Gents,
There's a lot of uninformed pish about the costs of the F-35 in the original article and on this forum. UK PLC stands to make a profit out of its participation in the JSF program.
We could all run around gnashing teeth about the sticker price of the airframes themselves (which are still cheaper than some other not-even-very-comparable-in-capability aircraft). Or you could step back and look at the industrial participation in a program that's going to churn out 3000+ airframes over the next few decades. Rolls Royce, Martin Baker, BAE Systems and literally dozens and dozens of second tier suppliers will do very well out of the UK's involvement in the JSF development program. The UK Treasury will get more money in tax from the sales of these components than it pays for the 138 aircraft we want. UK PLC as a whole does even better out of the deal. If the UK packs up its toys and goes Boeing, I wouldn't expect LM to be quite so keen to let contracts to UK firms when they come up for renewal.
If you go F-18F, you may pay a lower sticker price, but you get a less capable airplane, and you're unlikely to get anywhere near the same industrial participation. So you're almost certainly going to have to take money out of the Treasury to pay for them.
So do you really want to cut off your nose to spite your face? If it comes down to money (which it will), you'd be very foolish to unpick the last decade of UK work that's gone into the JSF program, particularly if it's just because you've been playing Top Trumps with 'number of engines' or some other reason that hasn't been thought through terribly well. Just my 2p.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly!