LR and others,
Perhaps this post might help sort out fact from invective on ski jump stuff.
Ski jumps can be used by both conventional and powered lift (STOVL) aircraft. In both cases, they launch the aircraft into the air below its normal takeoff speed, and the aircraft then spends a period of time in a reducing rate of climb while it accelerates to full wing borne flight, and then climbs away. It's been described to me as a 'runway in the sky'.
However, the two types get very different levels of advantage.
A conventional aircraft (e.g. Flanker, or Fulcrum as used by Chinese and Russia) cannot be launched below normal takeoff speed at max gross TO weight (MGTOW), as the only way they can maintain a safe minimum rate of climb is to adopt a high angle of attack and use engine thrust as best they can. That creates more drag, which delays acceleration, which means lower rate of climb away from the sea. This is why you don't see these aircraft launch with many external stores, and it helps explain an unusually public complaint by a Chinese Navy Admiral over the poor performance of his aircraft.
Conventional ski jumps aren't new, but have usually been discarded due to the inherent limitations I've summarised above.
A STOVL aircraft can launch at much higher relative weights, because it can vector its thrust to the optimum angle to support the aircraft by a combination of wing lift and powered lift so as to deliver the required acceleration and climb out. The angle will be scheduled after launch to move aft as wing lift builds. (Of note, the UK sets a minimum 400 fpm rate of climb as the limiting performance measure for ski jump launches).
Ski jump launch is an extremely effective system for maritime STOVL aircraft, is low workload and safe, as the pilot is guaranteed to be climbing away from the sea, and has more time to react in the event of an engine failure. It also delivers a large improvement in launch weight compared with a flat deck STO.
Oh, and the ski jump was a Royal Navy invention. And the F-35B lift system integration and flight controls design was led by some amazingly talented Brits. And Brits are leading the STOVL flight testing.
I know that there are plenty of folks here who disparage the STOVL variant, and it's technology. It's a free forum, and they can do so as much as they like. But it's a shame that it sometimes prevents very smart and hard working people getting the credit they deserve. Perhaps this post will help restore a bit of balance.
Best regards as ever to all those doing the hard work and bashing out the hard miles
Engines