I believe that there are grounds for both optimism and pessimism. Sorry you found my piece too sunny Newshound - I'm aware of slippages and problems, of course, but had limited space and wanted to counter some of the more bizarre anti-EF propaganda which normally fills the media.
Pessimism:
1) It won't meet the revised ISD. There will be further delays. (So apply the penalties allowed for in the contract.)
2) It certainly won't have meaningful air-to-ground or recce capability for a while. (So run on the Jaguar, make some more 3As out of the GI aircraft at Cosford, - it may be an antique but its a cost effective and easy solution, so live with it!)
3) The proposed servicing/maintenance arrangements are aimed more at guaranteeing a continuing revenue stream for BAE than at fulfilling the customer's requirements. (So abandon these ridiculous PPPs, PFIs and 'hole in the wall servicing contracts.)
4) BAE still isn't being subjected to commercial disciplines, but is being feather-bedded in a way which isn't appropriate for a privatised company, and isn't in the customer's best interests.
5) Secrecy continues to surround the programme and its schedule. It's easy for this to lead to suspicions that there is 'something to hide'. Problems and delays may be embarrassing to the contractor and the IPT, but shouldn't be secret.
Optimism
1) It will be a great fun aircraft to fly.
2) It will soon be a very good AD aircraft. (Way better than any affordable alternative).
3) It will at least be a damned sight more versatile and useful than JSF. (Two AMRAAM and two JDAM? Please!)
4) Every other fifth generation fighter programme has suffered equal or greater difficulties.
5) Land-based FJ air power has been there when it mattered in the post Cold War world, and whenever carriers have been used there have been land-base alternatives (eg Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, etc.) with the single exception of the Falklands. It's the cost effective way of deploying air power, and when political constraints dictate whether or not ops can go ahead the carrier's supposed advantage of allowing autonomous unpopular ops seems like an expensive and largely irrelevant luxury.
6) The people guaranteeing in service MMH/FH and MTBF figures are CS&S, not the same idiots who are responsible for development and integration delays. Better qualified people than I believe that when it does eventually arrive it will be economical and maintainable to a hitherto unimaginable degree. And if it's not, then penalties can be imposed.