Please suffer some random comments from not an expert.
Regarding CAS, the Marines are working with Bell and Boeing to put forward-firing weapons on the V-22. Why? To deal with LZ threats and to free up the AV-8s and F-35s for other missions. It seems the Marines are not hot on the idea of using their fighters for their CAS mission.
Regarding the F-35, what a mess! Help me with the F-35 status… has the pre-Farnsborough engine failure been sorted out? How about the helmet display jitters? The fueling temperature problem? The landing pad requirements? These are just a few that I’ve read about.
Boeing published a F-15SE vs F-35 comparison sheet a couple of years ago when the Koreans were waffling about their F-35 commitment. The difference in traditional capabilities was staggering. If you weren’t locked into stealth and willing to spend $$$ for it, the choice was clear.
The issue to me is not so much the $$$. The issue with the gravest national security implications is the time required to field new, major systems, which seems to be 12-15 years. We have been watching Russia rearm and China arm for many years now. Both are eager to project force in their theaters. Will the F-35 be ready? Or useful when it is?
1) The Marines want foward-firing ordnance for their V-22s as a SELF PROTECTION measure. They fully intend to keep their fast mover / attack helo combination for CAS, and to say they are no longer "hot" to keep these assets for the CAS mission is simply false. The V-22 simply isn't maneuverable for effective CAS.
2) I'll gladly help you with the F-35 issues: The pre-Farnsborough engine issue? Fixed, with a slight modification already successfully tested and being fielded. The helmet issues? A fix for all the problems is being tested now, and should be fielded in time for the AF's Initial Operational Capability decision in 2016. The fuel temp issue? Not really an issue, just a mis-speak from a low-level fuels airman and his NCO who really didn't understand what they were talking about. The F-35 has already been tested to the upper temp limits, with hot-fuel being used to run a jet on a hot day at Yuma on the ground for over an hour with ZERO impacts. Bottom Line -- it's meeting the fuel temp requirements it was designed for. Landing pad requirements? Fixed years ago.
Remember, this is a plane still conducting development and testing. This is where discoveries are made, and ultimately fixed. The second of it's three planned major development blocks will complete testing in a month or two, with the last development block completing testing in 2017. Bottom Line #2: it should be ready as planned, with perhaps a couple of mission system capabilities needing extra work, but planned to be fixed shortly after Fully Operational Capability is declared.
3) The "Stealth Eagle" comparison? Uhm, who PUBLISHED this comparison? That's right, the guys who PRODUCE the "Stealth Eagle". Look, I flew the Strike Eagle, and I still LOVE the Strike Eagle. But I have to ask you -- after the hard sales push by Boeing to the Koreans, which jet did they select? The Koreans already have other jets for those "traditional" missions and capabilities, that's not what they were looking for when they selected their new fighter.
4) Yeah, the time to develop a new weapon system takes a loooooong time. Exasperatingly long. The technology involved is staggeringly complex, and the testing required to ensure it meets requirements is just as long and complex. A lot of people ask why this is so. Well remember, the systems these new platforms are designed to meet and defeat are also getting more and more complex and capable -- we need the new-fangled toys to ensure we can conduct the mission and maintain air superiority, which I have stated before is no longer just a requirement for how we conduct war but an EXPECTATION. Also remember, it took YEARS to develop the F-15, the F-16, and the F-18. All new fighters require time to develop and test. And the F-35 is LIGHT YEARS ahead of where these jets where when they were first operationally capable.