I feel like a bitter old cynic, possessed with the desire to ramble like a curmudgeon.
The more I read about JSF, the more I feel that this has precious little to do with providing the key combat aeroplane for most 'Western' air forces, and the more it looks like a huge job creation scheme.
It is probably not in anyone's interest (other than the shooters at the sharp end) to get the project delivered at a Combat Effective level early, as that would means loads of money would not get thrown about for decades to come.
It seems to be a gravy train which is trying to fabricate an answer to a question for which there are tried and tested answers.
Unfortunately it links into the mindset of blokes (politicians and military) who want the 'best thing', and scores highest in a game of Top Trumps against over rivals. If I could point you in the direction of a psychologist called Cialdini, he wrote about the "6 Weapons of Influence" which affect human decision making.
I would say that all 6 could apply to the continued support for this project as opposed to good business sense.
There are other options, which have been refined over years of combat ops which are clearly not ready for the boneyard yet.
Chasing the Holy Grail (or Dave if you prefer) is not necessarily the answer.
If it is that good, why aren't we (Euro air forces) going to bin Eurofighter? If the Typhoon is so good in the FGR role, why would Euro air forces go for F-35?
I tend to agree with the posts above which talk about the Top Trumps inspired "Day 1" capability.
Is this not a role of already stealthy(ish) drones (tee-hee. Other TLAs are available) or long range guided munitions like Storm Shadow & Tomahawk?
I grew up on the Day 1 role of the Tonka GR force with JP233 which I always felt was one of the ballsiest jobs for any air arm. Would we do that the same way now, 20 years on from Op Granby?