Catapult reinforcement and vertical-landing limits on F-35B

Would catapult-launching an F-35B while retaining vertical landing be useful?

The answer doubts the benefit: catapult reinforcement adds weight while vertical landing still limits the fuel and weapons the aircraft can bring back aboard.

Catapult launch would let the proposed F-35B leave the deck with a heavier load, but its airframe would need reinforcement to withstand the launch stresses. That reinforcement adds weight to an aircraft which must still return light enough for a vertical landing. The answer expects severe constraints on the fuel and weapons that could be brought back aboard. It acknowledges claimed advantages involving higher sea states and dispensing with the ramp, while arguing that the combined requirements would make the airframe expensive. A speculative structural solution uses titanium along much of the aircraft's length, with the qualification that titanium components are already recalled as particularly costly. The panel then asks why a navy would accept the B variant's compromises if it was no longer using its short-deck takeoff capability.