Heh, my first questions were regarding a particular engine that I thought, by its design, would be good for low-observables aircraft; when I started getting "I can't talk about that" and funny looks, I had a start. The real confirmation was when I went to work on the AGM/BGM-137 "TSSAM" which shared a lot of aerodynamics with TACIT BLUE.
As I said, I've an appreciation for Cessnas from having worked there (working with discrepant parts in MRB is quite the education for the young engineer).
I daresay that the F-35B can land anywhere the Yak-38 can and with less distrubance since it's got a lift fan rather than lift engines. That they can make three different versions on one assembly line is a triumph of careful planning and good engineering.
While most focus for low observables, is on turbine engines, perhaps a ducted fan would be a better choice. After all, that's what the TF-34 hi-bypass turbofan engine is. the advantage would be a much quieter engine with a nearly undetectable IR signature. The down side would be a less powerful engine and a slower airplane.
I do like the low-winged Cessna's. 'Nuff sed there.
I didn't know the F-35 was rough-field capable. That's a tactical advantage anywhere. I do like the fact that they designed the aircraft to be modular and interchangeable. With only a few switches in basic parts, one is the other.
(I've always wondered how a Williams F-107 engine would work in a small home-built? Maybe a Long EZ or a BD-10?)