Should the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II have been assigned a "V" Vehicle Type, similar to the the AV-8 Harrier?

Just to clear things up, I will quote from the latest edition of AFI16-401 DESIGNATING AND NAMING DEFENSE MILITARY AEROSPACE VEHICLES (3 November 2020).

Page 20:

A2.1.5. Vehicle Type:

A2.1.5.1. Is a required designator symbol for all non-standard aircraft (e.g., helicopters,
vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) vehicles, spaceplanes, etc.), guided missiles, rockets,
probes, boosters, and satellites only. A basic mission or modified mission symbol must
accompany the vehicle type symbol. (T-0)

A2.1.5.2. It will appear to the immediate left of the design number, separated by a dash.

A2.1.5.3. For example, in the designator CH-53A, the vehicle type symbol “H” indicates
the aerospace vehicle is a helicopter with a basic mission of transport “C."

From Table A3.1 on page 24, under Vehicle Type: "V – VTOL/STOL"

Here is a list of designations in the "V" vehicle type series:

• Grumman OV-1 Mohawk
• de Havilland Canada CV-2 Caribou
• Bell XV-3
• Lockheed XV-4 Hummingbird
• Ryan XV-5 Vertifan
• Hawker XV-6 Kestrel
• de Havilland Canada CV-7 Buffalo
• Ryan XV-8
• Hawker Siddeley / BAe / McDonnell Douglas AV-8 Harrier & Harrier II (non-standard)
• Hughes XV-9
• Rockwell International OV-10 Bronco
• MSU XV-11 Marvel
• Rockwell XFV-12
• V-13 - not assigned
• V-14 - not assigned
• Bell XV-15
• Hawker Siddeley - McDonnell Douglas AV-16 Super Harrier (unbuilt)
• V-17 - reserved by US Army, but not assigned
• de Havilland Canada UV-18 Twin Otter
• V-19 - reserved by US Navy, but not assigned
• Pilatus UV-20 Chiricahua
• V-21 - reserved by US Navy, but no assigned
• Bell - Boeing V-22 Osprey
• Dominion Skytrader UV-23 Scout
• Aurora Flight Sciences XV-24

As can be seen from this list, is not necessary for a vehicle to have vertical take-off / landing ability to receive this vehicle type designation, so the F-35B certainly seems like it should have this designation.

However, the F-35 is unique in that there are three different versions based on a (relatively) common airframe (A land-based CTOL, B land- and shipbased STOVL, C, shipbased CATOBAR / CTOL).

There is another aspect to the F-35 designation that is non-standard, and that is the "35" design number. Design number sequences are supposed to be unique per each Basic Mission or Vehicle Type. For example, the A-1 Skyraider, B-1 Lancer, C-1 Trader, E-1 Tracer, F-1 Fury, O-1 Bird Dog, TR-1, T-1 SeaStar, U-1 Otter, UH-1 Iroquois, AH-1 Cobra, MQ-1 Predator, OV-1 Mohawk, etc. are all designated in different numerical series. Just because they all share a "1" does not mean that they are the same airframe (even though a couple of them happen to be related, like the C-1 & E-1 and UH-1 & AH-1). So, when the X-35 JSF was selected for production, it should have received a completely new designation in the Fighter Basic Mission numerical series. At the time, that number was probably "24", so it should have been designated F-24. Instead, some DoD weenie just changed the designation from "X-35" to "F-35". Source

So where am I going with this? Well, if it had been designated correctly, the USAF version could have been the F-24A, and the USN version could have been the F-24B. The USMC version could have been designated FV-24A (since "24" was the next available number in the V vehicle type series at the time). Nice and neat, in my opinion, but that's just me.