Sandie,
Thank you.
LO,
I suggest that we should agree to disagree. Weight was a big issue on all three variants, and wing sizing was driven by a range of factors. The fact is that the A model (and the B model) have plenty of wing for what they were required to do. Weight drove a short wingspan as much as anything else. The JORD development process confirmed what many already knew - that success in combat depended as much (if not more) on the sensor and data fusion capability and weapons integration of the platform as it did on 'g' capability, or even sustained turn. Big wingspans weren't required.
I simply don't agree that the B's lift system is dead weight. The mission requirement is to operate from a ship. The lift system provides that. By your definition, landing gear is dead weight on an F-22. The F-35B is a STOVL aircraft. A lift system is essential to its mission. Clear to me.
The LockMart guy was wrong. As I said, compatibility with Invincible lifts was certainly looked at (diagrams of folding wingtips were drawn, but they were never anywhere being designed). The Invincible lift dimensions did not drive any aspects of F-35 design. If you want to disagree on this, feel free.
The F-35C isn't a 'porker' - it's what you get when you want an aircraft that can both fight and strike, with two large internal weapons bays, supersonic capability, and an ability to take off and land from a CVN at high weights. CATOBAR drove wing area and wing span, also the big structural penalties. From my experience on the T-45, I wasn't in the least surprised at the scale of the additional weight on the C.
CONOPS - see Para 5 of my previous reply. I'm done.
Best regards as ever to those working hard to bring new capabilities to the front line in good order. Not much else matters.
Engines