LO and Others,
The Uk has gone for the F-35C and decided to get out of STOVL. That's done (hopefully, although the reports of current uncertainties are, well, unsettling).
What is off target is the level of vitriol being thrown at the B and the USMC. Some posters might not understand that the whole F-35 programme started out from STOVL strike fighter studies in the 80s, these led to CALF, then JAST and on to JSF. The JSF.mil website does a good job of setting this history out.
I did a few years in DC. The USMC's political power does not stem from 'fanatical loyalty', it stems from the fact that they are organised, consistent and honest to Congress. Every year, the US Army's aviation plans are savaged. Every year, the USAF pitches up and admits to another humunguous cost overrun on its programmes. Or changes them. Or gets told to buy something else by Congress. The USN does well, mainly due to the success of the Super Hornet programme.
The USMC lobbying 'toxic'? No, just effective. And done at a fraction of the sums expended by the USAF on the same activities. If anyone wants more facts, PM me.
JSF was, and remains, a DoD programme. So is the F-35B. The JORD (Joint Operational Requirements Document) was signed off at the highest levels after 5 years of development. The B was, and remains, a part of a programme to meet USAF/USN and USMC future air power requirements, and buying the B does not mean 'sacrificing' USAF/USN capability. In fact, it has been the main factor in keeping the F-35 design single engine, single seat and thereby affordable. And I got that from the Pentagon civil servant who was the driving force for the whole programme. And this programme's achievements make the UK's attempts at 'jointness' look pretty thin, in my view.
The B meets its KPPs. The UK 'bring back requirement' (not in the JORD) led to the development of RVLs, and according to the quite excellent TPs over there (USAF, USN, USMC and also UK) RVL were quite feasible and not at all 'unwholesome'. But why let facts get in the way of a good post?
I'm a straight STOVL guy - spent many years working on it, and an unashamed admirer of the way that brilliant Brits worked with brilliant US guys for over 40 years to develop the technology that led to the F-35B. There are penalties and tradeoffs (there always are) but the USMC have a solid and well argued concept of operations for this jet. If you don't agree with it, well fine, it's a free thread. But 'rubbish', 'toxic', 'fanatical'? Throwing that stuff around just weakens an argument, in my view.
Best Regards as ever
Engines