Hmm, well I suppose so. I take it from your comment that you imagine that the FAA or RAF would somehow be incapable of handling any fight, equipped with an F-35 armed only with a mere pair of air dominance weapons then? I'd advise you to refer to the lessons of history
Oh, I hadn't thought of history. Thanks for that.
So it's to be .303s all around then?
Seriously though, you're illustrating precisely the attitude that I was referring to in my last post - this fatally flawed American-inspired notion that in order to prevail, there must be a constant battle to create yet another over-priced warplane that is somehow even more technically brilliant than the last one. We've reached a stage where we can afford to get out of this expensive game and accept that, given the available resources of our government and the outstanding abilities of our service personnel, the Typhoon would be a much more practical choice for our carriers.
A. You don't have those carriers yet. I hope you do get them, but until they are bobbing at anchor, I'd be wary.
B. Far more learned and informed people are telling you that a navalized Typhoon is just not a viable solution without spending more money.
C. Are you seriously arguing that technological innovation and progress is not a vital part of the military air business? Using your oh-so-welcome historical vector from above, the outstanding service personnel in the Fairey Battle expended a whole lot of blood because the RAF 'had gotten out of this expensive game.' There are countless other examples as well.
You are awfully generous with the lives of those who actually will do the fighting.