"Oh, we gonna save a lot of money by replacing full-blown carrier landing training with touch-and-go". Yeah, good idea. It will F-111 A/B all over again.
It isn't even remotely similar to the F-111A/B again. Three major things happened with the F-111 program that most people apparently haven't a clue on.
1) The U.S. navy originally just wanted a missileer (You can see threads on this site showing many of the designs). The GD design met the requirement quite well.
2) Unfortunately, the USAF and the Navy didn't have the same input into the F-111. The USAF got most of what it wanted, driving the weight up. For example, a high flotation landing gear, not needed by the Navy. Also, not really needed by the USAF, but that's a different argument. Side by side seating versus tandem seating. Once again the Navy lost on this point. Also, another giant weight adder, an escape pod, as opposed to just ejection seats. The Navy lost again.
3) As a result of the Vietnam war, the U.S. navy realized a Missileer alone wouldn't be enough. That, plus item 2, caused the Navy to change it's tune.
Fortunately for the U.S. Navy, since Grumman was building the F-111B, they learned how to greatly improve on the weight savings. Such as having the wing retract above the main structure instead of within it. In many ways, it was Grumman's experience building the F-111B that allowed the F-14 to be a great aircraft.