First, the logistical complexity thing is bullshit. I'm not listening to that anymore. We had lots and lots of different things going at once during WW2 and it was fine.
All this logistical crap boils down to is MONEY.
And the money issue would be relevant if not for the fact that 12 different craft are actually cheaper than one generalized craft.
The reason being that it is more effective, more efficient, more survivable, and does not need to be changed unless something happens to the baffle field in relation to it specifically.
So for example, if you have an all in one craft... not only does it have all the other problems I pointed out, but if ANY ONE of the things it is supposed to do becomes obsolete, the entire craft has to be changed. Where as with 12... only the one that is actually effected has to change.
Take all the hardware we still use that we developed during Vietnam. Why do we still use that stuff nearly unchanged from that point? Because nothing has really changed for them.
So for example the A10 still works just fine. The AC130 Specter works just fine. The B52 works just fine.
The only relevant thing that has changed is that AA missiles have gotten better.
The latest Russian or Chinese or any nation's tank is fucking meat against an A10. None of them can defend themselves. The reactive armor, the faster speed... none of it matters. The A10 chews threw modern tanks pretty much the same way it did through tanks of its era.
So you need tech that deal with the AA... you need stealth and drones etc. But you don't need all of that in one package. That's crazy.
You have some stealth capable deep strike craft that can penetrate enemy territory and knock out their air defense. There are some very good cruise missiles that are excellent for that as well. And once they've done their work those tanks are naked. The tank crews might as well just get out of the tank and go find a trench. The tank is garbage once air cover is gone.
And this is the thing with the F35. Do the marines need a VTOL stealthy jet that has very little weapon's capacity, very short range, can't dog fight, is poor at supporting ground troops... etc etc etc. No they don't.
As I said, give the marines the VTOL jet from Boeing. Its every bit as good as the F35 minus the stealth... and the stealth is not something the marines need... and its way cheaper which means the marines can have more of them.
Frankly the marines would probably be better served with attack helicopters. That seems more their speed. I know the Navy Seals like their attack helicopters.
As to the Navy... they have no need for the F35 PERIOD. They have super carriers so they can launch less annoying airplanes.
The F15, F16, and 18 are all quite capable. What they lack is the stealth... and frankly the value of that is increasingly dubious.
The army has a completely different mentality than the Marines or the Navy or the air force. First, the marines all about logistics. That is their bread and butter. And beyond that they always have big airfields because they need them for the cargo planes and the bigger bombers which is what they prefer. So the army doesn't need the F35 either.
As to the Air force... the plane they want is the F22. Ideally they wouldn't touch the F35 and if you push them on the issue, they'd prefer the drones over the F35.
Its an impressive airplane but war is about achieving military goals and the F35 is not a good tool for that.
Its too many things and it does them all badly.
The biggest problem is the VTOL and the stealth. Both of those features are really hard to put into an airframe.
The VTOL makes the plane very heavy and means you can't put much into it and it means the plane can't have proper wings because it has to narrower if it is VTOL. The stealth basically compounds that situation because stealth also means you don't want big wings and on top of that you can't carry very much because everything has to be internal. So no external pods which is a massive drawback with a war plane. Unless you're B2 or B52, you don't have the internal volume to put a proper bomb load in the plane. So maybe you can launch two or three missiles and then you're done.
And to add insult to injury even if you wanted to... the plane couldn't vertically lift off with a full load like that. You might have to do something annoying like take off with minimum fuel and then refuel in flight. The entire thing is silly.
VTOL is okay if you need it. But having a plane be BOTH VTOL AND STEALTH... AND a bomber... AND a fighter... no.
It then sucks at everything.
Here is what we need
we need close support bombers. They don't need to be stealth. Something like the A10 if not literally the A10. If you need VTOL... consider helicopters. If you need stealth... a battery cruise missiles will probably take care of the air defense network that makes you want stealth in the first place... and will likely do it for less than your stealth planes. Yes the cruise missiles are single use but the per unit cost versus the number of engagements the planes will actually go through means they're actually pretty economical. If you're dropping 100 million dollars on every plane and they're only going to need their stealth capability perhaps 10 times in their service life... a 1~2 million dollar cruise missile is a bargain.
I could go on... but the F35 project is a hot mess.