IMO, this article makes Swiss cheese look solid.
The fuel, bombs, bullets, parts, tools, maintenance personnel and their personal and professional logistics load, the command-and-control capability ashore, the self-defense forces to protect all of these valuable assets in a by-definition hotly contested environment are just too much for the Marines or even a joint force to sustain for more than the first operational mission cycle — or as soon as the first airplane returns to this supposedly austere base for a mission turnaround.
This was the criticism of F-35Bs and AV-8Bs. Is an AH-1 substantially different? And the pilot who wrote this flew A-7s, which needed at least an Essex class carrier (i.e. catapult and arrestor gear) or a runway of slightly more than a mile in length (if fully loaded). A-7s could only operate from full-sized carriers, while F-35s (and AV-8Bs) can also operate from America class LHAs and Wasp class LHDs.
Therein is the gaping hole in this article's argument. One can argue with the claim that F-35s are "useless" for ground operations in forward areas, but F-35s can operate from LHAs and LHDs where the F-18s (which replaced the A-7s) cannot. IOW, F-35s can operate from twice as many ships (or more) as can USMC F-18 squadrons. And F-35s have valuable capabilities that AH-1s do not.
All in all, the OP article is clickbait grade.
