The definition of supercruise varies a lot - according to which bunch of LM shills has the floor. One argument is that the JSF can't supercruise, but neither can anything else except the F-22 because the "definition" of supercruise is M>1.5 sustained without A/B. The other is that that the JSF can supercruise based on second-hand misinterpreted statements about persistence at M=1.2 at "minimal" burner.
A bit of history: The Marines may have been involved in Tripartite Kestrel/XV-6 but the lead service in the US was the Army. All that work was winding down inconclusively as the Tarawa-class (basis of Wasp and America) was designed. When the contract was let, the USMC was only at the beginning of its renewed Harrier acquisition, which had started in Sept 1968 with an informal visit to HSA at Farnborough.
So it is entirely correct to say that the ships are primarily amphibs and that their design does not provide the fuel volume &c that is optimal for fast jets. Hence the kludged design of LHA-6/7 (America and Tripoli).
As for the landing environment: The current contracts for the construction of heat-resistant landing pads are based on Navy engineers' data, which show that a single F-35B VL on standard concrete may cause spalling (that is, near-explosive breakup due to subsurface moisture turning to steam). This data appeared in late 2010, IIRC, and was pooh-poohed by LockMart (and its cheerleaders) on the grounds that tests had shown the ground environment to be no worse than Harrier. Despite this, the same NavFac specs are still in force and the pizza-oven concrete is still specified in construction contracts. And I have yet to see a land VL performed on anything other than AM-2-shielded concrete or the specially built pads.
Last edited by LowObservable; 30th Mar 2013 at 22:20.