Another question would be if the F-35 has the legs and maintainability to be there when needed. I simply do not see a great deal of value in the 400 billion and counting, spent on this solution to many problems. There is a very high likely hood that it will continue to under deliver.
A lot of the criticism you hear about the F-35 are the same kind of criticism we have heard in the past about other aircraft.
For example, when the F-18 Hornet came out, it was criticized as having many of the same deficiencies that are being attributed to the F-35 such as short legs, poor reliability, poor maintainability, dependency on unreliable software for control systems, cost over runs, being a strike fighter compromising the planes capabilities as both a pure fighter and as a pure attack aircraft, lack of mission capability and so on and so forth.
The F-18 is now being touted as a superb aircraft and one of the best defense investments the US has ever made.
To cut to the chase, the F-35 is part of the vision of where future technology is heading in the tactical air environment.
If you buy into that vision, you like the F-35. If you don't buy into that vision, then you do not like the F-35.
Regarding costs, all current 4th and 5th generation Western tactical aircraft are VERY expensive and all cost North of $150 million per aircraft.
For example, the costs of the Euro Fighter Typhoon are on the order of 175 million Pounds Sterling per aircraft and the Dollar - Pound exchange rate is about 1.75 Dollars per pound Sterling so the unit acquisition cost of the Euro Fighter is about $325 million per plane.