The "rough forward airstrip role" has always rung hollow for me in relation to F35. The jet efflux rips into the slightest defect in a concrete airfield surface, so I don't see MEXE strips or tarmac standing a chance. If you were the proud owner of a 5th-generation stealth airframe, why on earth would you want to land it on such a surface, when all the debris stirred up would leave your expensive bodywork looking as dimpled as a golf ball? Kiss goodbye to your low RCS! And the arguments about F35B vs F35C payload and range have been done to death elsewhere on these forums.
The apparent preference for F35B has always come down to 2 factors, in my opinion - firstly, the desire to keep Rolls-Royce involved, and secondly, unconditional attachment to STOVL by the bootflapped fraternity. Arguments trotted out about the training burden of arrested landings don't ring true to me; what about the present-day burden of training Harrier pilots to do all their tricks?
I really hope there is substance to the Telegraph's story - it would mark a rare victory for common sense in the procurement world!