Thomas Coupling,
Perhaps I can help a little here - we have another 'the F-35B has big problems going to the deck' discussion going on. You raised two issues.
One at a time: "Did you know that there are now problems with the exhaust speed of the F35 in VTOL configuration? Can the flt deck surface material cope?"
I don't know of a 'new' problem - the exhaust speed of the F-35B was pretty well understood by around 2003/4, due to extensive modelling and testing, the majority of the work being done by BAE. The 'external environment' team at Fort Worth was led by a Brit. The results were confirmed by full scale engine tests. One thing to remember is that in STOVL mode, about half the energy of the main engine is extracted via the shaft and clutch and fed forwards to drive the lift fan. That means that the 'hot' aft exhaust is nowhere near full power. The various test rigs that modelled the exhaust also included a dedicated rig at Warton to test the effects of the predicted exhaust on various materials including flight deck coatings. I was involved in arranging these in around 2005/6. It was known that the standard 'Camrex' coatings previously used by the RN would struggle to cope, so tests of the new 'Thermion' system that has been used on selected areas of the QE flight deck were under way in 2005. These were successful and the material was chosen for use on the QE. It's new (to the RN) and there's a risk. It was assessed as an acceptable risk, and that's a decision I agreed with at the time. The USMC subsequently went with Thermion for selected areas on their flight decks
Bottom line - I don't think that there are 'new problems'. As others have posted, it seems that there might have been a problem with putting the legacy 'Camrex' coating on. That's regrettable, but not unknown.
Second Issue: "The F35 also operates at 4 x the Db noise signature of the Harrier in the hover. How will flt deck crews cope with this?"
The F-35B does not operate at 4 times the noise signature of the Harrier. Nowhere even close. It's noisier, true, but that's an effect of physics and the velocity of the jets of air you need to keep more weight in the air. The main challenge (for the UK) was caused by the (very understandable) decision that they would have to comply with the quite demanding EU 'Noise and Vibration at Work' directive. That limits the amount of time that personnel can be exposed to varying levels of noise. The louder the noise, the shorter the time. As a result, the UK set up a programme to investigate various protective solutions. The USN was already interested in this issue, as cat and trap operations expose personnel to much higher noise levels during launches from the catapults.
The best way to reduce effects of noise on personnel is to get further away from the source of the noise. Fortunately, on the large decks of the QE class, that's not too hard to achieve. (It was MUCH harder to do on the confined decks of the 'Invincible' class - I speak from experience here).
Bottom line - the flight deck crews will cope, like they've coped with loud aircraft for many years. They will get the kit needed, and develop the routines required to operate the aircraft on the deck with an acceptable level of risk. That's what naval aviation professionals do.
Best Regards as ever to all those who did the 'hard yards' on this issue some time back,
Engines