F-22 pilots are definitely clubbing baby seals when fighting 4th gen. I've been the baby seal. But I also call BS on the full invisibility people selling these platforms are trying to claim. If they are wrong (which I believe they are) and next generation missiles can track, we are in a bad spot.
I like the F-22 for Air-to-Air. I think the F-35 is probably okay, just not remotely worth the money. But I think our "all in" on a single do-it-all, super-expensive fighter-bomber is a huge risk and the wrong direction. We need a mix of assets. And unfortunately, the F-35 just eats up the whole budget so we can't afford anything else. It definitely shouldn't be doing CAS, and strike is probably best performed by other assets too. Trying to merge AF, Navy, and Marine planes into one super plane is bad for so many reasons.
The whole plan seems incapable of taking on serious adversaries and incredible overkill for insurgency operations. A no man's land of happy defense contractors and bad military strategy.
I agree with everything you wrote except for the strike part. The idea that the F-35 needs to be a mini F-22 is one I don't understand. It's designed to be a striker, to replace the F-16, the Harrier, and to help the CVW get a survivable striker with longer range than the Super Bug, and a bit of self-defense capability. Just as the F-16 isn't tasked very often with CAP, same with the F-35. I think the F-35 will excel at strike
A fleet of Mig-21s, even upgraded, would be no match for F-35s. Even using Su-30s as a mini AWACs, the F-35s wouldn't be detected on radar. So the F-35s could wax the Sukhois, and then take on the blind Fishbeds with ease. It would be like what the F-22 pilots call it when they went up against 4th Gen fighters; clubbing baby seals.
Fishbeds are decent jets in terms of speed and agility, but they're not dogfighters; they have horrible visibilty, they bleed energy in turns (delta wings), and they have limited weapons carriage.