How could the USN know in Oct 1947 that an F-86 deriviative would be a better bet than the F7U? It had nothing to compare it to until the F7U flew for the first time on 29 Sept 1948. Even then it would take some time for the real story to become apparent. But we still have no idea exactly what NAA offered the USN in 1946 as it seems to have been lost to the mists of time.
You also assume that a navalised F-86 in 1948/49 would have the same performance as the USAAF F-86 that saw service in Korea from late 1950. That will undoubtedly be untrue. Navalising a land based aircraft always comes with some cost.
F-86A-5 - Engine J47-GE-13 5,200lb st. Weight empty 10,093lb. Weight take off:- 14,108lb. Speed 679 at SL, 601mph at 35,000ft.
F-86E-5 - Engine as above. Weight empty 10,555lb. Weight take off:- 16,346lb with drop tanks. Weight combat:- 13,791lb. Speed 679 at SL, 601mph at 35,000ft.
More powerful engines were retrofitted later.
And for the FJ-2 - Engine J47-GE-2 6,000lb st. Weight empty 11,802lb. Weight gross:- 18,790lb. Speed 676mph at SL, 601mph at 35,000ft.
Additional airframe weight over the F-86E (which was used as the basis for the FJ-2 and was already heavier than the F-86A) of 1,247lb (12% over the E on which it was based) went into fitting folding wings, beefier airframe to withstand the forces of catapulting and arresting, fitting arrester hook, changes to undercarriage (wider track) change from 6x0.5" to 4x20mm. To maintain the performance of the F-86A/E it required an extra 800lb st (15%). The more powerful engine was decided on after the two prototypes had flown and before production machines started to come off the line i.e. sometime between 27/12/51 and autumn 1952. The question then is when did the more powerful engine become available.
The USAF didn't get an F-86 with equivalent power until the F-86F-1 took to the air in March 1952. It had the J47-GE-27 of 5,950lb st fitted.
So the extra thrust does not seem to have been available until early 1952. To me that means that a navalised F-86 produced in 1948/49 would have been heavier but would have had to make do with the 5,200lb st of the early versions and therefore would have suffered some performance degradation when compared to the early F-86.
That was apparent from your comment about carrier refuelling taking place overnight.
Operating aircraft from a carrier is just not the same as operating from a land base with 6,000-10,000 feet of runway and acres of run off area when something goes wrong. Flying from, and working on, a carrier flight deck is one of the most dangerous activities going. Just ask the pilot and deck crew of the USS Carl Vinson injured in the F-35C loss in Jan 2022. The question is do you want to learn about operations from carrier decks or not?
There is an almost symbiotic relationship between a carrier and its aircraft. Changes to one affect the other. Never was that more apparent than immediately after WW2 and the advent of jets. Look at how HMS Victorious designed in 1936 around the operation of 36 Fairey Swordfish biplane torpedo spotter reconnaiasance aircraft and Blackburn Skua monoplane fighter/dive bombers evolved over time and a major reconstruction to survive until 1967 when she was operating near supersonic Sea Vixen fighters, Blackburn Buccaneer strike aircraft plus Gannet AEW3 and helicopters (31 in total). Same with the USN Essex class. They began as a 1939-41 design around the then latest types (F4U Corsair, TBF Avenger and SB2C Helldiver) and finished up in the mid-1970s as small Attack carriers (F/RF-8 Crusader, A-1 Skyraiders, A-4 Skyhawk, A-3B Skywarrior and E-1 Tracer). Or Midway which began life in 1946 with F4U-4 Corsairs and SB2C-5 Helldivers but ended up in 1992 operating F/A-18 Hornets, A-6E/ KA-6D Intruders, EA-6B Prowlers, E-3C Hawkeyes & SH-3H helicopters. See the growth in Midway's flight deck in that period and the changes in layout.
View attachment 661872
And that is only the visible changes over the period. New larger lifts, more powerful catapults, strengthened flight decks and add in radar development, guided missiles and nuclear weapons for good measure. While aircraft in the 1930-50 time period had a relatively short service life, carriers had to adapt as they were too big an investment to be ditched every few years.
As I noted my figures came from an actual post operation report from the carrier concerned in May-July 1951. As I noted the SCB-27/27A carriers that operated in Korea with the more powerful catapults would probably have been able to launch a Panther much more easily. But their tours in Korea were in a minority.
I am well aware of the rivalries between the USN and the USAAF. That doesn't mean that such things don't get put aside in times of crisis to be picked up again afterwards. And also what happens in the field is often very different from the politics that go on in Washington or Whitehall.
The USN and the RN were both facing the same problems in the immediate post WW2 with regard to the development of carriers and their aircraft. And for both money was tight. The spirit of co-operation that had built up in WW2 where both sides learned from each other in carrier design and operations, was continued into the post war years with an exchange of ideas and personnel. The problems for Britain were perhaps more pressing as the British WW2 era carriers were smaller and less suited to operating jets. While we had successes in terms of the steam catapult, angled deck and optical landing sight, not everything worked out that well, like the rubber deck.
The issue of catapults is a good example. With the prospect of heavier aircraft to launch America was working on a cordite powered catapult. At the same time Britain, which had developed such kit in WW2, developed the steam catapult. The prototype was trialled from 1950 in HMS Perseus, which visited the USA between Jan and Mar 1952 to demonstrate it to the USN. It represented such an improvement over what the USN was planning that it was immediately adopted. The first operational steam catapults, which were built in Britain, went into the SCB-27C conversion of USS Hancock from Jan 1954.
In the same time period Britain invented the angled deck, but with the idea shared, the USN took it and turned it into the first hardware in the Sept-Dec refit of the USS Antietam. Antietam then visited Britain in May 1953 to demonstrate it to the RN. The first 3 British carriers so fitted completed in April-Oct 1954, a few months before the next US carrier completed with it (USS Shangri La in Jan 1955).
In 1955 the three successful British inventions come together for the first time with the completion of HMS Ark Royal (IV) in Feb, USS Forrestal on 1 Oct and HMAS Melbourne on 28 Oct.
Well they had a plan. While adopting your approach might have reduced the risk, it seems to me that it would not necessarily have provided what the USN sought in the first place. In an era of extremely fast technological change it is always a problem to decide where to aim and to determine in advance just how long it would take to get there. Ask most people in 1939 about the A bomb and it would have been seen as pure science fiction. But just 6 years later it was used in action for the first and, hopefully, last time.