FB and Others,
Thanks for the supportive comments. I'm probably pushing my luck, but I'll try to provide some information that might be useful.
Wingspan constraints - Spaz is right on the money with his quote from Eric Ryberg - the F-35B wing span was effectively constrained by a USMC requirement to park 6 jets aft of the LHA's island. There were some early ideas around getting the aircraft down UK CVS lifts (including unpowered 'drop down' wing tips) but these were all canned when the UK made it clear that the aircraft wouldn't be operated from CVS. The Uk's remaining requirements affecting ship ops were around the ski jump capability.
I think it's slightly harsh to say that LM 'didn't have a clue' how to build the aircraft. But LM did get their initial weight estimates badly wrong. I think the main reason was that their 'parametric weight estimation tools', which were based on building aircraft like the F-16, did not reflect the challenges of building an airframe with lots of big holes in it, like weapons bays and lift fan compartments. You can't pass load through thin air, so the structure has to go around the holes.
LM were told it was going to be very hard to build a STOVL aircraft within the weight budget, BAe's team at Farnborough (many ex Kingston) were flagging this as a major risk. Sadly, LM ignored them, and also ignored the NavAir weight estimation team, who were equipped with very good tools. It's also important to appreciate that all three variants had a weight issue. The B's was worst, as VL leaves just thrust and weight, but the A and the C were also very badly affected, especially their overall performance.
FB, as I've said, I agree that 138 B models doesn't appear to reflect the shipboard task. Surging to fully equip two carriers (say 24 apiece) should require no more than, say, 60 jets. That would leave 78 As for land based tasks. As I said in my last post, these are just guesses, the clever people in the staffs have got to square the circle.
What the UK can't have is a repeat of the bunfights that blighted Joint Force Harrier, with two services fighting (eventually to the death for both of them) over what they wanted their STOVL aircraft to do.
Alert - Engines opinion coming. It's my honest belief that the RAF are a highly professional, well trained and well equipped land based air force. However, they have never, so far, demonstrated any real commitment to the idea of maritime based air power. This, I suppose, is their big chance. Me, I'd give the RAF the aircraft they need and the Navy the aircraft they need, with common procurement, support, logistics and training systems.
But hey, I'm just a retired engineer.
Best regards as ever to all those managing the weight issues,
Engines