TurbineD and others,
Perhaps I can help here with a few items on F-35C and getting aircraft on and off the deck.
Getting a aircraft to operate successfully from a flight deck is damned hard. There are plenty of examples of aircraft designs (as well as F-111) that never made it to deck operations. These include proposals for 'marinised' UK Lightnings, F-15 and even F-22 (amazingly, the USAF originally assumed a buy of over 200 'deck adapted' Raptors to bring the programme to 1000 aircraft). There are very few examples of a land based conventional jet operating successfully from a deck, the only one I can offer is the T-45 Goshawk, and that had plenty of challenges. Many well regarded carrier aircraft had fairly fraught initial deck trials and problems in their early careers.
Operating aircraft from a cat and trap carrier imposes a whole set of unique and very large loads into the airframe. The major ones are launch (aircraft rapidly accelerated to flying speed by loads applied to the bottom of the nose leg) and recovery (aircraft brought to halt by loads applied to the lower aft fuselage, with very large landing gear loads). These load cases generate massive internal structure - the F-35C carries round about two and a half tons of additional metal to handle these. The landing gear set on the C weights around two and a half times that on the A.
There are other driving requirements. The aircraft has to be able to land with very good control response at very low speeds (around 130 to 140 knots - driven by the capability of the CVN arresting gear). It's not surprising that the F-35C's main Key Performance Parameter (KPP) was its approach speed to the arresting wire. It also has to fly away safely after launch at a similar speed. This drives a larger wing and also larger control surfaces, plus uprated control actuators, and a special set of flight control laws.
There are many, many other ship specific requirements including pilot visibility, more stringent EEE, ground handling and taxying, anti-corrosion, weapon loading, etc. Oh, and finding space for a massive arresting hook system. (This is different to the emergency hook system on the A in almost every aspect, apart from general location of the airframe).
When you add all this lot together, you find that the available 'solution space' for a successful carrier aircraft is very, very small, and hard to get right. That's why the F-35 programme identified the successful ability to launch and recover an F-35C as a major technical risk early on in the programme.
And that's why the F-35 programme and the USN (who are releasing most of the material) are making a big deal about these sea trials. They are a major event, carry plenty of risk, and are being conducted in a glare of political interest. It's certainly something special. It only looks routine if you don't fully grasp just how hard it is. The USN do, and that's why they've got to this point.
Couple of points about the C - yes, that large wing (and the large wing tanks) delivers range, but the aircraft is the heaviest, the slowest accelerating of the three variants, with the worst sustained turn rate. It's also the least common of the three variants, and is the most expensive. In my view, a really good option for a GR4 replacement would be a 'big winged A' - all the advantage of the wing with less of the carrier weight. Replacing the A model boom receptacle with a probe and drogue would also, in my view, be a good move. I would bet a few pints that somewhere in LM a similar option is being looked at.
Final points for Turbine D -
1. The first really successful USN monoplane fighter aboard a carrier was (in my view) the Wildcat, which was instrumental in winning some of the early WW2 carrier battles. The Hellcat was a phenomenal USN fighter (and the most successful Allied fighter, land or sea based, of WW2), but not, in my view the first 'real' one.
2. All F-35 electronics are designed to operate in salt laden environments. Basic requirement, extensively tested with much USN input.
3. The F-35 will tank from whatever tankers are around, including F/A-18E/F
4. No, it can fight for itself without F/A-18 assistance.
5. The aircraft is within its weight targets, has the 'g' capability set out in the original requirement, and also meets original range and speed requirements. Sorry if this doesn't fit the usual perception, but there it is.
Hope this lot helps a little, of course others may and will disagree.
Best regards as ever to the people on flight decks making it happen,
Engines
PS: Thanks to Spaz for the excellent stuff you're posting.