I really think what needs to happen is that the U.S. Navy (The 2nd largest air force in the world), needs to have a new air dominance fighter program based on the engines and avionics of the F22, but with a purpose built airframe for carrier operations. The same plane can be purchased by the Airforce to bolster the only 187 remaining F-22 fighters.
The High-Low strategy of buying F-15's and lower cost F-16's was pretty good doctrine in the 1970's. In addition, the F-16 was a very popular plane for our allied partners to purchase from us.
Today, we have 10 Aircraft Carrier, all with limited deck space. The High-Low mix really doesn't make sense here like it does on a big Air Force base. You want the most capable planes in those precious spots. The "Low Cost" F-35 might be better than a Super Hornet, maybe not, but what is needed is a F-14 replacement for fleet defense and ground attack.
In addition, the U.S. Marine Corps likes to fly fixed wing planes off of their landing ships, since the advent of the Harrier aircraft. Really there is no need to do this, as Marine Squadrons frequently fly F-18's from real Carriers. Any real combat deployments are going to be in conjunction with a Carrier Battle Group. Besides the very few fixed wing aircraft simply can't provide adequate support to a real landing action, too few planes and no AEW capability.
The Marines and their budgets would be better served by a new (like the old) A-10 dedicated attack aircraft with high loiter times, large ordnance capacity and low maintenance requirements. Once airbases are obtained, the A-10, like the Marines KC-130's can provide additional sustainable support to Marines on the ground. Not every plane needs to be carrier capable.
When one considers training, spare parts and savings from unit production costs, the Navy and the Airforce would be better served by a Air Dominance/ Ground Support High-Low mix, with the new Navy aircraft in the Air Dominance Role and newly built A-10's taking the ground attack role.
The F-35 isn't going to be cancelled, but the buy amount can be reduced and the Airforce can use it to replace older F-16A fighters. Foreign orders would not be impacted by a reduced buy, as long as the price stayed the same. The conventional Air Force version is the best of the bunch.
The Navy and Marines, should simply skip this plane.
“‘Fast moving aircraft are not designed to support ground troops,’ said Army Sgt. First Class Frank Antenori. ‘As much as the Air Force and Navy would like to think that, fighter aircraft that travel at speeds can’t slow down to identify the targets.’ Antenori made this statement after witnessing a friendly fire incident, in which bombs dropped from one of USAFs fast movers killed 16 Kurds and injured 45. He also said that “With fast movers, I never had any success,”, and that senior decision makers often become so enamored with technology that they fail to see what troops on the ground really require. While A-10s never missed, F-18s needed two or three bombing runs to get them on target, he said.