There's some interesting stuff on this thread, and good exchanges of views. Perhaps I may offer a couple of inputs.
F-35B STO requirement KPP - came in two versions - one for the flat deck USMC ship, one for the UK ski-jump. Neither was set, IIRC, at MTOW, both referred to a 'mission weight' which was derived from laid down profiles and parameters. IIRC, the two requirements used the same weight. (Remember that the UK MoD were paranoid about not adding any UK specific requirements if they could possible help it). USMC STO was around 550 ft, driven by - well, I was on the ship suitability team and it was not always that clear what drove that figure - we thought it was influenced by the way the LHDs used the aft end of the deck. However, 550 feet it was (I think) and we worked to that. The UK figure was somewhat less than that, but until we hit the weight issues it wasn't driving any of the design. Once we had the weight problems we were struggling with STO length.
I do want to respond to LO and some of his statements on STOVL recovery and autoland.
STOVL landings: The reason STOVL is 'so easy' in the F-35B is that the team have done a simply fantastic job of using 'fly by computer' to give the pilot Level 1 handling qualities in the transition and the hover. It's NOTHING like a UAV, though. It's actually more like other 'fly by computer' combat aircraft that can't be flown manually, like, oh let's see....Typhoon.
CATOBAR landings - have we worked out how to make carrier recovery automatic? Yes, we have. Now for the real question - have we worked out how to make carrier recoveries automatic and so reliable that we can commit to blue water non-diversion flying on a dark and stormy night, stop training pilots how to do it manually and launch 20 plus aircraft knowing we'll lose them all if the autoland system (either the bits on the ship or the bits in the aircraft) go U/S? No, we haven't and I don't think the USN will for many years yet. They are exploiting the landing assistance systems as much as they can to reduce pilot workload during recoveries, but any idea that the UK could operate the F-35C from a carrier without the USN standard of pilot training is just, I'm afraid, fantasy. I've heard it a few times around light blue quarters and it needs to be stamped on, hard.
It's not a hankering for 'manliness', by the way. It's called maritime aviation. If you serve in an air force, you don't know much about it. Doesn't make you bad people in the least, but I expect you'd be a bit miffed if the USN came over and started telling you how you should be flying your aircraft. The USN have been doing naval aviation for decades and doing it damn well, and I'd be inclined to defer to them for now. Chinese? Let's see how they go first, shall we?
Oh, just a thought - if this autoland stuff is so straightforward, why don't we apply it to land based aviation first? We'd save heaps on all that training pilots to land stuff - but would you like to rely on it all the time?
As always, credit to the boys and girls actually out there over land or sea, doing the business for real, whatever the colour of cloth,
Best Regards
Engines