That's my point, they no longer have the money to spend. The US federal government is currently (or was before the sequester kicked in) running up debt to the tune of $1 trillion a year. It's looking more and more likely that the sequestered cuts will simply be replaced with targeted cuts at which point the Air Force begins to make a very convincing argument that it needs a new 5th gen aircraft at the expense of the Navy's Army's Air Force.
The US Government is almost always in debt, and still spends 800 billion a year on defense. Its not that secluded, you can make quips about the navy's army's air force all you want, but air assets are routinely used jointly. for example you would never see the navy advocating more carriers over the air forces big wing KC tankers. everyone needs those and uses them. fewer aircraft for one service means fewer aircraft for the air war commander. Marines and navy assets also fight.
now conversely each service gets a budget so the air force can't ransack the maw-rines whenever they are short on funds. everyone gets their piece, and the fact that the marines are buying a jet that if they didn't recieve would drive the cost up for the air force aircraft ensures that all the services will use their individual funds for the greater good. if it was super hornets the air force wouldn't care, but since its a joint project they care. and depriving the marines of something only to increase their own costs , while having fewer tails for a future war overall does not compute. government funding is compartmentalized like that. some service get cut more than others (the Us army is taking the biggest hit, for example)
lobbying as noted plays a part too. the navy won't just stand by while its back up air force gets ransacked, just because the air force is given priority for some reason. When the Navy wants new aircraft carriers they don't get to walk in and start closing down air force bases, because its what the navy needs, and they are short of funds.
so long story short, budgets don't work that way.
The low hanging fruit for defense cuts has already been picked in the last budget deal...and they now need to double the savings.
don't forget there are other things they can't cut rather than airplanes. the marines have postponed amphibious APCs for example. with 800 billion a year spent there is plenty to cut and a lot of services will just cut other stuff depending on how much they want the jsf. there is plenty of low hanging fruit to pick still. I refuse to believe that in the span of one year the military suddenly got super effeicent and there is nothing left to cut. personnel are going to be the biggest cut anyway.
the jsf advocates can also point to the projected savings over the coming decades of operating a single type. which is a promise that has kept the jsf alive for quite some time now. "its not what it costs, its what it saves" will be the rallying cry.
The coming choice seems to be between all 3 variants being produced in far fewer numbers, or the A variant being the sole survivor in moderate numbers. Personally, I think the Air Force will win.
not really. for the reasons i have outlined above. the air force can't raid the navy or marines (which is another navy) bank. the navy may not like the f-35c but even the marines are buying some to help with the carriers. so for example thats 80 F-35cs the navy gets that they can back door thru the marines. if that money goes the odds of getting the same number of super hornets both through them and the marines (who won't want it, and will try to land base them like they do f-18Ds). at that point we are talking about paltry numbers of aircraft for the carriers, thus fewer carriers. the navy wont let that happen.
Of course, the corps always punches way above its weight on the hill.
yes. plus if the b and c get canceld what does the UK do? a tier one partner nation. does the us refund them their money with an apology or something? "Thanks for hanging on all these years, but the US air force wants theirs so only A's will be produced, sorry we waster your time and money" ??
if canceling the B and C death spirals the cost anyway, whats the point? how does it "save"? thats cutting the program to the tune of about 600 fewer aircraft. which drives the cost up further and will see the UK leaving the program? people already fear Canada and the US navy (possibly) leaving as creating a death spiral and thats only 65, and 260 aircraft respectively. what happens when 600 are cut? does it collapse the program? I'm betting yes, in which case the air force certainly doesn't get what they want, which was the point of shafting the the RN, USMC, and USN in the first place.
finally why is it assumed that the USAF will be given priority over all the services anway? What happens if the navy makes a compelling argument that as a fighter centric air wing they need more fighters, and the air force less? Its not like the air force is the only service that has and uses fighters, and the navy could make the case that carriers arrive faster, have EW assets thanks to growlers, and are rapid deployment, all the same arguments that keep carriers around as it is? What if the navy points out that its cheaper to equip them and the marines with super hornets than it is for the air force to equip itself with a smaller number F-35As that have become massively expensive after the cancellation of the B and C?
what if the navy twists the knife by adding that the USAF could also use the super hornet, creating a fighter used by all 3 services? no service, not even the navys armys air force or whatever is going to lay down and let someone steal their toys (whether they need them or not)
from the air force perspective cutting the b and c makes their a cost more, so they won't cut them. why pay more in the interest of "saving?"