LO,
Happy to respond.
Don't know who the US Marketing Corps are, unless you mean the USMC. The footprint of the F-35B is obviously different from the Harrier - it's a two poster not a four poster lift system. However, in terms of noise and jet blast (both items that I was intimately involved in) the F-35B does not present any significantly worse issues than the Harrier. There's more blast, but not much, and more noise. The issues with the latter are driven as much by new health and safety regulations as the level of noise itself.
The Harrier was never very good on asphalt, and I can attest to the fact that even moderate application of throttle with nozzles down below 50 degrees could cause problems- we damaged a runway at Bermuda recovering a downbird that way.
RVL on land is a big deal for the USMC because of their concept of ops for the jet. You need Herks, they don't. In my view, (I know not yours) RVL and STO are two attributes of a powered lift aircraft that can be used for military effect, if required. Ops in the Stan were an example of the benefits of being able to use a short runway.
Comparing A-10 and Gripen is really apples and pears. Basic physics tell you that if you don't have powered lift and want to get off a short strip, you need either very big wings, or big wings with fancy lift devices, plus lots and lots of thrust. Fast jet combat aircraft like Gripen, loaded up to anywhere near the max, need lots of runway. Loaded up to lots less, they need less. A-10 has more wing so needs less runway. I don't have the sums to hand for either, but in the end it's a pure numbers game. How short are your runways, how much do you want to get into the air?
Of course, if you are buying the jets to go to ships (as the Uk is doing) this is all a non-argument. STOVL gets you to sea without cats and traps, which the UK has said it can't afford. Until someone invents the anti-gravity paint, powered lift it is.
Best Regards as ever
Engines