I've got very few concerns about the plane's development problems as every single airplane ever built had to overcome problems....that's why it's called development. Flight test is specifically intended to uncover problems so they can be fixed. Sure, lots make a living by criticizing things that aren't quite right but then those same people usually don't understand what they're talking about and many have other motives. Burning holes in decks or a skipping tailhook sound like big deals to folks that don't understand the complexities and realities of aircraft development but these types of problems are almost always solvable either through engineering or procedure. Remember the original Hornet's cracking tails? Fixed with doubler plates at the fin root and strakes added to the leading edge extension. The F-14B/D burning holes in jet blast deflectors? Fixed by simply not using afterburner during a cat launch. Skipping tailhook? I'm guessing it'll be solved by some combination of these rather mundane fixes: redesign of the hook point, lengthen the entire tailhook assembly, adjust/change the tailhook dashpot, or change the approach speed to change the approach AoA and hook to eye distance. Will it cost money to fix? Sure it will but there is no such thing as a perfect airplane leaping directly from the drawing board to our CVN decks.
Unfortunately, I have far more confidence in the ability of American companies to produce superior products than I have in any American politician's ability to make rational decisions. The grim reality is that DoD is 19% of the national budget but is taking 50% of the cuts mandated by sequestration. We're already losing one CVN (technically not "officially" gone but for all intents and purposes it is) and they're rescheduling the production of new CVNs from one every four years to one every five. This will actually drive up the cost not only of the CVNs but of all the other ship work being done by our now very limited shipbuilding capabilities. In addition to the loss of CVNs they're already accelerating the retirement of many of our other ships as well as yet more reductions in force.
Of course, there's the little detail that the actual cost of the "low end" F-35 is now pretty much equal to the "high end" F-22 at about $200M per copy. Did the program guys and contractors lie when they first started development of this plane? No, probably not, but then they originally costed the thing out based on amortizing the development costs across the thousands of airplanes the government said it would buy. Do the program guys and contractors have a problem admitting the hole they're in? Yes, absolutely. Think of it this way. You're a contractor that sells a program to the government at a fair price but then the government decides it needs to buy condoms for union workers building unprofitable electric cars that nobody wants so it reneges on the deal and wants now to just buy half as many planes and, OBTW, they also want you to add in new capabilities X, Y, and Z all at the original fair price. You now have three choices; either eat the cost increases (which is nearly impossible with a program of this size), pass on the price increase to the government (and likely be accused of being a war profiteer and get the whole program cancelled), or you fudge and hope you get far enough into the program that it'll be considered "too big to fail." That is the unfortunate way that things are when dealing with the US Government. There are liars and cheaters on both sides of this equation but in my experience most of the problems are started by the government (i.e., politicians) that thinks a contract isn't binding but merely a list of suggestions (like the Constitution) while the defense contractors get far more than their fair share of the blame.
If Mace were making the call we'd be buying fewer cell phones for poor people and instead bite the bullet and continue with the F-35 but the bottom line here is the Navy probably isn't going to be able to afford it. I'd also guess the Marines are in the same boat with the F-35B. UAV's can't do the job and won't be able to for any reasonably foreseeable future so those of you suggesting that'll solve the problem can drop that idea. Try to do as much with a UAV as you can with a manned airplane and guess what? The development cost and price of each UAV will be close to the manned airplane although you do save some of the costs related to aircrew. Even there the savings are exaggerated since you still need to train the UAV operators to fly and fight even if they're not sitting in a real cockpit.
Unless something major happens in the government such as eliminating the $1 Trillion program known as Obamacare we're going to be buying "free" condoms rather than new jets.
