> The F-35 is a giant weird beast because it's massively multi-mission

No, it's multimission because new airframe types for manned combat aircraft that could meet evolving demands were becoming giant weird beasts and getting exponentially more expensive (something that typically happens with classes of systems as they become unviable) anyway, and doing one airframe for almost every conceivable role was envisioned as a means of containing costs.

Containing costs -> multi mission -> giant weird beast. I don't think we disagree.

Still, I think the point about it being a backstop to unmanned aerial assets stands. I don't know if it needs to be optimized for any single mission when it's likely to be a worse choice than one of those assets.

> doing one airframe for almost every conceivable role was envisioned as a means of containing costs.

Didn't they learn from the Phantom that one airframe for all tasks simply doesn't work ?

No.

> but really as a backstop to what we can't do with drones, missiles, and satellites

...yet?

Will it not be most likely the last manned fighter jet?

Doubt it. If it is remote controlled, you have to deal with latency and are susceptible to jamming and/or hacking and I doubt AI will be good enough for many years to come to be completely reliant on.