Kbrock,
You are spot on that the Cutlass had severe problems - the extended nose gear was added to achieve reliable launch, the cockpit then had to be raised, and its controllability on approach was always marginal at best. I understand it was called the 'Ensign Killer' due to its poor safety record.
Your comments on the F-35C hook are spot on too - they will fix this, but they are running risks until the optimised hook shape and damper setup are proved.
On the other points you made:
1. The F-35 will get its new helmet, as it has to. With no HUD, the HMD has to work. They have just launched a parallel effort to look at a varient of the UK Typhoon helmet, which is a world beater.
2. Visibility from the cockpit on the A and C is actually extremely good. B only marginally less good.
3. F-35's cannon is a 25mm Gatling vs EF 27mm Mauser revolver with very similar muzzle velocity. The Mauser is the slightly better cannon (it was the original choice but removed after pressure from US companies) but the 25mm is not one I'd call 'weak'.
4. Longer startup time - the aircraft meets its startup time requirements. Yes, big engines take a longer time to get going, though.
5. I agree that it's a real shame that the Uk no longer has the cojones to go on and develop its own fighter aircraft, but proposing the Sea Typhoon as a replacement is not, in my view, an option. Here's why.
6. The 'Naval Typhoon' (not that it actually exists) is not resistant to saline environments. It has strong frame sure enough - for air to air combat, though, as that is what it was designed for. Not deck operations. The EF had a very aggressive weight reduction programme of its own in the late 90s and there is not a spare ounce left over.
7. Because of this, talk of 'only limited strengthening being needed' is about as credible as the LM claims you mentioned. 370kg is a dream, and doesn't match the actual results of doing the same exercise on T-45 or F-35. The problem is that for cat and trap ops, there are all new load paths that just don't exist on a land based aircraft. You need new metal in new places, not beefed up existing.
8. It can not (and I know what I'm talking about here) get off the deck at MTOW without a catapult, unless the definition of MTOW is changed. TVC won't help, and no one answered the question of how the flight controls would work at low launch speeds. (I saw one proposal for a rection control system like the Harrier, but no explanation of where the additional engine thrust was coming from to power it). Adding catapult capability would mean an all new front leg and tons (and I do mean tons) of extra structure to handle the loads.
9. Finally, and here's the crunch, the UK do not want the world's best A2A close combat aircraft (which, by the way, I agree that the EF very probably is) flying off the ships. They want a fully capable strike aircraft with 'day one' signature. That's why the USN are going for F-35C, and that's why we are too.
Best Regards as ever to all those actually doing the job
Engines