Archimedes,
That is an interesting story...
More interesting still are the Marine counter arguments presented, which bear no relationship to reality.
The Marines say the STOVL aircraft outperforms the C model in all kinds of missions except carrier-based ones. Tosh! The B has markedly inferior weapon load and range, and a higher wing loading in combat conditions which will make it less agile.
(Navy says the B will) reduce flexibility in carrier-deck operations. Marines: That won’t be known until flight tests begin. Horsefeathers. It's entirely feasible to model that. And it would be entertaining in the extreme to watch F-35Bs - creeping slowly to a vertical landing, but needing a goodish run to get off the deck - integrated into a cat-arrest cycle.
(Navy says the B will) not carry a 2,000-pound bomb in its internal bomb bay. Marines: The F-35B can carry one externally, and weapon is needed for only 15 percent of missions anyway. External = no stealth, combined with no jamming and no towed decoy. Let's get shot! Same applies to the Marines' claim that "we can carry JSOW externally."
The fight seems to be over how many of the 680 "Department of the Navy" JSFs will be Bs, and how many As. Underlying this: if the number of Bs shrinks, someone will realize that their total cost - including STOVL-driven R&D - will make the F-22 look like a Hyundai. And someone else will realize that (taking into account the F-35B, the V-22 and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle) the Grunts have become the prime Cadillac-drivers of the Pentagon.