N-a-B - I don't think I remember anyone who had flown a new aircraft complaining about it at this stage. The earliest I can recall this happening was VX-5 blowing up about Classic Hornet Opeval.
The counter to "like it or not, it's what we're stuck with" is "when you're in a hole, stop digging". Most of the ultimate bill is not yet committed, because most of the money is in O&S and most of the jets that will run up those bills have yet to be ordered. Against that, a projected, small reduction in unit costs (versus SAR predictions) is money down the back of the sofa.
In hindsight, it might have been better to concentrate on common system / equipment items (eg engines, radar, displays, helmets, actuators etc) to get your logistics savings, but let the designers optimise the airframe and its structure for the mission.
Exactly. LO systems and materials could also have been shared across platforms. I made the point at the time (late 1990s), with the analogy of the Airbus family, which (pre-A380) covered a very wide range with one cockpit, one barrel section, one flight control system and two wing designs.
Would have made STOVL extremely difficult to fund.
Which was why no other approach was considered, because of the oversize influence of the Marines and the need to keep the UK on board - because the latter was the foundation for the JSF global strategy.