If we got a carrier we would have to call it HMAS Australia, I don't think any other name would evolke the same sort of power, despite the problem with naming a sinkable ship after your nation (or the redundant naming). However, a 65,000t carrier falls into the category that makes that a pretty much a non-issue.
We could go with a mix of aircraft, F-35B and the superhornets. The B's could take off/land on the LHD's or the carrier, and the Sh could operate from the carrier or land bases. When the carrier isn't able to make it, the B's would still offer short term capability off a LHD.
That being said, we could support most operations for a short period of time from land bases and extensive refuelling.
Can you launch a B from a catapault? Or is it too light weight and dainty?
I can see where you are coming from with the F35B, but if we go to the added expense of cat and trap that in my opinion would rule out the more expensive and complex aircraft, better to stick with what we already have in the system then add another layer. With a buy of F35C they will be basically the same as an F35A in power plant and avionics just longer range and more robust for a harsher life aboard a carrier but with a speculated cost saving 25% over the lifetime of the F35B.
Differences between variants
F-35A
F-35B
F-35C
Length 51.4 ft (15.7 m) 51.3 ft (15.6 m) 51.5 ft (15.7 m)
Wingspan 35 ft (10.7 m) 35 ft (10.7 m) 43 ft (13.1 m)
Wing Area 460 ft² (42.7 m²) 460 ft² (42.7 m²) 668 ft² (62.1 m²)
Empty weight 29,300 lb (13,300 kg) 32,000 lb (14,500 kg) 34,800 lb (15,800 kg)
Internal fuel 18,500 lb (8,390 kg) 13,300 lb (6,030 kg) 19,600 lb (8,890 kg)
Max takeoff weight 70,000 lb (31,800 kg) 60,000 lb (27,000 kg) 70,000 lb (31,800 kg)
Range 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) 900 nmi (1,670 km) 1,400 nmi (2,520 km)
Combat radius on
internal fuel 590 nmi (1,090 km) 450 nmi (833 km) 640 nmi (1,185 km)
