Guys,
Thanks for coming back and apologies if I came on strong....just sensitive when good hard working Brit colleagues get trashed for no other reason than not being American...
Willard - OK, got me. The answer you want is just over 12,500 internal fuel on the STOVL.
LO - long decelerating approach? Many ways to land the jet, on land can do an RVL with a very steep glide path and short run - as per the USMC requirement. Deceleration is very fast once the aircraft goes to powered lift mode and the slow speed allows a tight circuit. Flying qualities in the powered lift mode are far better than Harrier so less worries about manoeuvring on the jets.
M2 - sorry I plot slipped on the comments. Yes, the B is more complicated than the A. The simple arrangement of the Harrier was inspired but just could not be scaled up to meet the needs of the JSF - and we (and the USA) spent quite a bit of money trying to do just that in the 70s and 80s. If you want a very capable, stealthy, high end combat jet to to STOVL that's the price you pay. I freely admit that I preferred the Boeing X-32 design (simpler) until it got beat by raw physics - you have to use cold air to hover, not just hot air. X-32 was practically unable to hover at all. The F-35B uses the cold front fan to take power out of the hot end. Also helps stop Hot gas Ingestion (HGI). And if you want stealth then you have to cover up the holes when they're not wanted. That means doors.
Actually, the ability of most modern combat jets to take much battle damage is limited, although computer flight controls can help to reschedule controls if some get damaged - and F-35 can do that, as the AA-1 incident showed. But yes, if the fans or doors get damaged, it's a conventional landing on land or bang out next to the ship.
Hope this helps, best regards as ever
Engines