all very nice, but it has nothing to do with the F35.
current funding for the F35 program was U.S. $11.4 billion for the 2011 year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States
yes, a nice chunk of change, but cutting the program will have only a small impact on the deficit. In addition, the program is a one time cost, once the aircrafts are purchased, you are only talking about maintenance/repair.
The largest item in the budget is the war in Afghanistan, still U.S. $159.3 Billion in 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financi...f_the_Iraq_War
Once the troops are home, that expense goes way down.
In addition, its not just a U.S. problem, many countries have to replace their aging fighter fleet. Canada will have to make a decision soon on replacing its CF-18s. Australia just paid AUS $2.9 billion for 24 F/A-18Fs, which works out to US $141 million per plane. Compared to that, the estimated US $150-175 million per plane for the CTOL F-35A looks like a bargain, especially since it will have a useful design life of at least 20 years longer than the F/A-18.
No matter how you look it, cutting new equipment spending is the least efficient way to balance a budget.