Been reading Thompson's articles for some years, for better and for worse. I find his full disclosure to be of interest in putting his article in context.
Lockheed is a longtime contributor to my think tank and a consulting client
As to his previous article, one of the salient points remains a fixed reality since 2009 and I think predates the initiation of this very thread on PPRuNe Mil Aviation. (First post was 22nd Aug 2010, 18:51).
1. There is no alternative. When the Clinton Administration decided to replace the cold-war fighters of three services with variants of one aircraft, it made the joint strike fighter indispensable to the armed forces. Secretary Gates amplified that effect by terminating the F-22 — the only other fighter with comparable survivability. If F-35 were to falter, the defense department would have to begin crash programs to develop replacements for everything from Air Force F-16s to Marine jumpjets, and it would have no chance of fielding those replacements before the advanced age of existing fighters undermined U.S. air power.
While making more Super Hornets might help some customers, the point made in 2009 strikes me as still being true. (Cancellation of F-22 is still, to me, one of those teeth grinding moments).