Or you could just build an airstrip on those territories and station some land-based planes there.
I also don't think it's unreasonable to consider it. We also considered with the Eurofighter but then decided against it (which is one of the reasons France left the project and build the Rafale instead). It's just not a capability that most nations need so it makes sense that they don't want to invest in it.
The only wisdom here is French self interest.
Europe doesn't need a carrier capable plane to defend itself. Aircraft carriers are not defensive weapons. France wants an aircraft carrier for it's own power-projection capabilities. So I think it's fair to question that kind of a requirement on a joint project.
Lots of people in the pacific and the Indian oceans have airplane carriers or might end up wanting one.
Are there though? First of all, we're only talking small carriers here, so 30-40 planes max (the US are the only nation with super carriers). In the Indian Ocean there are .... three. Two Indian ones and one Thai (but that one only operates helicopters). Another 2 Japanese (stretching Indian ocean a bit ... also they already bought US planes).
So no, I don't think it's a a very interesting export selling point.
Edit: Forgot Australia, still doesn't change the point.
Because it is a publicity stunt.
That's a very good requirement to question though. This will add considerable costs to the entire project just for a few dozen planes that will end up on the single French aircraft carrier.
If these protests dislike war so much, maybe they should go to the source an protest in Moscow.
Poland has elections again?
I've never have been in a workplace accident so absolutely no experience with my work places insurance.
It is specifically for referencing the flower in Beauty and the Beast. All other uses are illegal.
I feel this is a bit backwards. Britain can get away with relatively few defense on their oversee territories because they have aircraft carrier power projection. They could still have won the Falkland wars without carriers if they put a proper military force on the island to begin with.
Also the current biggest threat and main reason we need this new jet is the Russian threat to mainland Europe. And I don't see the 5 European aircraft carriers that currently exist playing a major role here (and 3 of them already have F-35s anyway).
So let's get the plane we actually need first. I'm sure France's oversee territories will be fine with just the Rafales protecting them for now.