I think this article should be taken with a pinch of salt. Consider this part
If Britain abandons the JSF, it will be seen as a further snub to the Americans following Gordon Brown’s decision last week not to send 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
After a quick google search I found this August article from the Mail
Britain must send more troops to Afghanistan to defeat Taliban, says military chief | Mail Online
The interesting part is
Military chiefs are understood to want to bolster the number of troops on the ground in Afghanistan's southern 'badlands' by 50 per cent, from about 8,000 to 12,000.
The Times are trying to make an interesting story about a gulf between UK and US policy that does not exist. They imply that the US have asked Britain to send 4000 more troops when in fact it was our own generals that seem to have floated the idea in the first place. How then can the decision not to send them be perceived as a snub to the USA?
Sorry, I know this adds nothing to the discussion re JSF and A400M but perhaps it highlights the emotions the Times are trying to engineer in their readers and casts doubt on the story's authenticity.
The Times:- "Mr Bush. Are you aware the UK was going to send an additional 4000 troops to Afghanistan?"
Mr Bush:- "Er, really? I hadn't heard that."
The Times:- "Well they're not going to do it you know! How do you feel about this
snub?"
Mr Bush:- "Ummm, what?"