it cuts the requirement for a supersonic, stealth Marine jet off at the knees
This requirement in my view was never a reasonable one. That is where the whole thing went wrong.
Up until the late 70s early 80s it was very reasonable for all Ops Requirement Staffs to have every new technical possibility on their 'must have' list whether they were Airforce, Navy or Marine. 10 years later given the capability of smart weapons plus modern nav and comms I think things changed and you did not need to have every capability in every aircraft. It was time to think about the detailed use of each platform and therefore what it really did need to accomplish its MAIN role.
So far as the USMC expeditionary task goes I believe they needed superb reliability and real operating site flexibility with a negligible support trail beyond replenishing their people with food and the aircraft with fuel and weapons. The near total reliability I have in mind would have to be designed in to any aircraft - it would not happen without compromises in many other matters. Stealth and supersonics especially would be bound to reduce reliability, put up cost and reduce numbers and so on.
As it happened when I was still at Kingston in the 80s I proposed a development of the Harrier that would be ultra reliable with minimum maintenance due to a complete redesign of the airframe systems and structure, full FBW to remove the need for any piloting skill/training/currency except when over the target, 0.9M on the deck in the aircombat config plus very good legs. People larfed and said what about stealth and supersonics? They of course were just people who wanted to do that for their own purposes. After all call yourself a designer if you don't do the lot (whatever the lot is at the tiime).
So we have what we have today because of key people not wanting to be associated with anything other than the latest and the best of everything.
Sorry for the rant.