Spaz,
Your barrage of F-35 photos, landings and taking-offs from the carrier is becoming about as inflated as the cost to manufacture one F-35. To put things in perspective, the first real US Navy fighter to have a successful career onboard an aircraft carrier was this one:
Since that time, the US Navy has ordered many other fighters, nearly all of which have had the ability to both land and be catapulted into the air without great photographic fanfare. One that didn't make the Navy from the get-go was McNamara's folly, the combined service F-111. So, there is nothing special about the recent achievement of the F-35, it was required, expected, but late in demonstration as has been the whole F-35 program in general. For what the American taxpayers are paying for this airplane, and associated partners will pay, the road ahead will become much more interesting than today's Lockheed-Martin propaganda photos of landings and take-offs. Exactly how does the US Navy intend to use the F-35? It is over weight, lacking design speed, unable to take on G forces of fighters that have been in service for 25 years and doesn't have the range that it was supposedly designed to have. Is it a stand alone fighter or does it need continued support from the F-18 SuperHornet and/or the next generation Hornet to protect it from adversaries? Will the Navy need a special refueling transport to assist the F-35 on its way and return to the carrier given its less than optimal range? How will all the razzle dazzle electronic systems hold up in the salt water environment? What will be the flight readiness capability of the onboard fleet of F-35s? Maybe Lockheed-Martin will be able to address these questions once they are able to contain the cost to produce the F-35 which keeps going up and up and up…