N-a-B - If you can't afford what the JIRD/JORD resulted in, you have to try something else. The USAF is moving towards a stealthy/non-stealthy mix because that's what they can afford through 2030. Lots of the carrier navy would be happy with new Super Hs into the early 20s. Both the USAF and CV communities would happily tell the Marines to go pound sand, because the normal load of six jets per LHA/LHD is not strategically decisive.
LO - I don't necessarily disagree wrt JIRD/JORD. However - this side of the pond and I assume over there too - you can't just pitch up at the Treasury waving a note saying that you'd like half a dozen F16 and a bakers dozen of FA18 please. In order to get it through, you have to have a requirement for the kit and which the kit can definitively meet - not just "nearest" to.
What that will mean is a revisit of the JIRD/JORD, which may well prove fatal for B, but is likely to get a bit tricky for A and C - particularly given that F117 has gone to those lovely hangars in Tonopah. This is the bit that no-one is quite hauling aboard - if you want Day1 strike against double-digit SAM, 3-4Gen fighters and an IADS, you are now left with 18(?) B2 to cover everything. USAF has much reduced EW support, which is only going to get worse as the joint Prowlers retire, so the Strike Eagles even if some go "Silent" probably won't be enough, let alone the proposed F16s. USN is slightly better with Growler, but not by much. In any case, if they want to stay relevant against anyone armed more heavily than the equivalent of the peaceloving tribes of M'Boto Gorge, they really need something more than SuperBug. TLAM can pick up some of the slack, but not against all target sets.
That was my point - "savings" (if any) are going to be much harder to find than people suppose. Any requirement rewrite is unlikely to (credibly) come up with something that looks like more F16 and more F18. Silent Eagle might be something else, but that doesn't appear to be what is on the table.