So let me get this right - the justification for STOVL F35 is that conventional carrier landings are hard and require constant training whereas VLs on carriers are much easier and don't? LOL - as the yoof say. Can't wait to banter the harrrier mates about that!
VLs aren't easy (but not that hard either), however if you can VL at base or in the field then you can VL onto the ship. Many Harrier pilot's first ever sighting of the CVS was as they decel'd alongside to VL on their initial embarkation.
I'm not sure the last 2 letters of STOVL have proved their utility on current ops.
The original austere runway at KAF was very demanding on tyres and undercarriage - the ability to VL when yours gets trashed on take-off has proved very handy indeed on several occasions.
Regardless of the fun to be had debating the pros and cons of the CVF project and whether the B or the C is the better jet (You can't beat flexibility but the range and payload would be nice etc etc) lets just celebrate the fact that we are getting two purpose designed, state of the art carriers and a fleet of fifth generation fighters to put on them.
You just can't predict what we will need over the next 40 years but any variant of Dave and the ability to deploy them independantly worldwide is a sound, flexible insurance policy.