Yup.
The Navy always preferred two engine multi-mission jets because of the nature of launching and recovering at sea...if one engine goes out you can still land with one. The height of idiocy is thinking each service branch as the same mission needs and can use one basic model...and of course that model had to be stealthy which ups the cost even more.
The Air Force should have a CONUS based F-22 fighter interceptor presence, it is still the preeminent fighter on the planet. And they could have upgraded F-15's and F-16's to fill other mission needs, they didn't need the F-35.
A STOVAL aircraft for the Marines makes sense...not sure they needed a zillion-dollar wonder-plane when they tend to operate in forward deployment zones...makes no economic sense to me at all...they could have had a new trimmed down mission specific design just for them, but no...more of the one size fits all stupidity. They want the same plane and its variants here and in NATO blah blah blah...
The Navy could use a stealthy plane for specific incursions but since a carrier is not the easiest thing to hide from people, it's main defense is its aircraft screen and escort screen to ward of attack from air, surface or sub-surface, so there is no reason why one stealth squadron would not suffice and the rest of the fighter/attack role be carried out by upgraded F/A-18's which is a proven reliable and capable platform. The F-35 is costly to build, costly to maintain and suffers so many system glitches...
I would rather the Navy go with a trimmed down stealth option if any stealth at all. Besides, much of what could be achieved with a stealth fighter could also be achieved with a stealth drone, so perhaps stealth drones and manned aircraft of the present would be a better and more affordable option.
But money talks and good ideas get flushed with routine regularity!