Originally Posted by
F15andMD11
There are serious concerns with the F-35, primarily in range and weight. The A and the C each have issues, the B is really in trouble, IMO. Do we really need STOL? Have the Marines ever used that capability from a remote strip? The B can't vertically takeoff, too heavy. It can only vertically land, and that's on a very well prepared surface. Forget highway strip, it will melt the asphalt. The B also can't land vertically with munitions that it returns with, again too heavy...really? Its so heavy, because if its required STOL gear that it has no range. We can save billions on that project alone.
A Harrier expert can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think:
Current marine corps use of the Harrier already deals with most of the limitations you attribute to the F-35B. The whole Marine corps aviation program off amphibious assault ships depends on STOL, so unless they're going to abandon that, then they need STOL. That's really where the STOL requirement comes in, not so much for remote strip ops.
Currently, the Harrier doesn't take off vertically with a combat load.
It also doesn't land with munitions because it's too heavy also.