If we really dig into things, one major reason for F-35B versus C was that the UK's experience bought it a much more important role in the program than its production offtake - under 5 per cent of planned output at best - would have done.
Another was that the UK was convinced (by things like the fly-by-wire Harrier demo) that a STOVL jet could be truly "amphibious" without the expensive, crew-time-dominating and airframe-life-eating recurrent training associated with cat-and-trap operations.
But there is a huge load-and-range cost associated with the B, as well as continuing risk; and Bs won't have the same range, fighter performance or weapons flexibility as a Typhoon. If the only way to deploy the jet is with CVF, that's not relevant; but if it's a situation where jets could be land-based regionally with tanker support, it is.
So the issue's this: in a given situation, do I respond with Typhoons and tankers to a regional base 500 miles from the ground combat area, or a CVF standing 100 miles offshore? (I can buy a whole lot of C-17s and tankers for the price of a carrier.) What do I need to defend my base in each case? There are no generic, simple answers.