Originally Posted by John Farley
Some have opposed the Marine Corps variant of the plane (the F-35B), with its extra engine as needed for short or vertical take offs and landings
Nuff said really.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your comment but I don't think they where
criticizing the B-version, if anything they where actually endorsing it
But in fact, that variant has value for an era in which airfields are increasingly vulnerable to precision ordnance of the types that countries such as Iran and China are fielding. The United States needs enough F-35Bs to be able to populate bases nearest potential combat zones, such as the Gulf states (for scenarios involving Iran) and Okinawa (in regard to China). As Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos has noted, there are ten times as many 3,000 foot runways in the world adequate for such short-takeoff jets as there are 8,0000 foot runways suitable for conventional aircraft—and the Marines can lay down an expeditionary 3,000 foot runway in a matter of days in other places.
and
Leave the Marine Corps plan largely as is,
Which seems like they have a rather favourable view of the B as opposed to what they propose should have to happen with the C and a substantial reduction for the USAF's A.
Also this is a think-tank interviewed by the senate committee, only one of the possible solutions that could be used to manage total program costs.
the reason I posted it is just to show that, like with the F117-B2 and F22, it still is very much a possibility that we will never see the preset volumes produced, not for the US DOD, and most of its customers.
Slashing the totals produced by 50% (maybe even more) is far from impossible.