JSF and A400M at risk?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harrier III anybody?
... it would be a lot cheaper, simpler, quicker to produce and give you a stovl capability while concentrating development effort on the ctol f35 variants. That's if you really need this niche capability. A cynic might argue that the usmc are only currently using their Harriers off austere strips to demonstrate that the capability is still required.....
Last edited by Father Jack Hackett; 13th Mar 2010 at 10:04.
A cynic might argue that the usmc are only currently using their Harriers off austere strips to demonstrate that the capibility is still required.....
If he's brave enough.....
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
We've been through this before (earlier on this thread, too) - FJH is fundamentally right. AV-8B+ / Harrier II++ would be good enough for a MEU/MAGTAF/MEB (or whatever) for the vast majority of times that the MEU/MEB/MAGTAF weren't operating against the first night of the war against late model SAMs and credible BVR shooters - for which the US would almost certainly send a CVN with F-35C / Dave-C. Dave-B is a massive waste of money as the CONOPS make no sense - scrap it now and go with Dave-C.
S41
We've been through this before (earlier on this thread, too) - FJH is fundamentally right. AV-8B+ / Harrier II++ would be good enough for a MEU/MAGTAF/MEB (or whatever) for the vast majority of times that the MEU/MEB/MAGTAF weren't operating against the first night of the war against late model SAMs and credible BVR shooters - for which the US would almost certainly send a CVN with F-35C / Dave-C. Dave-B is a massive waste of money as the CONOPS make no sense - scrap it now and go with Dave-C.
S41
2 free internetz for Squirrel 41... and here is where the Marines admit it.
Responding to a question about the air combat capability of the F-35, Thiessen said that was "no concern. If you are in a fight like that there is a complex air defense system, one element of which is the aircraft - and if we're in that kind of fight we're not going to be there by ourselves."
Responding to a question about the air combat capability of the F-35, Thiessen said that was "no concern. If you are in a fight like that there is a complex air defense system, one element of which is the aircraft - and if we're in that kind of fight we're not going to be there by ourselves."
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for Algy ...
Now that the A400M MSN 1 is ensconced at Toulouse, I found myself wondering whether the callsign "Grizzly 1" is a gentle Airbus Military in-joke, obliquely referring to the Bear's mighty Kuznetsovs ...
(Coat, getting ...)
(Coat, getting ...)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About That Austere-Base Thing...
That austere base stuff is a phony issue. Here's the principal base for F-35B's:
The USA’s New LHA-R Ships: Carrier Air + Amphibious Assault
...The end product is essentially a revival of the World War 2 escort carrier concept, with integrated berthing, cargo, and light vehicle spaces for Marines. LHA-R ships will be almost 80 feet longer than USS Wasp and 10 feet wider, since they don’t have to fit through the Panama Canal. As a result, these ships will weigh in at 50,000 tons/ 45,700t fully loaded rather than 42,400t full load for LHD 8. Though DID uses the term “escort carriers” due to the size of their aerial complement, note that their overall displacement will be larger than France’s 43,000t FNS Charles De Gaulle nuclear powered aircraft carrier. ...
That austere base stuff is a phony issue. Here's the principal base for F-35B's:
The USA’s New LHA-R Ships: Carrier Air + Amphibious Assault
...The end product is essentially a revival of the World War 2 escort carrier concept, with integrated berthing, cargo, and light vehicle spaces for Marines. LHA-R ships will be almost 80 feet longer than USS Wasp and 10 feet wider, since they don’t have to fit through the Panama Canal. As a result, these ships will weigh in at 50,000 tons/ 45,700t fully loaded rather than 42,400t full load for LHD 8. Though DID uses the term “escort carriers” due to the size of their aerial complement, note that their overall displacement will be larger than France’s 43,000t FNS Charles De Gaulle nuclear powered aircraft carrier. ...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
ME, that's not true.
Whilst the main platform for an F-35B might be an LHA-R, as with with the AV8-B it needs to be available within 5m of the troops o the ground.
The usual means of doing so is to cycle forward to an onshore FOB where you can refuel re-arm near the FEBA. That's normally done on a PSP or quickly laid concrete platform.
If there's a larger length strip it will be used by forward deployed USN or USAF units with greater payload and sensors.
If you assume an LHA-R within effective range, you must presume a CVA to protect it, in which case why the LHA?
Whilst the main platform for an F-35B might be an LHA-R, as with with the AV8-B it needs to be available within 5m of the troops o the ground.
The usual means of doing so is to cycle forward to an onshore FOB where you can refuel re-arm near the FEBA. That's normally done on a PSP or quickly laid concrete platform.
If there's a larger length strip it will be used by forward deployed USN or USAF units with greater payload and sensors.
If you assume an LHA-R within effective range, you must presume a CVA to protect it, in which case why the LHA?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The INTRODUCER"
Grizzly and all that...
JP...all to do with hunch-shouldered ursine look from front quarter angle...a current test-pilot on the team does a passable imitation. 
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Bill Sweetman has another go at JSF on Ares: Kitten Hunting.
Of interest is the link to the Danish article in the comments area. Anyone around who speaks Danish and can provide a translation? : "Defense drops JSF, supports Super Hornet"
---------------------------------------------------
Sweetman/Ares obviously saw the same comment and went digging:
Denmark Bails From JSF - Report
Denmark's defense ministry is ready to recommend designating the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as its next fighter, in place of the delayed and more expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, according to a report on Danish radio.
According to the report, the Danish decision has been in the works for some months and currently awaits an auditor's review before being forwarded to the full government and to parliament. The Gripen NG has also been ruled out - not a big surprise to Saab, which has scaled back its campaign in Denmark.
Uncertainty about the country's choice of the JSF has risen in recent months, in the context of the program's own difficulties and a recent series of major government procurements gone awry: EH101 Merlin helicopters which were sold back to the UK, Sagen Sperwer UAVs deactivated and sold to Canada, and the much delayed IC4 high-speed train project.
Denmark is also likely to delay both its decision and the delivery date for new fighters, which are expected to enter service in 2017-18. Delays to JSF and the Pentagon's continued consideration of a further multi-year Super Hornet buy mean that the Boeing fighter is more likely to stay in production until then, and extend its retirement date.
Of interest is the link to the Danish article in the comments area. Anyone around who speaks Danish and can provide a translation? : "Defense drops JSF, supports Super Hornet"
---------------------------------------------------
Sweetman/Ares obviously saw the same comment and went digging:
Denmark Bails From JSF - Report
Denmark's defense ministry is ready to recommend designating the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as its next fighter, in place of the delayed and more expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, according to a report on Danish radio.
According to the report, the Danish decision has been in the works for some months and currently awaits an auditor's review before being forwarded to the full government and to parliament. The Gripen NG has also been ruled out - not a big surprise to Saab, which has scaled back its campaign in Denmark.
Uncertainty about the country's choice of the JSF has risen in recent months, in the context of the program's own difficulties and a recent series of major government procurements gone awry: EH101 Merlin helicopters which were sold back to the UK, Sagen Sperwer UAVs deactivated and sold to Canada, and the much delayed IC4 high-speed train project.
Denmark is also likely to delay both its decision and the delivery date for new fighters, which are expected to enter service in 2017-18. Delays to JSF and the Pentagon's continued consideration of a further multi-year Super Hornet buy mean that the Boeing fighter is more likely to stay in production until then, and extend its retirement date.
Last edited by ORAC; 15th Mar 2010 at 16:12.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a question then:
Mr Sweetman's job is to sell magazines, and nothing sells magazines and newspapers like a headline-grabbing story of bad news (regardless of the accuracy of the 'facts' quoted, and some of Mr Sweetman's 'facts' have been quite wrong in the very recent past, and his last article shows a beautiful economy with the truth when it suits him). The current fashion is for relatively un-informed journos and academics, bloggers etc (who postulate on defense matters while never having to actually consider putting their life at risk to test their theories) to bad mouth the F-35. It's the cool thing to do. Some of these journos & bloggers, who probably haven't ever picked up an MCDP, have decided that they should be more authoritative on USMC doctrine than professional warfighters who've studied and refined amphibious warfare for their entire careers.
Lockheed's job is to sell airplanes, so they've got a strong interest in avoiding the bad news and focusing on the good.
Military personnel and politicians responsible for making huge budgetary decisions have a strong interest in buying the best possible equipment to fulfill their perceived requirements, at the best possible price. The overwhelming majority of this group of people who have been briefed at the appropriate level are ardent supporters of the airplane.
So who would you listen to - the informed buyer who's done his research, the salesman, or the journo who's trying to sell his paper / blogger trying to sound as if he knows what he's talking about?
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Mr Sweetman's job is to sell magazines, and nothing sells magazines and newspapers like a headline-grabbing story of bad news (regardless of the accuracy of the 'facts' quoted, and some of Mr Sweetman's 'facts' have been quite wrong in the very recent past, and his last article shows a beautiful economy with the truth when it suits him). The current fashion is for relatively un-informed journos and academics, bloggers etc (who postulate on defense matters while never having to actually consider putting their life at risk to test their theories) to bad mouth the F-35. It's the cool thing to do. Some of these journos & bloggers, who probably haven't ever picked up an MCDP, have decided that they should be more authoritative on USMC doctrine than professional warfighters who've studied and refined amphibious warfare for their entire careers.
Lockheed's job is to sell airplanes, so they've got a strong interest in avoiding the bad news and focusing on the good.
Military personnel and politicians responsible for making huge budgetary decisions have a strong interest in buying the best possible equipment to fulfill their perceived requirements, at the best possible price. The overwhelming majority of this group of people who have been briefed at the appropriate level are ardent supporters of the airplane.
So who would you listen to - the informed buyer who's done his research, the salesman, or the journo who's trying to sell his paper / blogger trying to sound as if he knows what he's talking about?
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSETOWTF,
Touche - but the point is that the military types are also blinded to the cost (and in the UK let's look at the Nimrod MRA4, T45, Astute for starters where the numbers of platforms get cut and cut again - driving the unit cost through the ceiling), meaning that they're not always right.
So I'd prefer to listen to the CBO and the GAO.
What's your answer to the discussion earlier in this thread that Dave-B is unnecessary for the USMC as their CONOPS makes no sense? I presume that the RN (assuming that CVF goes ahead) would prefer Dave-C with Cats'n'Traps anyway.
(And no, Harrier-Bows at airshows should not be a KUR.....sorry)
S41
Touche - but the point is that the military types are also blinded to the cost (and in the UK let's look at the Nimrod MRA4, T45, Astute for starters where the numbers of platforms get cut and cut again - driving the unit cost through the ceiling), meaning that they're not always right.
So I'd prefer to listen to the CBO and the GAO.
What's your answer to the discussion earlier in this thread that Dave-B is unnecessary for the USMC as their CONOPS makes no sense? I presume that the RN (assuming that CVF goes ahead) would prefer Dave-C with Cats'n'Traps anyway.
(And no, Harrier-Bows at airshows should not be a KUR.....sorry)
S41
SSSETOWTF
This appears to be the second time around that you've vented about Sweetman's lies and inaccuracies without actually deploying relevant facts of your own.
It's clearly frustrating to be involved in a program that is moving as slowly and with as much difficulty as JSF, but I would suggest that maybe some counseling would be a better idea than engaging in personal attacks.
This appears to be the second time around that you've vented about Sweetman's lies and inaccuracies without actually deploying relevant facts of your own.
It's clearly frustrating to be involved in a program that is moving as slowly and with as much difficulty as JSF, but I would suggest that maybe some counseling would be a better idea than engaging in personal attacks.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
Chap, it was hardly a vent. Mr Sweetman had been quoted again as a great authority. I re-made the point that I don't subscribe to that point of view, based on my personal knowledge (because my office is an awful lot closer to the flightline than his). But no, I'm afraid it would be totally inappropriate for me to deploy my facts on a website - if you want facts may I suggest you contact the JSF Program Office who I'm sure will be happy to help you (and Mr Sweetman to get his story straight).
I'm afraid I struggle to see what on earth you're on about with the 'personal attacks' comment? Could you help me out? Rest assured though, I don't need counseling - the frustrations of reading some of the nonsense written about the program are vastly out-weighed by the fun I have every day.
S41,
A comprehensive answer to your question would take an awful lot of space, and LO would probably accuse me of ranting again, but the CONOPS make a lot of sense to the people that have to use them. If you're planning on taking over an existing bare-base ashore and pushing your aircraft forward, you have many more options available to you if you can work off unimproved 3000-6000ft strips without arresting gear, as opposed to needing 10000ft and a cable at both ends. If you're working off a 'small' deck LHA/D, the ship has a shallower draft than a CVN and can get that much closer to the beach. In both cases you don't need the long legs of a -C, and you need the lift fan of the -B. I'm quite sure the USMC have done their math, put a lot of pins in a map of all the short runways in the world and come to the conclusion that the -B fits their requirements nicely. The airplane may cost a little more, but you save quite a bit of cash not having to train for cats & traps (ie needing a training aircraft and all that deck time), not having to recruit & pay & pension dozens of deck crew on each boat to man the cats and steam generators etc. Similarly the USN requirement for the -C (and its longer range) is based on the fact that it will need those legs to fly some of its missions from the CVOAs.
You bring up a very good point though, the inability of the -B to bow at airshows, and to taxi with the canopy open are major design flaws, but I guess we'll have to live with them.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Chap, it was hardly a vent. Mr Sweetman had been quoted again as a great authority. I re-made the point that I don't subscribe to that point of view, based on my personal knowledge (because my office is an awful lot closer to the flightline than his). But no, I'm afraid it would be totally inappropriate for me to deploy my facts on a website - if you want facts may I suggest you contact the JSF Program Office who I'm sure will be happy to help you (and Mr Sweetman to get his story straight).
I'm afraid I struggle to see what on earth you're on about with the 'personal attacks' comment? Could you help me out? Rest assured though, I don't need counseling - the frustrations of reading some of the nonsense written about the program are vastly out-weighed by the fun I have every day.
S41,
A comprehensive answer to your question would take an awful lot of space, and LO would probably accuse me of ranting again, but the CONOPS make a lot of sense to the people that have to use them. If you're planning on taking over an existing bare-base ashore and pushing your aircraft forward, you have many more options available to you if you can work off unimproved 3000-6000ft strips without arresting gear, as opposed to needing 10000ft and a cable at both ends. If you're working off a 'small' deck LHA/D, the ship has a shallower draft than a CVN and can get that much closer to the beach. In both cases you don't need the long legs of a -C, and you need the lift fan of the -B. I'm quite sure the USMC have done their math, put a lot of pins in a map of all the short runways in the world and come to the conclusion that the -B fits their requirements nicely. The airplane may cost a little more, but you save quite a bit of cash not having to train for cats & traps (ie needing a training aircraft and all that deck time), not having to recruit & pay & pension dozens of deck crew on each boat to man the cats and steam generators etc. Similarly the USN requirement for the -C (and its longer range) is based on the fact that it will need those legs to fly some of its missions from the CVOAs.
You bring up a very good point though, the inability of the -B to bow at airshows, and to taxi with the canopy open are major design flaws, but I guess we'll have to live with them.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Navy Times: NavAir admiral tapped to run JSF program
A three-star Navy admiral has been nominated to take over the troubled Joint Strike Fighter program, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.
Vice Adm. David Venlet, who runs Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Md., was nominated to lead the joint program office that is developing the F-35 Lightning II, the most expensive procurement program in Pentagon history.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the previous program manager, Marine Maj. Gen. David Heinz, in February.
Venlet, a former F-14 Tomcat pilot, has engineering degrees from the Naval Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School. He is also former test pilot at the Naval Air Test Center in Maryland......
A three-star Navy admiral has been nominated to take over the troubled Joint Strike Fighter program, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.
Vice Adm. David Venlet, who runs Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Md., was nominated to lead the joint program office that is developing the F-35 Lightning II, the most expensive procurement program in Pentagon history.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the previous program manager, Marine Maj. Gen. David Heinz, in February.
Venlet, a former F-14 Tomcat pilot, has engineering degrees from the Naval Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School. He is also former test pilot at the Naval Air Test Center in Maryland......
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,021
Received 2,900 Likes
on
1,242 Posts
Carter Confirms JSF Unit Price Nearly Doubled | AVIATION WEEK
Blurb:
Carter Confirms JSF Unit Price Nearly Doubled
The average per unit cost of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has substantially increased, from $50 million to up to $95 million, Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter told senators March 11 on Capitol Hill.
In today’s dollars, the per unit cost is estimated to be $112 million per unit.
The first development estimate was made in 2001 in Fiscal 2002 dollars when Lockheed received its contract for development, which is now estimated at $50 billion. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked whether Lockheed Martin knowingly “bought into” the program by proposing an unrealistically low price during the competition with Boeing and later recouping the money through repeated cost overruns. This is a “pattern that would match that,” Carter said during the hearing in reply.
The average per unit cost incorporates the entire price of the program, including development, procurement and fielding.This massive overrun means the U.S. Air Force will notify Congress “within days” of the program’s “critical” breach of cost overrun limits included in the Nunn-McCurdy statute (Aerospace DAILY, March 3). This will trigger a mandatory review of alternatives for the program.
The figures presume a purchase of 2,443 aircraft by the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
Also, as a result of the 13-month development delay, the Air Force has again reassessed its initial operational capability (IOC) date for the F-35, which is now expected in 2016. Only last week officials said it would be 2015. However, Carter’s March 3 JSF acquisition decision memorandum updates the closure of operational testing to be in April 2016, prompting the Air Force’s new date. The Navy also plans to declare IOC in 2016. The Marine Corps still says it will reach IOC in 2012 with JSF.
Factors contributing to the cost increase include a weight-reduction initiative in 2006 for the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing version for the Marine Corps, delayed development schedule, increased labor and overhead rates, degradation of airframe commonality, reduced production quantities, increases in commodity prices (particularly titanium) and major subcontractor cost growth, Carter says.
It appears, however, that the Pentagon is eager to move forward with the program. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said last week that no viable alternatives exist for the single-engine, stealthy F-35.
Carter told senators that he had been proceeding with management of JSF since November as if it had already been in a Nunn-McCurdy breach. Measures taken to shore up the program include an extra $2.8 billion added to development, substantially lower production ramp up (which takes place in parallel with flight testing) and the addition of more flight test assets and software testing facilities. The senior program officer, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. David Heinz, also was dismissed, and his position was elevated to a three-star level
Blurb:
Carter Confirms JSF Unit Price Nearly Doubled
The average per unit cost of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has substantially increased, from $50 million to up to $95 million, Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter told senators March 11 on Capitol Hill.
In today’s dollars, the per unit cost is estimated to be $112 million per unit.
The first development estimate was made in 2001 in Fiscal 2002 dollars when Lockheed received its contract for development, which is now estimated at $50 billion. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked whether Lockheed Martin knowingly “bought into” the program by proposing an unrealistically low price during the competition with Boeing and later recouping the money through repeated cost overruns. This is a “pattern that would match that,” Carter said during the hearing in reply.
The average per unit cost incorporates the entire price of the program, including development, procurement and fielding.This massive overrun means the U.S. Air Force will notify Congress “within days” of the program’s “critical” breach of cost overrun limits included in the Nunn-McCurdy statute (Aerospace DAILY, March 3). This will trigger a mandatory review of alternatives for the program.
The figures presume a purchase of 2,443 aircraft by the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
Also, as a result of the 13-month development delay, the Air Force has again reassessed its initial operational capability (IOC) date for the F-35, which is now expected in 2016. Only last week officials said it would be 2015. However, Carter’s March 3 JSF acquisition decision memorandum updates the closure of operational testing to be in April 2016, prompting the Air Force’s new date. The Navy also plans to declare IOC in 2016. The Marine Corps still says it will reach IOC in 2012 with JSF.
Factors contributing to the cost increase include a weight-reduction initiative in 2006 for the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing version for the Marine Corps, delayed development schedule, increased labor and overhead rates, degradation of airframe commonality, reduced production quantities, increases in commodity prices (particularly titanium) and major subcontractor cost growth, Carter says.
It appears, however, that the Pentagon is eager to move forward with the program. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said last week that no viable alternatives exist for the single-engine, stealthy F-35.
Carter told senators that he had been proceeding with management of JSF since November as if it had already been in a Nunn-McCurdy breach. Measures taken to shore up the program include an extra $2.8 billion added to development, substantially lower production ramp up (which takes place in parallel with flight testing) and the addition of more flight test assets and software testing facilities. The senior program officer, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. David Heinz, also was dismissed, and his position was elevated to a three-star level
SSSETEOWF
Describing someone as a liar is generally considered a personal attack, and indeed a professional one. But since Bill Sweetman hasn't sent for lawyers, guns and money to track you down, he must be above it.
At a basic level, the CONOPS based on a 3000-6000 foot runway makes a certain kind of sense. It's also the basis for things like C-17s, in that there are lot of runways around the world that can't handle US fast jets.
However, having been in a lot of meetings when pre-JSF ideas were being hashed around, I can make a couple of observations. One was that the runway length goal was under 2000 feet - I remember one Marine guy saying "if there isn't 1500 feet of straight road in the country I question why we should be there."
Another was that (as happens all too often) the runway quality was usually overlooked. I don't have access to the JSF KPPs in detail, but I don't remember that issue coming up publicly in that context. A 3000-foot strip in Filthistan is not likely to be made of ICAO-spec, 747-proof concrete. Yes, you can reduce the point loads with a short landing, but you've also got a somewhat larger area that may need reinforcing.
At sea: You gain 10 feet of draft relative to a CVN, and perhaps a ship guy (paging Mr Boffin to the thread, please) could tell us how big of a deal that is. You gain on the swings of less training but lose on the roundabouts of maintenance, with a lot of mechanical bits - and if that was the goal I'd take the B-model billions and spend them on CV autoland.
Indeed, when the CONOPS starts to involve 3000-foot strips, 800-foot, 50000-ton ships and SRVLs, and your primary mission is CAS, you do wonder why you need an F-22-priced supersonic stealth jet capable of vertical landing, or whether a rebooted A2D-1 Skyshark would do the job.
Describing someone as a liar is generally considered a personal attack, and indeed a professional one. But since Bill Sweetman hasn't sent for lawyers, guns and money to track you down, he must be above it.
At a basic level, the CONOPS based on a 3000-6000 foot runway makes a certain kind of sense. It's also the basis for things like C-17s, in that there are lot of runways around the world that can't handle US fast jets.
However, having been in a lot of meetings when pre-JSF ideas were being hashed around, I can make a couple of observations. One was that the runway length goal was under 2000 feet - I remember one Marine guy saying "if there isn't 1500 feet of straight road in the country I question why we should be there."
Another was that (as happens all too often) the runway quality was usually overlooked. I don't have access to the JSF KPPs in detail, but I don't remember that issue coming up publicly in that context. A 3000-foot strip in Filthistan is not likely to be made of ICAO-spec, 747-proof concrete. Yes, you can reduce the point loads with a short landing, but you've also got a somewhat larger area that may need reinforcing.
At sea: You gain 10 feet of draft relative to a CVN, and perhaps a ship guy (paging Mr Boffin to the thread, please) could tell us how big of a deal that is. You gain on the swings of less training but lose on the roundabouts of maintenance, with a lot of mechanical bits - and if that was the goal I'd take the B-model billions and spend them on CV autoland.
Indeed, when the CONOPS starts to involve 3000-foot strips, 800-foot, 50000-ton ships and SRVLs, and your primary mission is CAS, you do wonder why you need an F-22-priced supersonic stealth jet capable of vertical landing, or whether a rebooted A2D-1 Skyshark would do the job.