Indeed, the design of Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) airframes differs from those intended for conventional takeoff and landing. Considering that the production quantity of the STOVL version is not planned to match that of 'land' or 'carrier' types, a pertinent question arises: was it truly necessary to create a unified airframe for all three variants? Does this approach genuinely yield cost savings? It seems more economically efficient to engineer two distinct airframe types—one shared between land-based and carrier-based, and another for STOVL—with some common elements, rather than crafting a singular airframe suitable for all takeoff types, especially given the anticipated lower production volume of STOVL planes. This perspective prompts a critical examination of the cost-effectiveness and practicality of a uniform airframe for varied takeoff and landing requirements.
