While the F-35 is replacing the F-18A-Ds, it will form the high end of the mix with the Super Hornets, so costing less than them isn’t the issue. Keeping their costs under control, so that they can get enough airframes is, though.
I think that once they get into serial production, these ridiculous price estimates will start to fade away, as the LRIP models aren’t representative of the fleet. I also think that the maintenance costs are exaggerated(and so does the USAF).

There are more errors than that. The B model doesn’t have a longer range than the A model either.

It’s not the jamming, but that giant missile with a range of eternity aren’t agile to deal with a decent fighter.

The jamming will limit the range that the SAM site can see that fighter too though, hence the smaller envelope.

How about HOJ ?:)

That’ll work, if the pilot is dumb enough to get close enough to the SAM site. I guarantee you that a SAM isn’t going to be killing a maneuvering target at 400km(or anywhere near that, for that matter).

Not with range enough to stay out of S-300/400 envelope and still be of any use whatsoever.
Only thing they bring is to alert OPFOR to send some fighters, which in turn means the flight will also need air cover, which in turn means the same ole fight-your-way-in as with Phantoms.

That envelope’s going to be a lot smaller once the jamming starts. If you think that the Pk is going to be very high at hundreds of km, then you’re pretty optimistic.

But the Congress has appropriated additional aircraft that the services need, but for various reasons does not request – like F/A-18E/F’s which are desperately needed; C-130J which are needed; C-17’s which are needed, etc.

The Air Force disagrees.

– Fact: The F-35C is designed to have more range than the F/A-18A-D. However, the Navy Acquisition says:

“Range: Current assessment 499 nm (Threshold 600 nm)”

First of all, if you’re using those numbers, it’s no wonder you have such negative views. The F-35A has a combat radius of ~673nm or more on internal fuel, and the C variant is >700nm.

In any event, it does not promise the range of the A/F-X design – and the long range is what will be needed against enemies armed with coastal / long ranged ASM’s and coastal subs.

The CVBG can still stay 200-300nm off shore, and leave the F-35C the ability to fly 400-500nm inland, and with JSOW/JASSM hit targets another 200-600nm further. This gives the F-35C the ability to hit targets over 1300nm inland. This is all first day of war capabilities. This doesn’t include EFTs or tanking on the backend of the mission, to further increase the distance inland, that targets can be hit.

The A/F-X should have been developed, but was not – and leaves the Navy with a range problem. Instead, the Navy’s requirement was changed when the A/F-X program was closed and merged with the MRF program to eventually become the JAST (JSF.) The F-35C, even if it meets its design goals, is the wrong aircraft for the Navy. The Navy should buy more Supers in the interim, and begin development on the NGAD (F/A-XX) now – not in 2015. Buy as few F-35C’s as possible. Yesterday, the GAO posited just this sort of approach, sans the NGAD which was not part of their study.

This is a far riskier proposition, both in terms of first day of war capabilities, and in dealing with 5th Gen opponents. The C variant can be in service in 6yrs- what you’re proposing wouldn’t be available till after 2025, assuming there’s no technical or cost issues at that time. It also has an adverse effect on the USAF and USMC buys.