Comments by "VisibilityFoggy" (@VisibilityFoggy) on "" video.

The A and C variants are pretty similar – the C has the changes that, essentially, any fighter would have once it is navalized (much like the YF-17 was). The B is the MAJOR outlier, and it should have had a separate development cycle since some sacrifices had to be made to the other two variants. We should've skipped it and developed a purpose-built Harrier replacement with the UK for the Royal Navy and USMC (plus foreign customers).
3
The YF-22 was considered to be the more adaptable option for naval aviation. It's a small part of why it was chosen over the YF-23. Then there's the ill-fated FB-22 attempt.
1
@Fred-eg9sx First off, French carriers use CATOBAR like US carriers, so the Rafale-M was NOT designed for a ski-jump from conception. In fact, the Rafale-M can operate from U.S. carriers as well as access the elevators and hangar bay. Saab has also proposed the Gripen-E naval fighter, which is likely to be adopted by Brazil should they acquire another carrier, which is their ultimate goal. The rumor mill seems to state that could eventually order a QE class from the Brits. It's also in the running for India along with the Super Hornet and Rafale-M.
1
@Fred-eg9sx The Rafale-M and Super Hornet can both operate from ski-jumps. For the Super Hornet in particular, one was built at NAS Pax River in Maryland and used for testing, which was successful. The French did something similar. If you search, I know you can find images of the U.S. test jump system. They actually had a press event for it. Not sure if Saab did their naval work (thus far) in Sweden or if Embraer did that in Brazil.
1