Isn't the F-35 VTOL capable anyway? Wouldn't it already be able to use most "big enough" paved surfaces to land and take off?
A - Standard runway takeoff, carries the second most amount of fuel B - VTOL, carries the least amount of fuel C - Carrier launched, carries the most amount of fuel.
There are tradeoffs each version makes. The F35 is the plane of the future for NATO and other US allies. Having the A variant able to take off and land from a highway allows (theoretically) you to have the less expensive to maintain A variant and deploy it all over your highway areas (Norway) for example.
Sweden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90
> Like its predecessor, the Bas 90 system was based around defensive force dispersal of aircraft across many krigsflygbaser (wartime air bases) in case of war, as well as dispersion of the air base functions within the individual bases themselves. The air units would have been dispersed so one squadron (8-12 aircraft) would be stationed per krigsflygbas. The system was a protective measure against nuclear weapons and airstrikes, the purpose being to make it complicated for an opponent to destroy the Swedish Air Force on the ground and thus ensure endurance for the air force in a conflict scenario.
> The U.S. Marine Corps has already shown its ability to use its short and vertical takeoff and landing capable F-35Bs in this way, as The War Zone has previously reported.
Vertical takeoff is mostly an airshow demonstration- you can't carry a useful amount if fuel or weapons vertically, so in practice it's an STOVL rather than VTOL.