This is gibberish of the finest water on so many levels I won't even start. Maybe someone else will point out why the Kestrel/Harrier was developed; why the Hornet was never an option for the RAF (though I did control a couple of trials with F15 and E3A in 1975) and why they RN thus conceived the SHAR in the "through deck cruiser" era.
OK, so some don't like the Hornet/Harrier comparison (even though both are made by the
same company.) If such a comparison is offensive, how about the French Rafale M, or the Russian SU-33? The point is, the RAF is forced to operate STOVL aircraft and prevented from operating CATOBAR aircraft and even STOBAR aircraft from RN carriers because of the "facility" the aircraft must operate from. STOVL aircraft are the quintessential example of a weapon system specifically designed to solve a facility constraint.
BTW, the USMC has a similar facilities constrained problem. Evne though the USMC owns and operates Hornets and Intruders, they also own and operate STOVL aircraft like the Harrier and the F-35B because their forward "facilities" cannot handle Hornets and Intruders. This is yet another weapon procurement decision based on "facility constraints".
Indeed, CATOBAR aircraft are specifically designed (some woud say compromised) by the constraints imposed by the facility they operate from. All the USN would have to do is scale up their aircraft carriers and they could operate conventional fighters from their carriers and thus not have to fly around with thousands of pounds of extra weight in their aicraft to handle catapult launches and arrested landings, not to mention folding wings. The H-60 series of helicopters have that unique "lizard" look because they were required to fit inside a C-141 without major disassembly. The Gripen (and most modern Swedish fighters) are designed to be able to operate from Swedish highways. The US Army's "Stryker" vehicle design is constrained by the C-130's loading envelope and payload limitations. Indeed C-130 compatibility is a design constraint of a large majority of US Army vehicles. C-17 compatibility is a design constraint of virtually EVERY US Army ground vehicle and many USAF/USN/US Army helicopters. These are but a few of the
numerous weapon systems designed around a "facility" constraint. So, yes, I continue to challenge the notion that weapons systems are never designed or constrained by the facilities they must operate from.
And separately, does anyone know how it is that a Roman military design constrained the design of the Space Shuttle?