Some of the posts here deserve a reply, if only for balance.
Courtney mil: apparently we joined the programme 'hastily'. Not so. We worked with the US on advanced STOVL for 30 years plus, and negotiated our role in the JSF programme via an MoU that took years to agree. We are in the T&E in a lead role for STOVL. The only 'hasty' thing we did was to bail out of STOVL after a rushed SDSR.
Willard - You say that if any part of the design had any British input we are up the creek - what exactly is wrong with British engineering? The reflex 'we are cr@p' comments on these forums are just not right. British engineers have led key parts of the STOVL design, and have performed magnificently. Many cut their teeth on the Harrier, and their work on the F-35B has earned the respect of all their American colleagues.
Mach Two - according to you, the B is over designed, over engineered and can't take battle damage. How exactly do you think you get a stealthy, supersonic aircraft with large weapons bays and a massive avionics suite to hover? How do you get it to be able to do a STO? How do you build it so that it can be flown by the average pilot on a dark and stormy night? Here's the answer - world class engineering, and lots of it. Sheer hard work. Inspiration. Brilliance. Have they got everything right first time? Crikey, no. But take a dispassionate look at the programme, look at what the USMC want to do with it, think how navies that can't afford cat and trap are going to operate this aircraft at sea, and then think again about STOVL.
And on battle damage - yes, it's more vulnerable in the STOVL areas. But so is any powered lift design. Want to try getting an F-35C back on deck with damaged flaps or tails? Good luck with that.
I know there are many that fundamentally think STOVL is a no-go and not needed. That's absolutely their right, and I respect that. But trashing the performance of people who have put their professional lives into the programme is, in my view, lazy and unwarranted.
Best Regards as ever
Engines