assume this just wasn't done on WW2 carriers because they were smaller so there was no room to store aircraft on the sides; They had to be stored at the end which meant no landings until every plane ready for takeoff was cleared.
I read that angled decks are much more expensive than straight decks. I imagine this is because angled decks require a runway extension and catapults (since planes would not be able to launch off the shorter takeoff runway of a angled deck without one), plus a nuclear reactor since you need one for a steam catapult. However, if it turns out that modern non-VTOL/STOL aircraft cannot takeoff without catapults from an straight deck, then where is this supposed cost difference coming from? If both straight and angled deck carriers need catapults and nuclear reactors to take off, that would imply this "huge" cost difference is attributed to solely the deck extension which doesn't seem to add up. Although, it may not be true anymore that you need a nuclear reactor for a jet-capable catapult since there is apparently an alternative to steam catapults now with electric catapults, but those don't sound very cheap either even if no reactor is required.