Maybe someone more knowledgable about the history can chime in, but the first thought that entered my mind when you were discussing full deck carriers is that the F-35 was designed from the very beginning for international sales. Only a few nations have full deck carriers, while many more have helicopter carriers. It's not surprising then that there are 2 allies with F-35Bs, 3 allies with plans for the F-35B, and none for the F-35C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
Yes, that's true, but look at the F-35 orders. There are 563 orders for the B model out of 3200 total. The foreign customers are the UK with 138, to operate on their Queen Elizabeth carriers, 30 for Italy to operate on their small carriers, and 42 to Japan for the same.
In 2010, the UK decided to make the QE carriers ski-jump and operate the B model for cost reasons, however they considered making them CATOBAR and operate the C model. If the B model had not existed, they would have simply spent another couple of billion dollars to make them CATOBAR.
It's probably not practical from a budget and political standpoint for Japan and Italy to make CATOBAR carriers, but does it really make sense to compromise a 3200 aircraft program that's the backbone of the USAF and USN's fleet so that Italy and Japan can buy 72 aircraft? Italy and Japan could just buy tanker aircraft for long range power projection.
Your comments make up the most competent and comprehensive analysis I've seen on the F35 program; way more thorough than those presented in Congress or by the various involved aerospace companies. Are you involved in the project in any way?
I'm just an interested observer, but my observations are hardly unique. The same points have been made in many forums including congressional hearings.
Much of what I've seen in congressional hearings is so watered down and blame-shifted it is difficult to assemble into a coherent story. You did a great job of the spark notes version
