So far, nobody in the think-tank/budgetary world seems to have evaluated either whacking or deferring the F-35B/C while preserving the F-35A. The Navy Dept. versions may be a fat target when you look it at this way, because:
1 - The Navy has a jet in production with potential for improvement.
2 - The Marines are replacing their F-18s first. Half the Harriers will still be around in 2027.
3 - The B/C cost a lot more to build than the A and nearly twice as much as the Super H, even under the most optimistic assumptions.
4 - You could simplify flight test, development and production. The three versions are now so different that removing 20 Bs and 20 Cs (the current max planned rate for DoD) from the annual build is not going to send the price of the A through the roof.
5 - The assets already built or on contract could be stored and used to restart the program when money is less tight or the threat demands it.
6 - (drum roll) If you stop spending money on B/C from FY2015 you can save almost $10 billion through 2020 while giving the Marines and Navy up to 40 shiny new Rhinos per year.
UK and Italy could, if they so wished, fund the FY2015-and-beyond F-35B-unique development and flight testing (it's mostly finished anyway if LockMart and the Marines are to be believed
), leasing aircraft and facilities, and assemble their jets in the Italian FACO.