The point was (at the time) valid to some extent, but was much easier to defend on the basis of the 2009 program of record, which still showed IOCs in 2012-15. (That was clearly moonshine, but it was the official moonshine.)
The "no alternative" argument also begged the question, incorporating the assumption that an alternative had to comply with the entire JSF requirement - CV, STOVL and all. The proper question at the time was "how do we best invest in US air combat forces, given what we now know is the real cost of JSF"?
And the hand-wringing over the "advanced age of existing fighters" is a little hard to read today, now that the last US airplane to be replaced by JSF (in 2046) will be at least 50 years old.