Why naval fighters try to break up incoming strikes

If a twin-engine aircraft is a poor dogfighter, why choose it for carrier defense instead of an efficient long-winged design?

The proposed priority is disrupting incoming strikes through rapid climbing and diving attacks, while longer wings create separate structural and carrier-handling costs.

The proposed naval fighter needs to climb rapidly and dive through an incoming strike to disrupt its formation. Sustained dogfighting is a less important design priority within that approach to fleet defense. Long, high-aspect-ratio wings offer efficiency and range, but they also create deck-handling and structural problems, including the stresses associated with catapult launching. Their size consumes working space when aircraft operate with wings spread. Comparisons with high-altitude interceptors also require care because their specialized wing arrangements were intended for different operating demands.