Wasn’t the F-35 meant to be the version of the F-22 that’s carrier capable?
No. The F22 is an air superiority fighter. I had the honor of working on the F35, in a small way, from 2007 thru 2015. The F35 was designed as a fighter/ground attack do everything bomb truck. Actually it does everything it was designed to do, Very well. But its fundamental performance is somewhat compromised by its do everything mission. Its true outstanding feature is its survivability.
Wasn’t the F-35 meant to be the version of the F-22 that’s carrier capable?
No. Completely different mission concept.
The F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter. The F-35 is multi-role including some ground attack. (But NOT close air support like the A-10.)
“Wasn’t the F-35 meant to be the version of the F-22 that’s carrier capable?”
That may have been the beginning of the problem. Soon some general wanted it to be able to have access to rough terrain, terrain which was in tight quarters, e.g. can it include VTOL capability, how about this and how about that until everybody was satisfied that it did what each of those flag officers wanted, except with all the ornaments hung on the treee, there was no room for the “gift”, i.e., it wasn’t mission capable.
“Wasn’t the F-35 meant to be the version of the F-22 that’s carrier capable?”
No. The F-35 is primarily an attack aircraft (bomber). The F-22 is for “air dominance”.
“Wasn’t the F-35 meant to be the version of the F-22 that’s carrier capable?:
No.
Different missions. F22 Raptor is air superiority fighter.
F35 is multi role focusing on attack aircraft or the former, “fighter bomber” role.